The twelve virtues seems to me to be too religious in its tone. Yes, it contains a lot that is useful, but it is probably too mystical sounding to convince anyone.
I suspect that a very, very sober summary of the same ideas, with some citations to the literature would have more of the effect we are after. Something that sounded like it had been written as part of a competition between Nick Bostrom and Robin Hanson to see who could express facts in a more sober way.
What good is it to be convincing if you’re forgotten? If I were writing about transhumanism, I would go for a Deep, Sober tone (just as Nick did with the WTA FAQ). Since transhumanism is silly, writing about it Soberly makes a startling contrast.
But rationality is already considered a serious subject; and so the 12V shows that it’s possible to think about these matters in a different way than usual. The message is very clearly rationalist; the tone is not. You can go many places for dull, sober big words about rationality, and most rationalists will have already encountered them. Those who see something new in 12V may be inspired to check out the link on the back cover.
It’s supposed to be strange. Strange gets attention. Strange sticks in the mind. Strange makes the truth memorable. Other suggestions are possible, I guess, but can the result be equally strange?
And: Promise that which you will deliver. 12V gives a pretty good idea of what happens to you if you start reading my other essays.
But rationality is already considered a serious subject; and so the 12V shows that it’s possible to think about these matters in a different way than usual.
Well… a lot of what is being said on LW takes standard ideas much further than they are usually taken in the literature, as far as I know.
For example, the idea that you should use academic-strength decision theory to actually make decisions about everyday and real-life matters (“rationality is about winning”), that you should apply the same mental model to your day-to-day life as is applied to truthseeking in the sciences—that you should debias, do cost-benefit analyses, etc. These are not, to my knowledge, standard ideas. These are fairly frigging extreme in this perverse world. The idea that a scientist who applies careful experimental and statistical truthseeking techniques in her day job, and then goes home to relax to some comforting new-age or religious nonsense is doing something wrong is not a standard idea.
It’s supposed to be strange. Strange gets attention. Strange sticks in the mind. Strange makes the truth memorable.
Strange will get attention… from the wrong crowd. We want to attract the most sober, most rational crew possible. Transhumanism/Singularitarianism in the hands of the sci-fi fringe is really not the way it should be, in my opinion. It’s the clever normal people who are really worth persuading.
It depends on the target audience. For handing out at science fiction conventions, as Eliezer mentions, or for appealing to people with weak and poorly-considered beliefs in the supernatural, the mystical-sounding tone might work, while the Hanson-ish tone might just bore them into ignoring it.
For people who already fancy themselves scientific, rational-minded people the presentation would probably need to be different. i.e., if you wanted to “convert” to carefully considered rationalism a staunch atheist who rejected religion on largely emotional grounds yet thinks they’re so much cleverer than those theists.
The twelve virtues seems to me to be too religious in its tone. Yes, it contains a lot that is useful, but it is probably too mystical sounding to convince anyone.
How could it possibly be seen as designed to convince? Then again, catching attention steers to that very path.
The twelve virtues seems to me to be too religious in its tone. Yes, it contains a lot that is useful, but it is probably too mystical sounding to convince anyone.
I suspect that a very, very sober summary of the same ideas, with some citations to the literature would have more of the effect we are after. Something that sounded like it had been written as part of a competition between Nick Bostrom and Robin Hanson to see who could express facts in a more sober way.
You volunteering to write it?
What good is it to be convincing if you’re forgotten? If I were writing about transhumanism, I would go for a Deep, Sober tone (just as Nick did with the WTA FAQ). Since transhumanism is silly, writing about it Soberly makes a startling contrast.
But rationality is already considered a serious subject; and so the 12V shows that it’s possible to think about these matters in a different way than usual. The message is very clearly rationalist; the tone is not. You can go many places for dull, sober big words about rationality, and most rationalists will have already encountered them. Those who see something new in 12V may be inspired to check out the link on the back cover.
It’s supposed to be strange. Strange gets attention. Strange sticks in the mind. Strange makes the truth memorable. Other suggestions are possible, I guess, but can the result be equally strange?
And: Promise that which you will deliver. 12V gives a pretty good idea of what happens to you if you start reading my other essays.
Well… a lot of what is being said on LW takes standard ideas much further than they are usually taken in the literature, as far as I know.
For example, the idea that you should use academic-strength decision theory to actually make decisions about everyday and real-life matters (“rationality is about winning”), that you should apply the same mental model to your day-to-day life as is applied to truthseeking in the sciences—that you should debias, do cost-benefit analyses, etc. These are not, to my knowledge, standard ideas. These are fairly frigging extreme in this perverse world. The idea that a scientist who applies careful experimental and statistical truthseeking techniques in her day job, and then goes home to relax to some comforting new-age or religious nonsense is doing something wrong is not a standard idea.
Strange will get attention… from the wrong crowd. We want to attract the most sober, most rational crew possible. Transhumanism/Singularitarianism in the hands of the sci-fi fringe is really not the way it should be, in my opinion. It’s the clever normal people who are really worth persuading.
This sounds like an interesting task. It would probably do me a lot of good. Expect a top level post.
We could have a go at doing it on the wiki. I actually think Wikipedia articles often achieve a very readable tone.
Yes, the tone of a wikipedia article would be close.
I think the correct tone is halfway between wikipedia and John Baez.
In other words… 12V is not about teaching rationality, it’s about marketing rationality?
It’s about both, of course.
It depends on the target audience. For handing out at science fiction conventions, as Eliezer mentions, or for appealing to people with weak and poorly-considered beliefs in the supernatural, the mystical-sounding tone might work, while the Hanson-ish tone might just bore them into ignoring it.
For people who already fancy themselves scientific, rational-minded people the presentation would probably need to be different. i.e., if you wanted to “convert” to carefully considered rationalism a staunch atheist who rejected religion on largely emotional grounds yet thinks they’re so much cleverer than those theists.
How could it possibly be seen as designed to convince? Then again, catching attention steers to that very path.
I suspect this is so, but the fun of the existing document seems to have been attractive to a number of internet wanderers.