It’s the first chapter of an attempt to explicate the skills and virtues of postrationality
I admit, I never got a clear idea of what postrationality is about except that it is somewhat less rigorous and more into mysticism (?), but are you suggesting that your movement is about writing lame parodies with a few clever jokes in them in order to criticize what you dislike (or maybe what you like—it isn’t very clear)?
I swear, this movement becomes weirder and weirder with every mention.
Not applicable to the current situation. For one thing, EY emphasized that this was not for now when we need maximum efficiency to survive (so that puts off applying it for the foreseeable portion of the future), and for another, it was as marketing to the people who wouldn’t be interested otherwise.
Sure it’s relevant: it’s a demonstration that just opening the curtain is not always the optimal solution. There’s one reason why not; why couldn’t there be others?
I don’t know what the reasons are here for not opening the curtain, since I’m not the one who’s deciding whether to. But I’ve had reasons not to before—and some of the possibilities suggest that I shouldn’t be trying to convince anyone to accept the style, so I won’t say more than this here.
Okay fine. It turns out the one true God is actually just an ordinary fish, and all postrationality consists of properly devoting oneself to the fish. There, I spoiled the climax. I hope you’re happy.
I swear, this movement becomes weirder and weirder with every mention.
But when the next sentence is “I think we should burn it,” that is when it becomes relevant to a site devoted to the discovery and correction of human biases.
I admit, I never got a clear idea of what postrationality is about except that it is somewhat less rigorous and more into mysticism (?), but are you suggesting that your movement is about writing lame parodies with a few clever jokes in them in order to criticize what you dislike (or maybe what you like—it isn’t very clear)?
I swear, this movement becomes weirder and weirder with every mention.
Yes, Tenoke. That is a completely fair and accurate summary of my “movement”.
Since that’s all you’ve given us to work with, I can only see this as taunting us with yet another hint that something is behind the curtain.
This isn’t Let’s Make a Deal. Just open the freaking curtain.
♪ ♬ ヾ(´︶`♡)ﾉ ♬ ♪〜(￣▽￣〜)•ᴥ• (▰˘◡˘▰) ∩(︶▽︶)∩(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
Not applicable to the current situation. For one thing, EY emphasized that this was not for now when we need maximum efficiency to survive (so that puts off applying it for the foreseeable portion of the future), and for another, it was as marketing to the people who wouldn’t be interested otherwise.
And on top of that, I don’t even agree with it.
Sure it’s relevant: it’s a demonstration that just opening the curtain is not always the optimal solution. There’s one reason why not; why couldn’t there be others?
I don’t know what the reasons are here for not opening the curtain, since I’m not the one who’s deciding whether to. But I’ve had reasons not to before—and some of the possibilities suggest that I shouldn’t be trying to convince anyone to accept the style, so I won’t say more than this here.
Okay fine. It turns out the one true God is actually just an ordinary fish, and all postrationality consists of properly devoting oneself to the fish. There, I spoiled the climax. I hope you’re happy.
But when the next sentence is “I think we should burn it,” that is when it becomes relevant to a site devoted to the discovery and correction of human biases.