Eliezer wants to be a guru. No one calls him on it. There is an enormous amount of unhealthy hero worship. What did you expect, exactly?
Even if you see Eliezer as a wanna-be-guru, he is not that powerful. The kind of hero worship that you see in real cults is on a different scale.
Very charismatic people who actually get people to follow them through the strength of their charisma don’t come across as “hilariously over-the-top arrogant” to people within their in-group.
I also find it hard how you can cite such a paragraph by Yvain and at the same time say with a straight face “Nobody calls EY on it”.
I don’t know exactly what you mean with “Guruhood” in this context. If you look at a figure like Ayn Rand, someone who would have said what Scott wrote about EY would have been kicked out of Ayn Rand’s inner circle.
Ayn Rand kicked people out because they had the wrong taste of music.
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
It’s not enough to not be Hitler, basically.
My model for a thought leader is someone like Richard Feynman. Feynman didn’t write epistles or officiate weddings. This did not prevent him from being enormously influential in physics.
The fact of the matter is, EY wants to be a guru, and the community wants him to be a guru, too.
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
I don’t think a guru being beyond criticism is something unique to a particular group like Ayn Rand’s objectivists.
It’s not enough to not be Hitler, basically.
I don’t think Ayn Rand was Hitler. She wasn’t as bad as cult leaders like Jim Jones,
My model for a thought leader is someone like Richard Feynman. Feynman didn’t write epistles or officiate weddings. This did not prevent him from being enormously influential in physics.
Do you think that everybody who tries to build a community is a guru?
I don’t think Ayn Rand was Hitler. She wasn’t as bad as cult leaders like Jim Jones,
My point was, it’s not a steelman response to pick a deliberately weak foil (and Rand is a quite weak foil as far as movement leaders are concerned). It’s not enough to be ?better? than Rand. There isn’t even a total ordering on awfulness. That’s what the Anna Karenina quote was about.
Do you think that everybody who tries to build a community is a guru?
No?
But I am not talking about everybody, I am talking about EY. And the relevant feature of EY’s is not that he tried (and succeeded) to build a community, it’s that he writes epistles, officiates weddings, has something called the Sequences (with a capital S!), etc. etc. etc.
He is not trying to build a community of colleagues/equals, as far as I can tell. If he did, he would act a lot more like Feynman.
My point was, it’s not a steelman response to pick a deliberately weak foil (and Rand is a quite weak foil as far as movement leaders are concerned).
Do you use “movement leader” synonymous with “guru”?
Feymann isn’t a movement leader. Do you object to EY wanting to be a movement leader?
I don’t think Ayn Rand is a deliberately weak foil. Jim Jones is a deliberately weak foil.
I use Ayn Rand because it’s the nearest “rational cult” I can think of.
If I would seek for “rational movement” I could also go for New Atheists. Richard Dawkins is a movement leader. On the other hand I wouldn’t call him a guru. Would you?
Why are you comparing against a negative example, rather than an example to emulate?
Because you criticise him for being a “guru” and not for not being “XY” (word that describe a positive thing).
That makes it important to understand what you mean with guru and whether you consider someone like Dawkins to be a guru and who you consider to be guru’s that aren’t “deliberately weak foil”.
I don’t believe in the paradigm of “call out culture”. Copying SJW tactics isn’t a good idea.
In most cases it’s more effective to give feedback for improvement privately.
The idea that EY didn’t get pushback is completely illusory. He got enough pushback that he now doesn’t post on LW.
During the last year where UFAI got more of public attention EY didn’t seek the spotlight but rather left that role to FHI. To me that reflect an understanding that this decision was in the benefit of the cause.
Eliezer wants to be a guru. No one calls him on it. There is an enormous amount of unhealthy hero worship. What did you expect, exactly?
Even if you see Eliezer as a wanna-be-guru, he is not that powerful. The kind of hero worship that you see in real cults is on a different scale.
Very charismatic people who actually get people to follow them through the strength of their charisma don’t come across as “hilariously over-the-top arrogant” to people within their in-group.
I also find it hard how you can cite such a paragraph by Yvain and at the same time say with a straight face “Nobody calls EY on it”.
Arrogance is just poor instrumental rationality in interpersonal communication. “Guruhood” is something different, and more dangerous.
I don’t know exactly what you mean with “Guruhood” in this context. If you look at a figure like Ayn Rand, someone who would have said what Scott wrote about EY would have been kicked out of Ayn Rand’s inner circle. Ayn Rand kicked people out because they had the wrong taste of music.
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
It’s not enough to not be Hitler, basically.
My model for a thought leader is someone like Richard Feynman. Feynman didn’t write epistles or officiate weddings. This did not prevent him from being enormously influential in physics.
The fact of the matter is, EY wants to be a guru, and the community wants him to be a guru, too.
I don’t think a guru being beyond criticism is something unique to a particular group like Ayn Rand’s objectivists.
I don’t think Ayn Rand was Hitler. She wasn’t as bad as cult leaders like Jim Jones,
Do you think that everybody who tries to build a community is a guru?
My point was, it’s not a steelman response to pick a deliberately weak foil (and Rand is a quite weak foil as far as movement leaders are concerned). It’s not enough to be ?better? than Rand. There isn’t even a total ordering on awfulness. That’s what the Anna Karenina quote was about.
No?
But I am not talking about everybody, I am talking about EY. And the relevant feature of EY’s is not that he tried (and succeeded) to build a community, it’s that he writes epistles, officiates weddings, has something called the Sequences (with a capital S!), etc. etc. etc.
He is not trying to build a community of colleagues/equals, as far as I can tell. If he did, he would act a lot more like Feynman.
Do you use “movement leader” synonymous with “guru”? Feymann isn’t a movement leader. Do you object to EY wanting to be a movement leader?
I don’t think Ayn Rand is a deliberately weak foil. Jim Jones is a deliberately weak foil. I use Ayn Rand because it’s the nearest “rational cult” I can think of.
If I would seek for “rational movement” I could also go for New Atheists. Richard Dawkins is a movement leader. On the other hand I wouldn’t call him a guru. Would you?
Why are you comparing against a negative example, rather than an example to emulate?
I already described what sorts of features of EY’s make him a “guru.”
Because you criticise him for being a “guru” and not for not being “XY” (word that describe a positive thing).
That makes it important to understand what you mean with guru and whether you consider someone like Dawkins to be a guru and who you consider to be guru’s that aren’t “deliberately weak foil”.
It can make sense to call out borderline cases within your own community, because that gives you the greatest chance of making a difference.
I don’t believe in the paradigm of “call out culture”. Copying SJW tactics isn’t a good idea. In most cases it’s more effective to give feedback for improvement privately.
The idea that EY didn’t get pushback is completely illusory. He got enough pushback that he now doesn’t post on LW. During the last year where UFAI got more of public attention EY didn’t seek the spotlight but rather left that role to FHI. To me that reflect an understanding that this decision was in the benefit of the cause.
I didn’t mention anyone by name.
That still leaves my first paragraph. I don’t believe that “calling out” is generally the best technique for making a difference.