The supermajority of the people that I interact with, in person and online, are people who were influenced by that book, and like me, make substantial life decisions on the bases of associated arguments. Many of them likewise interact largely with other people who were influenced by that book.
Even stronger than that, people of this category are densely socially connected. The fact that someone identifies as “a rationalist”, is pretty strong evidence that I know them, or know of them. This is in contrast with “entrepreneurs”, for instance. Even the most well-connected entrepreneurs don’t know most of the people who identify as entrepreneurs. Dito for “people with IQs over 120”, and biologists.
Why wouldn’t I draw a boundary around that cluster of people, and attempt interventions on that cluster in particular?
It seems to me that the “rationality community” is both a natural category, and a useful category.
But perhaps you’re claiming that I should use this category, but I shouldn’t give it the label of “rationality”, because then I’m I’m making the connotation (to myself) that this group is unusually rational?
The supermajority of the people that I interact with, in person and online, are people who were influenced by that book, and like me, make substantial life decisions on the bases of associated arguments. Many of them likewise interact largely with other people who were influenced by that book.
Even stronger than that, people of this category are densely socially connected. The fact that someone identifies as “a rationalist”, is pretty strong evidence that I know them, or know of them. This is in contrast with “entrepreneurs”, for instance. Even the most well-connected entrepreneurs don’t know most of the people who identify as entrepreneurs. Dito for “people with IQs over 120”, and biologists.
Why wouldn’t I draw a boundary around that cluster of people, and attempt interventions on that cluster in particular?
It seems to me that the “rationality community” is both a natural category, and a useful category.
But perhaps you’re claiming that I should use this category, but I shouldn’t give it the label of “rationality”, because then I’m I’m making the connotation (to myself) that this group is unusually rational?