Because when you are talking to someone, presumably you want to communicate some meaning and saying “I’m a rationalist” communicates very little. The normal response would be “What does that mean?”
Or you come off as an arrogant snob. That’s why I don’t think I would ever say to someone “I’m a rationalist”, it kind of sounds like “I only think correct thoughts.”
I think “aspiring rationalist” has basically the same problems, because the word (as Lumifer mentioned) doesn’t carry a lot of meaning, and in this case “aspiring” doesn’t specify what kind of rationalism we’re talking about.
In my brain I still think of LW-type rationalists as “Bayesian rationalists”, and I’ll probably continue to use that label at least mentally for the time being. It’s not that much better, but it at least conveys that we’re not simply claiming that we think correctly or that we’re particularly sane people. Bayesian rationalists make a pretty hefty claim, at least relative to what is commonly believed even by philosophers (who often claim there is no well-defined concept of rationality). That claim is basically that it is possible to define rationality, and we have proof! Like, real, mathematical proof! So, whatever label you use should at least convey that there is a specific claim to be made, and that it’s not an intuitively obvious claim that all “sane” people would know. Most of rationality is in fact going against how most people think.
That’s a valid point—I suppose there’s no harm as long as one is careful. Allowing any part of your map to gain too much autonomy, however—internalizing a belief-label—is something to avoid. That’s not to say that identity is bad—there’s nothing wrong with being proud that you’re a fan of Lost, or of your sexual orientation, etc. There is, I believe, something wrong with being proud that you’re an atheist/socialist/republican/absurdist/singularitarian (etc.).
wait, what? Please describe the difference between the first acceptable identities and the second not-OK list.
I think you’re confusing the type of grouping or identity with the level of identification. acknowledging membership in a group (unsure about pride, but ignore that for now) is fine. Believing that membership is exclusive and exactly describes you is a mistake.
Because when you are talking to someone, presumably you want to communicate some meaning and saying “I’m a rationalist” communicates very little. The normal response would be “What does that mean?”
Or you come off as an arrogant snob. That’s why I don’t think I would ever say to someone “I’m a rationalist”, it kind of sounds like “I only think correct thoughts.”
Good point—“aspiring rationalist”, perhaps?
I think “aspiring rationalist” has basically the same problems, because the word (as Lumifer mentioned) doesn’t carry a lot of meaning, and in this case “aspiring” doesn’t specify what kind of rationalism we’re talking about.
In my brain I still think of LW-type rationalists as “Bayesian rationalists”, and I’ll probably continue to use that label at least mentally for the time being. It’s not that much better, but it at least conveys that we’re not simply claiming that we think correctly or that we’re particularly sane people. Bayesian rationalists make a pretty hefty claim, at least relative to what is commonly believed even by philosophers (who often claim there is no well-defined concept of rationality). That claim is basically that it is possible to define rationality, and we have proof! Like, real, mathematical proof! So, whatever label you use should at least convey that there is a specific claim to be made, and that it’s not an intuitively obvious claim that all “sane” people would know. Most of rationality is in fact going against how most people think.
That’s a valid point—I suppose there’s no harm as long as one is careful. Allowing any part of your map to gain too much autonomy, however—internalizing a belief-label—is something to avoid. That’s not to say that identity is bad—there’s nothing wrong with being proud that you’re a fan of Lost, or of your sexual orientation, etc. There is, I believe, something wrong with being proud that you’re an atheist/socialist/republican/absurdist/singularitarian (etc.).
wait, what? Please describe the difference between the first acceptable identities and the second not-OK list.
I think you’re confusing the type of grouping or identity with the level of identification. acknowledging membership in a group (unsure about pride, but ignore that for now) is fine. Believing that membership is exclusive and exactly describes you is a mistake.