the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.
political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.
As well as an idiomatic definition which is closer to the way the word is often used by LW members who also read Moldbug:
play politics,
a. to engage in political intrigue, take advantage of a political situation or issue, resort to partisan politics, etc.; exploit a political system or political relationships.
b. to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.
I believe that definition #5 is clearly what Eliezer is talking about when he says “politics is the mind-killer.” h-H is talking about #1, #2, and possibly #3 and #4.
I’m not saying my suggested rephrasing is what most people mean by “politics.” But I don’t believe anybody is saying that the art or science of political government is the mind-killer.
FWIW, I’ve always understood the referent for “politics” in “politics is the mind-killer” to be, not political principles or opinions (which in fact get discussed here all the time, typically civilly and sometimes usefully), but tribal affiliation with powerful governmental/nationalist camps. I often refer to it as “partisan politics” for that reason, and around here I sometimes refer to it as “Blue/Green politics.” (Both formulations of which neglect the nationalist aspect, but not for any principled reason, just for convenience. If the Blue/Green teaching-story had included a neighboring nation known as the “Purples,” I might refer to it as “Blue/Green/Purple” politics.)
We would presumably find partisan religious discussion equally problematic if we didn’t already filter for alignment with a particular camp. We do find sex/gender discussion problematic, I think for similar reasons, and would find it much more so Less Wrong didn’t filter for a particular gender. We similarly find race/ethnicity discussion problematic, though for the most part it doesn’t come up… there’s one member who periodically talks about how some races are superior to others, and that causes a certain amount of turbulence before it dies down. Etc.
In general, if we believe there are powerful groups or entities fighting for control over large-scale decisions that affect our lives, we tend to pick a side and invest emotionally in supporting whatever positions are conventionally associated with that side, and signalling considerations start to predominate. This makes analysis difficult.
Partisan politics is too narrow—some “political concepts” become enmeshed in one’s personal identity even if they are irrelevant to whether the community organizer or the business executive should be President of the United States.
Consider how and why the “creepiness” and “feminism” discussions broke down so badly, so quickly, and so acrimoniously.
In short, Paul Graham is right when he says (essentially) “Personal identity is the mindkiller”
I agree. I should have said “definition #5 is clearly the closest to what Eliezer is talking about.” As my suggested tabooing phrase indicates, I think “affiliations that don’t pay rent” are the problem.
Dictionary.com lays out several definitions:
the science or art of political government.
the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.
political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.
political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.
As well as an idiomatic definition which is closer to the way the word is often used by LW members who also read Moldbug:
I believe that definition #5 is clearly what Eliezer is talking about when he says “politics is the mind-killer.” h-H is talking about #1, #2, and possibly #3 and #4.
I’m not saying my suggested rephrasing is what most people mean by “politics.” But I don’t believe anybody is saying that the art or science of political government is the mind-killer.
FWIW, I’ve always understood the referent for “politics” in “politics is the mind-killer” to be, not political principles or opinions (which in fact get discussed here all the time, typically civilly and sometimes usefully), but tribal affiliation with powerful governmental/nationalist camps. I often refer to it as “partisan politics” for that reason, and around here I sometimes refer to it as “Blue/Green politics.” (Both formulations of which neglect the nationalist aspect, but not for any principled reason, just for convenience. If the Blue/Green teaching-story had included a neighboring nation known as the “Purples,” I might refer to it as “Blue/Green/Purple” politics.)
We would presumably find partisan religious discussion equally problematic if we didn’t already filter for alignment with a particular camp.
We do find sex/gender discussion problematic, I think for similar reasons, and would find it much more so Less Wrong didn’t filter for a particular gender.
We similarly find race/ethnicity discussion problematic, though for the most part it doesn’t come up… there’s one member who periodically talks about how some races are superior to others, and that causes a certain amount of turbulence before it dies down.
Etc.
In general, if we believe there are powerful groups or entities fighting for control over large-scale decisions that affect our lives, we tend to pick a side and invest emotionally in supporting whatever positions are conventionally associated with that side, and signalling considerations start to predominate. This makes analysis difficult.
Partisan politics is too narrow—some “political concepts” become enmeshed in one’s personal identity even if they are irrelevant to whether the community organizer or the business executive should be President of the United States.
Consider how and why the “creepiness” and “feminism” discussions broke down so badly, so quickly, and so acrimoniously.
In short, Paul Graham is right when he says (essentially) “Personal identity is the mindkiller”
Yeah, I agree that we find sex/gender discussions problematic for similar reasons.
I agree. I should have said “definition #5 is clearly the closest to what Eliezer is talking about.” As my suggested tabooing phrase indicates, I think “affiliations that don’t pay rent” are the problem.