I feel like the most apt term for people here (or, more accurately, people who identify themselves as being part of some community inaugurated by this website) would be “Yudkowskian.”
I disagree. If we’re trying to pursue an art that anyone can learn and add refinements to beyond what they were taught, the last thing we want to do is hang a single person’s name on it.
I agree that “Yudkowskian” isn’t a great label politically. And looking back on it, KenChen’s post is about thinking of good political descriptors and not just “apt” ones, so I think I’m probably going off-topic here. However, I do think that the term “Yudkowskian” most accurately and succinctly summarizes the cluster of views tying the members of the community based around this website together. (Then again, I don’t really know anyone here, so maybe my impression is unjustified.) For instance, talking of rationality as an art to be refined feels very Yudkowskian to me. This isn’t meant to be pejorative.
“Baconian” aptly describes the methodology and outlook of scientists (or at least, most scientists,) but science has come so far because it’s built out of ideas that have demonstrable worth irrespective of the people who came up with them.
Hmm, to me the label “Yudkowskian” sounds less like, “a person who enjoys refining the art of rationalism”, and more like, “the follower of our great enlightened master, Yudkowskiy”. That’s a bit over the top. It’s edging into Great Leader territory, IMO.
I’m not sure about the Great Leader bit, but I do think lots of people here could be accurately classified as followers of Yudkowsky’s thinking. Again, that’s not to suggest it’s bad to be such a person. But “being interested in refining the art of rationalism” both 1. builds in theory-laden terms the mere adoption of which already marks one as a member of the community, and 2. doesn’t capture the range of interests, opinions and lingo widely shared across the site.
but I do think lots of people here could be accurately classified as followers of Yudkowsky’s thinking
Maybe I’m biased due to my personal background, but I find this phrasing rather creepy. It’s one step away from saying, ”… lots of people here could be accurately classified as followers of Yudkowsky personally, glory be unto him” (that last bit being optional). I don’t think that Yudkowsky has any kind of a special property which automatically imbues his thinking with wisdom and significance. Instead, people accept his ideas because they are well thought out and interesting. If Yudkowsky started spouting ideas that were stupid and boring, presumably people here would stop “following” them… right ?
I put the word “following” above in scare quotes because it, too, scares me. As I understand it, a rational person subjects every idea to stringent criticism before deciding whether to accept it or reject it. That’s kind of the opposite of what “followers” do.
I guess I’m using the word “follower” here in the sense that one would describe someone as, e.g., a follower of Ayn Rand. That is, someone who has passionately assimilated an extremely far-reaching set of beliefs that originates largely from a single, high-status thinker, and who seeks to establish novel communities or institutions inspired by/based around that thinker’s thoughts. I’m sure most Objectivists would disavow Ayn Rand of any magical wisdom and insist that they came to their beliefs through critical reflection, but I would happily label the more serious of them followers.
I’m sure most Objectivists would disavow Ayn Rand of any magical wisdom and insist that they came to their beliefs through critical reflection...
Not sure that’s actually true, at least if you read “magical” as “special; privileged”. Mainline Objectivism is a closed system: it explicitly disavows thinking that builds on, expands, or (especially) critiques Rand’s work, treating it as a self-contained totalizing philosophy. As far as I’m concerned that immediately puts it fairly high up on any scale of founder-worship, roughly on par with Scientology and higher than most strains of Marxism. It’s also the sort of criterion that should be accessible from an inside or an outside view, which is convenient if you’re asking questions about groups you belong to.
I understand there was a big rift in Objectivism over precisely this, with one group led by David Kelley splitting off because they were for a more intellectually tolerant Objectivism.
That is, someone who has passionately assimilated an extremely far-reaching set of beliefs that originates largely from a single, high-status thinker, and who seeks to establish novel communities or institutions inspired by/based around that thinker’s thoughts.
Ok, so in the case of Yudkowdky, are we more interested in his thoughts, or his person ? I understand that it’s the person who originally voiced the thoughts, but which is more important—the thoughts or the person ? And what do we do with those thoughts ? Do we pore through them searching for bits of revealed wisdom, or do we discuss and critique them freely, discarding those we deem insufficiently well-supported ? Is it even hypothetically possible for someone to come up with even better ideas than Yudkowsky did ? What will we call ourselves when that happens ?
All these questions are easy to answer in a satisfactory fashion if you call yourself a “rationalist” or a “skeptic” or something of the sort, but they become somewhat difficult to answer if you call yourself a “follower of Yudkowsky’s thoughts”. It’s a matter of emphasis.
