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.
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.