Longtime lurker, more recent commenter. I see a lot of rationality-type posters on Twitter and in the past couple of years became aware of “post-rationalists.” It’s somewhat ill-defined but essentially they are former rationalists who are more accepting of “woo” to be vague about it. My question is: 1) What level of engagement is there (if any) between rationalists and post-rationalists and 2) Is there anyone who dabbled or full on claimed post-rationalist positions and then reverted back to rationalists positions? What was that journey like and what made you switch between these beliefs?
One aspect of LessWrongers is that they often tend to hold positions that are very complex. If you think that there are a bunch of positions that are rationalist and a bunch of positions that are post-rationalist and there are two camps that each hold the respective positions, you miss a lot of what rationalism is about.
You will find people at LessWrong from whom doing rituals like the Solstice events or doing Circling (which for example people at CFAR did a lot) feels too woo. Yet, CFAR was the primer organization for the development of rationality and for the in person community the Winter Solstice event is a central feature.
In the recent LessWrong Community Weekend in Europe, Anna Riedl give the keynote speech about 4E-rationality. You could call 4E-rationality post-rational, in the sense that it moves past the view of rationality you find in the sequences on LessWrong.
From my observations it’s fairly common for post-rationalists to go to rationalist events and vice-versa, so there’s at least engagement on the level of waving hello in the lunchroom. There’s enough overlap in identification that some people people in both categories read each other’s blogs, and the essays that wind up at the intersection of both interests will have some back and forth in the comments. Are you looking for something more substantial than that?
I can’t think of any reverting rationalists off the top of my head, though they might well be out there.
I am interested in learning more about this, but not sure what “woo” means; after googling, is it right to interpret as “unconventional beliefs” of some sort?
It’s short for “woo-woo”, a derogatory term skeptics use for magical thinking.
I think the word originates as onomatopoeia from the haunting woo-woo Theremin sounds played in black-and-white horror films when the ghost was about to appear. It’s what the “supernatural” sounds like, I guess.
It’s not about the belief being unconventional as much as it being irrational. Just because we don’t understand how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work (it just probably doesn’t), but we can still call your reasons for thinking so invalid. A classic skeptic might dismiss anything associated categorically, but rationalists judge by the preponderance of the evidence. Some superstitions are valid. Prescientific cultures may still have learned true things, even if they can’t express them well to outsiders.
Ah thanks. Do you know why these former rationalists were “more accepting” of irrational thinking? And to be extremely clear, does “irrational” here mean not following one’s preference with their actions, and not truth seeking when forming beliefs?
Hello,
Longtime lurker, more recent commenter. I see a lot of rationality-type posters on Twitter and in the past couple of years became aware of “post-rationalists.” It’s somewhat ill-defined but essentially they are former rationalists who are more accepting of “woo” to be vague about it. My question is: 1) What level of engagement is there (if any) between rationalists and post-rationalists and 2) Is there anyone who dabbled or full on claimed post-rationalist positions and then reverted back to rationalists positions? What was that journey like and what made you switch between these beliefs?
One aspect of LessWrongers is that they often tend to hold positions that are very complex. If you think that there are a bunch of positions that are rationalist and a bunch of positions that are post-rationalist and there are two camps that each hold the respective positions, you miss a lot of what rationalism is about.
You will find people at LessWrong from whom doing rituals like the Solstice events or doing Circling (which for example people at CFAR did a lot) feels too woo. Yet, CFAR was the primer organization for the development of rationality and for the in person community the Winter Solstice event is a central feature.
In the recent LessWrong Community Weekend in Europe, Anna Riedl give the keynote speech about 4E-rationality. You could call 4E-rationality post-rational, in the sense that it moves past the view of rationality you find in the sequences on LessWrong.
From my observations it’s fairly common for post-rationalists to go to rationalist events and vice-versa, so there’s at least engagement on the level of waving hello in the lunchroom. There’s enough overlap in identification that some people people in both categories read each other’s blogs, and the essays that wind up at the intersection of both interests will have some back and forth in the comments. Are you looking for something more substantial than that?
I can’t think of any reverting rationalists off the top of my head, though they might well be out there.
I am interested in learning more about this, but not sure what “woo” means; after googling, is it right to interpret as “unconventional beliefs” of some sort?
It’s short for “woo-woo”, a derogatory term skeptics use for magical thinking.
I think the word originates as onomatopoeia from the haunting woo-woo Theremin sounds played in black-and-white horror films when the ghost was about to appear. It’s what the “supernatural” sounds like, I guess.
It’s not about the belief being unconventional as much as it being irrational. Just because we don’t understand how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work (it just probably doesn’t), but we can still call your reasons for thinking so invalid. A classic skeptic might dismiss anything associated categorically, but rationalists judge by the preponderance of the evidence. Some superstitions are valid. Prescientific cultures may still have learned true things, even if they can’t express them well to outsiders.
Ah thanks. Do you know why these former rationalists were “more accepting” of irrational thinking? And to be extremely clear, does “irrational” here mean not following one’s preference with their actions, and not truth seeking when forming beliefs?