In addition, I should point out that I’m not really interested in “establishing… institutions inspired by/based around [Yudkowsky]’s thoughts”—thought perhaps others might be. The closest thing to such an institution that I can think of would be SIAI, but its mission statement is to develop a friendly transhuman AI, not to follow anyone’s thoughts in particular.
I understand that it’s the person who originally voiced the thoughts, but which is more important—the thoughts or the person ?
The point is that the thoughts are so diverse that the main thing they have in common is their original promotion by a single individual. But it really isn’t just Yudkowsky’s beliefs that have become currency here. Lots of his idioms pop up everywhere, for example. There was recently a Chuck Norris-inspired thread about how amazingly intelligent he is—tongue-in-cheek, but still telling. And there does seem to be an implicit agreement by many that he’s likely to be an important player in saving the world from a certain looming existential threat if anyone is.
I’m a newly-arrived outsider and am doubtless missing tons of context and information. But from the perspective of an outsider like me, it sure looks like there’s this one guy who most directly shapes thought and language, who’s held in esteem beyond all others and whose initiative provided the glue that holds the whole thing together. That’s not to say no one can or does question him. “Yudkowskian” still feels like the single word that best captures all of this.
Also, I’d like to reiterate that I’m not trying to provoke or offend.
It is interesting to contrast the negative reactions to this suggestion (which I instinctively share) to academic philosophy. It is normal to talk about Cartesians, Kantians or Hegelians without any connotations of cultism. Even for contemporary philosophy, someone who agrees with Dennett on consciousness or with Derrida on deconstructionism would be, I think, happy to call herself a Dennettian or a Derridean. Why, then, do we react against being called Yudkowskians?
The difference seems to be that the philosophical labels do not imply acceptance of a whole worldview. Context or explicit distinction usually makes clear that one is e.g. “a Dennettian about intentionality” or “a Kantian about morality”, not someone who accepts everything or even most that Dennett or Kant said. The Sequences, on the other hand, present something close to a whole worldview, which most people here share in a great measure, so calling ourselves Yudkowskians without qualification brings up the suggestion that we slavishly follow the wordlview someone else has put forward—something much more cult-like. I think the same happens for “Randian/Objectivist”; compare the connotations of “I am an Objectivist” with those of “I am a Randian on objective value”.
I feel like the most apt term for people here (or, more accurately, people who identify themselves as being part of some community inaugurated by this website) would be “Yudkowskian.”
I disagree. If we’re trying to pursue an art that anyone can learn and add refinements to beyond what they were taught, the last thing we want to do is hang a single person’s name on it.
I agree that “Yudkowskian” isn’t a great label politically. And looking back on it, KenChen’s post is about thinking of good political descriptors and not just “apt” ones, so I think I’m probably going off-topic here. However, I do think that the term “Yudkowskian” most accurately and succinctly summarizes the cluster of views tying the members of the community based around this website together. (Then again, I don’t really know anyone here, so maybe my impression is unjustified.) For instance, talking of rationality as an art to be refined feels very Yudkowskian to me. This isn’t meant to be pejorative.
“Baconian” aptly describes the methodology and outlook of scientists (or at least, most scientists,) but science has come so far because it’s built out of ideas that have demonstrable worth irrespective of the people who came up with them.
Hmm, to me the label “Yudkowskian” sounds less like, “a person who enjoys refining the art of rationalism”, and more like, “the follower of our great enlightened master, Yudkowskiy”. That’s a bit over the top. It’s edging into Great Leader territory, IMO.
(Edit: typo)
I’m not sure about the Great Leader bit, but I do think lots of people here could be accurately classified as followers of Yudkowsky’s thinking. Again, that’s not to suggest it’s bad to be such a person. But “being interested in refining the art of rationalism” both 1. builds in theory-laden terms the mere adoption of which already marks one as a member of the community, and 2. doesn’t capture the range of interests, opinions and lingo widely shared across the site.
Maybe I’m biased due to my personal background, but I find this phrasing rather creepy. It’s one step away from saying, ”… lots of people here could be accurately classified as followers of Yudkowsky personally, glory be unto him” (that last bit being optional). I don’t think that Yudkowsky has any kind of a special property which automatically imbues his thinking with wisdom and significance. Instead, people accept his ideas because they are well thought out and interesting. If Yudkowsky started spouting ideas that were stupid and boring, presumably people here would stop “following” them… right ?
