Yes indeed! I’m not actually your neighbor yet: the SIAI Visiting Fellows house is trying to move to Berkeley. Hopefully they’ll get that figured out soon. I personally fly into town early October. LW folk Kevin, MBlume, and Emil all live in a house in Berkeley. If SIAI moves to Berkeley then to that list will be added quite a few others. There are probably other LWers in Berkeley that I don’t know about yet. With some luck Berkeley will become the Singularitarian/Neorationalist nexus.
That’s okay too. I’m interested in interesting social people with good communication skills. I confess I don’t give a damn if they call themselves rationalists or roosters.
I sort of wish it were, but I think only one or two people use it. The problem is that it’s not really anything like old-style rationalism and so calling it neorationalism is misleading. ‘Bayesianism’ is normally taken to be the philosophy, ‘rationalist’ the adherent. Unfortunately, rationality is more than just Bayesianism, so that too is inaccurate. The whole lack of an -ism thing is kind of a downer. ‘Evidentialism’ or something might work as a description of our epistemology but it fails to connect to the ‘winning’ part of rationality. Bayesian decision theory-ism is what we’re trying to achieve, I think, but we need something more aesthetic. Suggestions?
-isms are bad to identify with, but make philosophies easier to talk about. People here already call themselves aspiring rationalists; they’re already identifying with a group. But they’re generally smart enough to keep that from crippling their ability to think. Having an -ism would allow ‘our movement’ to have a Wikipedia page and the like, for instance. It’s just a mechanism of nomenclature.
I heuristically associate people who “reject all labels” or “refuse to be pigeonholed” with a) High Broderism, b) conceited windbaggism, c) lack of intent to communicate clearly and efficiently. I also think “aspiring rationalist” is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to call herself.
But I do hope you write your post and make your argument—perhaps you don’t mean to say anything like the things I am imagining.
They do so rather context sensitively from what I’ve seen. It seems a not unreasonable name to call one who is aspiring to be more rational. I think that perhaps you’re taking it more seriously than most? Two cult koans comes to mind.
But really, I think “rationalist” works just fine. The connection with “rationality” is immediate; as for (Cartesian) “rationalism”, that’s a historical term applied by academics in the specific context of an obsolete debate between (mostly) dead people that has been utterly superseded by modern concepts such as those discussed here. Does anyone visit LW and seriously come away with the impression that we’re “anti-empiricist”? I didn’t think so.
Hi, neighbor! (Are there many LWers around here?)
Yes indeed! I’m not actually your neighbor yet: the SIAI Visiting Fellows house is trying to move to Berkeley. Hopefully they’ll get that figured out soon. I personally fly into town early October. LW folk Kevin, MBlume, and Emil all live in a house in Berkeley. If SIAI moves to Berkeley then to that list will be added quite a few others. There are probably other LWers in Berkeley that I don’t know about yet. With some luck Berkeley will become the Singularitarian/Neorationalist nexus.
Berkeley? Center of the next great rationalist movement? That’s going to take some luck.
That’s okay too. I’m interested in interesting social people with good communication skills. I confess I don’t give a damn if they call themselves rationalists or roosters.
Is neorationalist the term we are adopting for the kind of Rationality espoused on LW, to distinguish from Cartesian Rationalism?
I sort of wish it were, but I think only one or two people use it. The problem is that it’s not really anything like old-style rationalism and so calling it neorationalism is misleading. ‘Bayesianism’ is normally taken to be the philosophy, ‘rationalist’ the adherent. Unfortunately, rationality is more than just Bayesianism, so that too is inaccurate. The whole lack of an -ism thing is kind of a downer. ‘Evidentialism’ or something might work as a description of our epistemology but it fails to connect to the ‘winning’ part of rationality. Bayesian decision theory-ism is what we’re trying to achieve, I think, but we need something more aesthetic. Suggestions?
The lack of an -ism thing is a strength. -isms are bad thinking.
-isms are bad to identify with, but make philosophies easier to talk about. People here already call themselves aspiring rationalists; they’re already identifying with a group. But they’re generally smart enough to keep that from crippling their ability to think. Having an -ism would allow ‘our movement’ to have a Wikipedia page and the like, for instance. It’s just a mechanism of nomenclature.
If people here really do call themselves aspiring rationalists, especially elsewhere, that’s bad. I really need to finish my post on this.
I heuristically associate people who “reject all labels” or “refuse to be pigeonholed” with a) High Broderism, b) conceited windbaggism, c) lack of intent to communicate clearly and efficiently. I also think “aspiring rationalist” is a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to call herself.
But I do hope you write your post and make your argument—perhaps you don’t mean to say anything like the things I am imagining.
They do so rather context sensitively from what I’ve seen. It seems a not unreasonable name to call one who is aspiring to be more rational. I think that perhaps you’re taking it more seriously than most? Two cult koans comes to mind.
I once suggested “optimizer”.
But really, I think “rationalist” works just fine. The connection with “rationality” is immediate; as for (Cartesian) “rationalism”, that’s a historical term applied by academics in the specific context of an obsolete debate between (mostly) dead people that has been utterly superseded by modern concepts such as those discussed here. Does anyone visit LW and seriously come away with the impression that we’re “anti-empiricist”? I didn’t think so.
Does this count?
Rationalist works fine, but I’m still kinda meh on “rationalism”. I guess it’s okay...
Yvain has used x-rationality for extreme rationality.
I can’t say I’m surprised—I can imagine that a certain segment of Berkeley culture intersects neatly with LW’s premise.
Well, there’s about five in my house =)
Plus John Maxwell, Lucas Sloan, and probably some folks I’m forgetting.