As people become more advanced, we will orient them toward more advanced rationality, at Less Wrong and elsewhere. Now, there are those who believe rationality should be taught only to those who are willing to put in the hard work and effort to overcome the high barrier to entry of learning all the jargon.
I think that’s a strawman. I haven’t meet anyone who argued that the entry barrier of learning all the jargon is important.
The main problem is that giving someone a rationality mug and a rationality T-Shirt doesn’t mean that you have raised the sanity line.
Videos are often great for teaching people buzzwords. I have seen smart people accept pretty stupid ideas that spread through Youtube videos.
Videos that actually promote critical thinking are aren’t clear and concise.
The website currently has: - Blog posts, such as on agency; polyamory and cached thinking; and life meaning and purpose.
If you want to reach a broad public I’m not sure that articles advocating polyamory are the most efficient way to do so.
“How Do You Live Happily Ever After When There’s A Love Triangle?”
This sounds like a title that would neither make me want to read the article when it goes over my facebook news feed nor be great for SEO.
The article also doesn’t engage deeply with the topic. A lot of people do feel jealousy and that’s a concern when you want to guide them towards polyamory. On LW we talk about the value of steelmanning opposing arguments and that most issues have good arguments on both sides.
Asking for dark art techniques to promote the project is a strategic choice. It signals not seeing truth as a high value. That might be a bad strategic choice for promoting rationality.
I think there was a misunderstanding about the nature of my comments about jargon. The sentiment I heard expressed was not that “we need to keep our weird jargon to filter out people who don’t fit,” but that “it is necessary to have the jargon because otherwise we won’t be able to say things precisely and will not be able to communicate efficiently” with the implication that those who don’t want to learn the jargon don’t deserve the benefits of Less Wrong. For examples of this sentiment expressed on LW, see the comments to this post.
Hm, I actually met several people who argued that those not dedicated to learning the LW jargon don’t deserve the benefits. I guess we meet different people.
The rationality merchandise is not aimed at the broad audience primarily, but for donors who would like to support our work.
Regarding your comment about the video, I notice I’m confused, did you mean to say this video on evaluating reality clearly that I cited in the post as part of our offerings is meant to teach people buzzwords and spread stupid ideas? Can you clarify where in the video you noticed those? We’d be glad to optimize our offerings based on feedback.
About the article on polyamory: the goal of that article is not to advocate polyamory, but to encourage people to consider it as an acceptable relationship style—the salient phrase in the article is “encourage an openness toward poly relationships as one among many relationship styles.” At Intentional Insights we aim to contribute to de-stigmatizing polyamory and promoting thinking about relationships rationally in general.
I agree that asking for dark arts is a strategic choice. In this case, I think the ends do justify the means. It’s a balance we all draw differently, and I accept that you may draw it differently than we do.
Hm, I actually met several people who argued that those not dedicated to learning the LW jargon don’t deserve the benefits
I follow debates about the topic when they are on LW and I don’t remember that position to have been argued in that way on LW. If you do, could you link?
Regarding your comment about the video, I notice I’m confused, did you mean to say this video on evaluating reality clearly
When people usually talk about producing videos they don’t mean lecture recordings but things optimized to be easy to digest.
Even for a lecture recording your video is full of distracting camera movements and not optimized to be easy to digest.
About the article on polyamory: the goal of that article is not to advocate polyamory,
Your goal doesn’t really matter. It will be read by an average person as advocating polyamory.
If you see de-stigmatizing polyamory as part of your mission, it seems to me that you lack strategic focus. You try to do everything you can think of.
Additionally running an NGO to try to remove social stigma conjures certain associations that are quite different from what I expect an NGO who effectively spreads rationality to do.
promoting thinking about relationships rationally in general.
When I think about “thinking rationally about relationships” I think about more complex thoughts than simply observing that if “Bob is glad to accept Mary’s desire to have a romantic relationship with John” there will be less conflict.
I think the ends do justify the means.
That’s not my main concern. Promoting values that you visible don’t follow yourself is a recipe for messing up.
That leads to not steelmanning because not steelmanning is easier.
Appreciate your thoughts about the video, we will work on better camera equipment and technique. As you can envision, we are a new nonprofit, and our current financing prevents us from being able to get the best video equipment and production. However, I hope you’ll agree that this video is better than not doing anything at all to raise the sanity waterline and we aim to get better over time :-)
running an NGO to try to remove social stigma conjures certain associations that are quite different from what I expect an NGO who effectively spreads rationality to do
Hm, I am curious about that statement. I would envision that spreading rationality would inherently involve removing certain social stigma because it would result in people thinking more rationally, and much social stigma is associated with not-very-rational thinking.
To clarify, my probabilistic assessment is that increasing rational thinking would result in at least some degree of decreasing social stigma. Your thoughts?
I don’t know why it would. Social stigma is basically the expression of the they-are-from-a-different-tribe feeling. Becoming more rational does not necessarily lead to less tribalism.
