Upvoted for sharing unique experiences for their learning potential. I recall Luke Muehlhauser attended a Toastmasters meetup run by Scientologists several years ago when he first moved to California. This was unrelated to the article, but as an aside he discouraged other LessWrong users to attend any meeting run by Scientologists just because he did, because they are friendly and they will hack people’s System 1′s into making them want to come back, and even being enticed to join Scientology is not a worthwhile risk, and the best case is you might just waste your time with them anyway. I mean, IIRC, this was after Luke himself had left evangelical Christianity, and read the LessWrong Sequences, so I guess we was very confident he wouldn’t be pulled in.
It’s interesting that you went, but if you were invited by a stranger on a plane to this home, I hardly think you “infiltrated”, as opposed to being invited by a Raelian on the first step to join them. I’m not saying you’ll be fooled into joining, but I caution against going back, as you could at least use the time to find other friendly communities to join, like any number of meetups, which aren’t cults. It’s sad other are in this cult, but it’s difficult enough to pull others out I’m not confident it’s worth sticking around to pull others out, even if you think they’re good people. When you get back Stateside or wherever your’e from, I figure there are skeptics associations you can get involved with which do good work on helping people believe less crazy things.
I’m not planing to, even though I’m very very very sure about not getting fooled (I’ve been through Chrisitanity too in my youth, I’ve escaped with my own strength without external help or inspiration, and have since converted a few people to atheism).
I don’t plan to go back because it would be a waste of my emotional energy that I could use to work on rationality communities (that I actually care about). Pretty much what you are trying to tell me, I guess. Thanks for worrying :) I’m fine :)
Note: this is a neat example of how the economy/”investing a limited resource” viewpoint can generate better life decisions than asking “does this seem like a good idea?” about individual things.
The word infiltrated assumes entering without the knowledge or approval of the group. For the purposes of epistemic hygiene’s worthwhile to use language that accurately reflects reality.
But in any case, thanks for the feedback. It’s useful for me to know what styles of writing are interpreted in what ways around here. Actually what I’m doing right now is experimenting to increase my chances of successfully communicating some of my important ideas in the future.
I think of it as a “wink”. It’s not quite hyperbole, but, let’s say, a literary device that sets the mood and expectations. Basically it says “I’m not being entirely serious here”.
Upvoted for sharing unique experiences for their learning potential. I recall Luke Muehlhauser attended a Toastmasters meetup run by Scientologists several years ago when he first moved to California. This was unrelated to the article, but as an aside he discouraged other LessWrong users to attend any meeting run by Scientologists just because he did, because they are friendly and they will hack people’s System 1′s into making them want to come back, and even being enticed to join Scientology is not a worthwhile risk, and the best case is you might just waste your time with them anyway. I mean, IIRC, this was after Luke himself had left evangelical Christianity, and read the LessWrong Sequences, so I guess we was very confident he wouldn’t be pulled in.
It’s interesting that you went, but if you were invited by a stranger on a plane to this home, I hardly think you “infiltrated”, as opposed to being invited by a Raelian on the first step to join them. I’m not saying you’ll be fooled into joining, but I caution against going back, as you could at least use the time to find other friendly communities to join, like any number of meetups, which aren’t cults. It’s sad other are in this cult, but it’s difficult enough to pull others out I’m not confident it’s worth sticking around to pull others out, even if you think they’re good people. When you get back Stateside or wherever your’e from, I figure there are skeptics associations you can get involved with which do good work on helping people believe less crazy things.
This was tongue-in-cheek of course.
I’m not planing to, even though I’m very very very sure about not getting fooled (I’ve been through Chrisitanity too in my youth, I’ve escaped with my own strength without external help or inspiration, and have since converted a few people to atheism).
I don’t plan to go back because it would be a waste of my emotional energy that I could use to work on rationality communities (that I actually care about). Pretty much what you are trying to tell me, I guess. Thanks for worrying :) I’m fine :)
Note: this is a neat example of how the economy/”investing a limited resource” viewpoint can generate better life decisions than asking “does this seem like a good idea?” about individual things.
The word infiltrated assumes entering without the knowledge or approval of the group. For the purposes of epistemic hygiene’s worthwhile to use language that accurately reflects reality.
Humor. It’s a thing. You should try it sometime.
Did you laugh while reading the headline?
See “microhumor” at http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/
But in any case, thanks for the feedback. It’s useful for me to know what styles of writing are interpreted in what ways around here. Actually what I’m doing right now is experimenting to increase my chances of successfully communicating some of my important ideas in the future.
I don’t think humor is in general a good defense for writing misleading headlines.
I don’t think “I engaged in a hostile action against outgroup X” is a good way to start humor. Cheering on humor like that produces bad dynamics.
Humor is not a defense, but a good idea. The headline is misleading only to people who can’t parse language properly.
I doubt that too many people felt they were “misled” by the headline. I think most people got the joke.
I was trying to come up with a literary term for the device used. It seems like it’s a thing.
Someone pointed out “dysphemism” as a term to me here. But that wasn’t right. Just a little hyperbole for dramatic effect? For contrast with the hug?
I think of it as a “wink”. It’s not quite hyperbole, but, let’s say, a literary device that sets the mood and expectations. Basically it says “I’m not being entirely serious here”.
I smiled. The “was hugged” expression was a hint :-)