In the comment section of Jim’s Blog, Toddy Cat pointed out some positions he saw as areas of agreement between Yvain and neoreactionaries (Jim himself disagreed, and Yvain has not responded as far as I’m aware).
The original Yvain’s sin was admitting that hypothetically “his side” might be wrong about some details, and it might be worth to consider the evidence, and in case it shows convincing, update. Then he just dug himself deeper.
To a LW regular, this may seem like Rationality 101, but in real life, this is often enough to be expelled from the paradise of one’s tribe. (And it happens in many different tribes, not just this one.)
The similarity between Yvain and neo-reactionaries is that both of them are willing to look at the evidence against Yvain’s tribe’s beliefs. They may have completely different motivation to do that, but whatever. This is what a loyal member of the tribe wouldn’t do. This is what people in general don’t do, unless they are exceptionally honest or exceptionally socially clueless.
I understand that your comment might exaggerate for the sake of irony, but I think you might be getting too close to applause-lights with it. You’re saying (essentially) that it takes exceptional honesty to be willing to look at the evidence against your tribe’s beliefs. That seems wrong. Complete and utter dogmatism isn’t that common outside explicitly religious domains. People very frequently are honestly willing to look at the evidence against their wrong beliefs, and then they’re honestly unconvinced by it, even if often it’s because they misunderstood the evidence or failed to give it proper consideration. In fact, I feel certain that almost all neo-reactionaries think of themselves as willing to look at the evidence against their beliefs, as having done so many times, and as having vanquished that evidence.
In the comment section of Jim’s Blog, Toddy Cat pointed out some positions he saw as areas of agreement between Yvain and neoreactionaries (Jim himself disagreed, and Yvain has not responded as far as I’m aware).
The original Yvain’s sin was admitting that hypothetically “his side” might be wrong about some details, and it might be worth to consider the evidence, and in case it shows convincing, update. Then he just dug himself deeper.
To a LW regular, this may seem like Rationality 101, but in real life, this is often enough to be expelled from the paradise of one’s tribe. (And it happens in many different tribes, not just this one.)
The similarity between Yvain and neo-reactionaries is that both of them are willing to look at the evidence against Yvain’s tribe’s beliefs. They may have completely different motivation to do that, but whatever. This is what a loyal member of the tribe wouldn’t do. This is what people in general don’t do, unless they are exceptionally honest or exceptionally socially clueless.
I understand that your comment might exaggerate for the sake of irony, but I think you might be getting too close to applause-lights with it. You’re saying (essentially) that it takes exceptional honesty to be willing to look at the evidence against your tribe’s beliefs. That seems wrong. Complete and utter dogmatism isn’t that common outside explicitly religious domains. People very frequently are honestly willing to look at the evidence against their wrong beliefs, and then they’re honestly unconvinced by it, even if often it’s because they misunderstood the evidence or failed to give it proper consideration. In fact, I feel certain that almost all neo-reactionaries think of themselves as willing to look at the evidence against their beliefs, as having done so many times, and as having vanquished that evidence.
I don’t recall Yvain ever actually asserting in his own name any of the views being attributed to him in that comment.