I think we may have a different take on the term social stigma. Per the common usage of that word, as well as the way it is used by researchers such as Erving Goffman, I generally perceive things such as sexual orientation and gender identity as part of what is referred to by social stigma. To me it seems that gaining greater rationality is generally associated with less ugh fields around sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as relationship styles such as polyamory. I accept that we may have a difference of opinion, however.
I think that’s a strawman. I haven’t meet anyone who argued that the entry barrier of learning all the jargon is important.
The main problem is that giving someone a rationality mug and a rationality T-Shirt doesn’t mean that you have raised the sanity line.
Videos are often great for teaching people buzzwords. I have seen smart people accept pretty stupid ideas that spread through Youtube videos. Videos that actually promote critical thinking are aren’t clear and concise.
If you want to reach a broad public I’m not sure that articles advocating polyamory are the most efficient way to do so.
“How Do You Live Happily Ever After When There’s A Love Triangle?” This sounds like a title that would neither make me want to read the article when it goes over my facebook news feed nor be great for SEO.
The article also doesn’t engage deeply with the topic. A lot of people do feel jealousy and that’s a concern when you want to guide them towards polyamory. On LW we talk about the value of steelmanning opposing arguments and that most issues have good arguments on both sides.
Asking for dark art techniques to promote the project is a strategic choice. It signals not seeing truth as a high value. That might be a bad strategic choice for promoting rationality.
I have read plenty of opinions about LW which start with “they have this weird jargon...”
That’s not the same thing as people saying: “We need to keep our weird jargon to filter out people who don’t fit.”
I think there was a misunderstanding about the nature of my comments about jargon. The sentiment I heard expressed was not that “we need to keep our weird jargon to filter out people who don’t fit,” but that “it is necessary to have the jargon because otherwise we won’t be able to say things precisely and will not be able to communicate efficiently” with the implication that those who don’t want to learn the jargon don’t deserve the benefits of Less Wrong. For examples of this sentiment expressed on LW, see the comments to this post.
Hm, I actually met several people who argued that those not dedicated to learning the LW jargon don’t deserve the benefits. I guess we meet different people.
The rationality merchandise is not aimed at the broad audience primarily, but for donors who would like to support our work.
Regarding your comment about the video, I notice I’m confused, did you mean to say this video on evaluating reality clearly that I cited in the post as part of our offerings is meant to teach people buzzwords and spread stupid ideas? Can you clarify where in the video you noticed those? We’d be glad to optimize our offerings based on feedback.
About the article on polyamory: the goal of that article is not to advocate polyamory, but to encourage people to consider it as an acceptable relationship style—the salient phrase in the article is “encourage an openness toward poly relationships as one among many relationship styles.” At Intentional Insights we aim to contribute to de-stigmatizing polyamory and promoting thinking about relationships rationally in general.
I agree that asking for dark arts is a strategic choice. In this case, I think the ends do justify the means. It’s a balance we all draw differently, and I accept that you may draw it differently than we do.
I follow debates about the topic when they are on LW and I don’t remember that position to have been argued in that way on LW. If you do, could you link?
When people usually talk about producing videos they don’t mean lecture recordings but things optimized to be easy to digest.
Even for a lecture recording your video is full of distracting camera movements and not optimized to be easy to digest.
Your goal doesn’t really matter. It will be read by an average person as advocating polyamory. If you see de-stigmatizing polyamory as part of your mission, it seems to me that you lack strategic focus. You try to do everything you can think of.
Additionally running an NGO to try to remove social stigma conjures certain associations that are quite different from what I expect an NGO who effectively spreads rationality to do.
When I think about “thinking rationally about relationships” I think about more complex thoughts than simply observing that if “Bob is glad to accept Mary’s desire to have a romantic relationship with John” there will be less conflict.
That’s not my main concern. Promoting values that you visible don’t follow yourself is a recipe for messing up. That leads to not steelmanning because not steelmanning is easier.
Appreciate your thoughts about the video, we will work on better camera equipment and technique. As you can envision, we are a new nonprofit, and our current financing prevents us from being able to get the best video equipment and production. However, I hope you’ll agree that this video is better than not doing anything at all to raise the sanity waterline and we aim to get better over time :-)
Hm, I am curious about that statement. I would envision that spreading rationality would inherently involve removing certain social stigma because it would result in people thinking more rationally, and much social stigma is associated with not-very-rational thinking.
Much social stigma is associated with different values and rationality by itself does not change (terminal) values.
To clarify, my probabilistic assessment is that increasing rational thinking would result in at least some degree of decreasing social stigma. Your thoughts?
I don’t know why it would. Social stigma is basically the expression of the they-are-from-a-different-tribe feeling. Becoming more rational does not necessarily lead to less tribalism.
Rationality and values are mostly orthogonal.
I think we may have a different take on the term social stigma. Per the common usage of that word, as well as the way it is used by researchers such as Erving Goffman, I generally perceive things such as sexual orientation and gender identity as part of what is referred to by social stigma. To me it seems that gaining greater rationality is generally associated with less ugh fields around sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as relationship styles such as polyamory. I accept that we may have a difference of opinion, however.