I put the word “following” above in scare quotes because it, too, scares me. As I understand it, a rational person subjects every idea to stringent criticism before deciding whether to accept it or reject it. That’s kind of the opposite of what “followers” do.
I guess I’m using the word “follower” here in the sense that one would describe someone as, e.g., a follower of Ayn Rand. That is, someone who has passionately assimilated an extremely far-reaching set of beliefs that originates largely from a single, high-status thinker, and who seeks to establish novel communities or institutions inspired by/based around that thinker’s thoughts. I’m sure most Objectivists would disavow Ayn Rand of any magical wisdom and insist that they came to their beliefs through critical reflection, but I would happily label the more serious of them followers.
Not sure that’s actually true, at least if you read “magical” as “special; privileged”. Mainline Objectivism is a closed system: it explicitly disavows thinking that builds on, expands, or (especially) critiques Rand’s work, treating it as a self-contained totalizing philosophy. As far as I’m concerned that immediately puts it fairly high up on any scale of founder-worship, roughly on par with Scientology and higher than most strains of Marxism. It’s also the sort of criterion that should be accessible from an inside or an outside view, which is convenient if you’re asking questions about groups you belong to.
I understand there was a big rift in Objectivism over precisely this, with one group led by David Kelley splitting off because they were for a more intellectually tolerant Objectivism.
Ok, so in the case of Yudkowdky, are we more interested in his thoughts, or his person ? I understand that it’s the person who originally voiced the thoughts, but which is more important—the thoughts or the person ? And what do we do with those thoughts ? Do we pore through them searching for bits of revealed wisdom, or do we discuss and critique them freely, discarding those we deem insufficiently well-supported ? Is it even hypothetically possible for someone to come up with even better ideas than Yudkowsky did ? What will we call ourselves when that happens ?
All these questions are easy to answer in a satisfactory fashion if you call yourself a “rationalist” or a “skeptic” or something of the sort, but they become somewhat difficult to answer if you call yourself a “follower of Yudkowsky’s thoughts”. It’s a matter of emphasis.
In addition, I should point out that I’m not really interested in “establishing… institutions inspired by/based around [Yudkowsky]’s thoughts”—thought perhaps others might be. The closest thing to such an institution that I can think of would be SIAI, but its mission statement is to develop a friendly transhuman AI, not to follow anyone’s thoughts in particular.
The point is that the thoughts are so diverse that the main thing they have in common is their original promotion by a single individual. But it really isn’t just Yudkowsky’s beliefs that have become currency here. Lots of his idioms pop up everywhere, for example. There was recently a Chuck Norris-inspired thread about how amazingly intelligent he is—tongue-in-cheek, but still telling. And there does seem to be an implicit agreement by many that he’s likely to be an important player in saving the world from a certain looming existential threat if anyone is.
I’m a newly-arrived outsider and am doubtless missing tons of context and information. But from the perspective of an outsider like me, it sure looks like there’s this one guy who most directly shapes thought and language, who’s held in esteem beyond all others and whose initiative provided the glue that holds the whole thing together. That’s not to say no one can or does question him. “Yudkowskian” still feels like the single word that best captures all of this.
Also, I’d like to reiterate that I’m not trying to provoke or offend.
It is interesting to contrast the negative reactions to this suggestion (which I instinctively share) to academic philosophy. It is normal to talk about Cartesians, Kantians or Hegelians without any connotations of cultism. Even for contemporary philosophy, someone who agrees with Dennett on consciousness or with Derrida on deconstructionism would be, I think, happy to call herself a Dennettian or a Derridean. Why, then, do we react against being called Yudkowskians?
The difference seems to be that the philosophical labels do not imply acceptance of a whole worldview. Context or explicit distinction usually makes clear that one is e.g. “a Dennettian about intentionality” or “a Kantian about morality”, not someone who accepts everything or even most that Dennett or Kant said. The Sequences, on the other hand, present something close to a whole worldview, which most people here share in a great measure, so calling ourselves Yudkowskians without qualification brings up the suggestion that we slavishly follow the wordlview someone else has put forward—something much more cult-like. I think the same happens for “Randian/Objectivist”; compare the connotations of “I am an Objectivist” with those of “I am a Randian on objective value”.
Cons:
sounds awful
seriously cultish
excludes Phil_Goetz and those like him
Pros:
contrasts “Hansonian”
ironically cultish
excludes Phil_Goetz and those like him
Am I missing anything?