Inflation of “rationality” needs more specific anchors to combat it. As it stands, any purpose that looks good for someone (especially if it’s actually quite good) stands a risk of getting enshrined into a “principle of rationality”, such that following that principle advances the purpose, while dismissing the principle starts sounding “irrational”, a norm violation if there is one in a garden of rationality, worth discouraging.[1]
I think Scott’s asymmetric weapons framing gestures at the concept/problem more robustly, while Eliezer’s cognitive algorithms framing gives practical course-correcting advice:
Similarly, a rationalist isn’t just somebody who respects the Truth.
All too many people respect the Truth.
A rationalist is somebody who respects the processes of finding truth.
At the moment, LW has accumulated enough anti-epistemology directed at passing good and sensible things for rationality that a post like this gets rejected on the level of general impression. I think a post focused on explaining the problem with unreflectively rejecting posts like this, or on stratifying meaningful senses of “rationality” as distinct from all things good and true, without simultaneously relying on this being already understood, stands a better chance of unclogging this obstruction.
Like this post, voicing disapproval of the good principles of rationality such as “goodwill”, right in its sanctum, the nerve! Downvote, for rationality! When I started writing this comment, post’s Karma was at the shocking 0 with several votes, but it got a bit better since then. The “rationalistdiscourse” posts are at around 200.
Inflation of “rationality” needs more specific anchors to combat it. As it stands, any purpose that looks good for someone (especially if it’s actually quite good) stands a risk of getting enshrined into a “principle of rationality”, such that following that principle advances the purpose, while dismissing the principle starts sounding “irrational”, a norm violation if there is one in a garden of rationality, worth discouraging.[1]
I think Scott’s asymmetric weapons framing gestures at the concept/problem more robustly, while Eliezer’s cognitive algorithms framing gives practical course-correcting advice:
At the moment, LW has accumulated enough anti-epistemology directed at passing good and sensible things for rationality that a post like this gets rejected on the level of general impression. I think a post focused on explaining the problem with unreflectively rejecting posts like this, or on stratifying meaningful senses of “rationality” as distinct from all things good and true, without simultaneously relying on this being already understood, stands a better chance of unclogging this obstruction.
Like this post, voicing disapproval of the good principles of rationality such as “goodwill”, right in its sanctum, the nerve! Downvote, for rationality! When I started writing this comment, post’s Karma was at the shocking 0 with several votes, but it got a bit better since then. The “rationalist discourse” posts are at around 200.