You’re claiming to have status and authority to make a particular claim about reality—“Outsider” status, a status which gains you, with respect to adjucation of insider status and authority games… status and authority.
Now, your argument could stand or fall on its own merits, but you’ve chosen not to permit this, and instead have argued that you should be taken seriously on the merits of your personal relationship to the group (read: taken to have status and authority relative to the group, at least with respect to this claim).
You’re claiming to have status and authority to make a particular claim about reality
I am? Is that how we are evaluating claims now?
Here is how this conversation played out (roughly paraphrased):
me: EY has a big ego.
Viliam: I wish you would stop digging up people’s youthful indiscretions like that. Why not go do impressive things instead, why be a hater?
me: EY wasn’t young in the time period involved. Also, I have my own stuff going on, thanks! Also, I think this EY dynamic isn’t healthy.
you: Argument from status!
me: Don’t really want status here, have my own already.
you: You are claiming status by signaling you don’t want/need status here! And then using that to make claims!
(At this point if I claim status I lose, and if I don’t claim status I also lose.)
Well, look. Grandiose dimensions of EY’s ego are not a secret to anyone who actually knows him, I don’t think. I think slatestar even wrote something about that.
If you don’t think I am being straight with you, and I am playing some unstated game, that’s ok. If you have time and inclination, you can dig around my post history and try to figure that out if you care. I would be curious what you find.
I think it is fair to call myself an outsider. I don’t self-identify as rationalist, and I don’t get any sort of emotional reaction when people attack rationalists (which is how you know what your tribe is). I don’t think rationalists are evil mutants, but I think unhealthy things are going on in this community. You can listen to people like me, or not. I think you should, but ultimately your beliefs are your own business. I am not going to spend a ton of energy convincing you.
If you don’t think I am being straight with you, and I am playing some unstated game, that’s ok.
I think you’re being as completely straight and honest as you are humanly capable of being. I think you also overestimate the degree to which you’re capable of being straight and honest. What’s your straightest and most honest answer to the question of what probability you assign to the possibility that your actions can be influenced by subconscious status concerns?
Which is to say: Status games are a bias. You’re claiming to be above bias. I believe you believe that, but I don’t believe that.
As I said, I don’t think rationalists are actually a cult in the way that Scientology is a cult. But I think there are some cult-like characteristics to the rationalist movement (and a big part of this is EY’s position in the movement).
And I think it would be a good idea for the movement to become more like colleagues, and less like what they are now. What I think is somewhat disappointing is both EY and a fair bit of rank and file like things as they are.
I don’t know if this matters. I don’t particularly care for the Sequences, but that hasn’t caused me any problems at all. LessWrong has been an easy site to get into and to learn from, and would be even if I never read anything by EY. (This seems to be true for most aspects of the site; LessWrong is useful even if you don’t care about AIs, transhumanism, cybernetics, effective altruism.… there’s enough here that you can find plenty to learn.)
You may be seeing the problem as bigger than it is because of the lens that you are looking through, although I agree that charisma is an interesting thing to study, and was central to the development of the site.
You’re claiming to have status and authority to make a particular claim about reality—“Outsider” status, a status which gains you, with respect to adjucation of insider status and authority games… status and authority.
Now, your argument could stand or fall on its own merits, but you’ve chosen not to permit this, and instead have argued that you should be taken seriously on the merits of your personal relationship to the group (read: taken to have status and authority relative to the group, at least with respect to this claim).
[edit: I did not downvote anyone in this thread.]
I am? Is that how we are evaluating claims now?
Here is how this conversation played out (roughly paraphrased):
me: EY has a big ego.
Viliam: I wish you would stop digging up people’s youthful indiscretions like that. Why not go do impressive things instead, why be a hater?
me: EY wasn’t young in the time period involved. Also, I have my own stuff going on, thanks! Also, I think this EY dynamic isn’t healthy.
you: Argument from status!
me: Don’t really want status here, have my own already.
you: You are claiming status by signaling you don’t want/need status here! And then using that to make claims!
(At this point if I claim status I lose, and if I don’t claim status I also lose.)
Well, look. Grandiose dimensions of EY’s ego are not a secret to anyone who actually knows him, I don’t think. I think slatestar even wrote something about that.
If you don’t think I am being straight with you, and I am playing some unstated game, that’s ok. If you have time and inclination, you can dig around my post history and try to figure that out if you care. I would be curious what you find.
I think it is fair to call myself an outsider. I don’t self-identify as rationalist, and I don’t get any sort of emotional reaction when people attack rationalists (which is how you know what your tribe is). I don’t think rationalists are evil mutants, but I think unhealthy things are going on in this community. You can listen to people like me, or not. I think you should, but ultimately your beliefs are your own business. I am not going to spend a ton of energy convincing you.
I think you’re being as completely straight and honest as you are humanly capable of being. I think you also overestimate the degree to which you’re capable of being straight and honest. What’s your straightest and most honest answer to the question of what probability you assign to the possibility that your actions can be influenced by subconscious status concerns?
Which is to say: Status games are a bias. You’re claiming to be above bias. I believe you believe that, but I don’t believe that.
Please elaborate.
As I said, I don’t think rationalists are actually a cult in the way that Scientology is a cult. But I think there are some cult-like characteristics to the rationalist movement (and a big part of this is EY’s position in the movement).
And I think it would be a good idea for the movement to become more like colleagues, and less like what they are now. What I think is somewhat disappointing is both EY and a fair bit of rank and file like things as they are.
I don’t know if this matters. I don’t particularly care for the Sequences, but that hasn’t caused me any problems at all. LessWrong has been an easy site to get into and to learn from, and would be even if I never read anything by EY. (This seems to be true for most aspects of the site; LessWrong is useful even if you don’t care about AIs, transhumanism, cybernetics, effective altruism.… there’s enough here that you can find plenty to learn.)
You may be seeing the problem as bigger than it is because of the lens that you are looking through, although I agree that charisma is an interesting thing to study, and was central to the development of the site.
It’s not just LW, it’s the invisible social organization around it.
“Culty” dynamics matter. It’s dangerous stuff to be playing with.