Saying “It is important to me to be rational,” shows that it is important to me to to say “It is important for me to be rational,” so the words show most strongly that it is important to me to seem like rationality is important to me, even though the words mean that rationality is important to me.
So if I put on my business cards “I am committed to rationality”, I display a commitment to seeming to be committed to rationality, and this thing I am actually showing my commitment to is describable as “rationality”.
If I don’t have much of a commitment to rationality but do have a commitment to “rationality”, then I only have the appearance of a commitment to actual rationality. This isn’t a commitment, it is a “commitment”.
If I don’t actually put anything on my business cards and merely say it’s a good idea and that I will do it, I’m not truly committed to “rationality”, i.e. seeming rational. So I only have a false commitment to “rationality”, a “commitment” to it.
The problem with icons and other speech is that saying words with meanings merely expresses that meaning, it doesn’t embody it, though it does embody a different meaning. This is why no icon can express a commitment to rationality, only behaving in certain ways can, with behavior including speech.
If one is going to a bar, a photo ID embodies a commitment to rationality, and if one is in a cash only toll lane, money embodies a commitment to rationality; an icon designed to express rationality usually won’t embody it outside of artificial scenarios such as one in which a crazy person is going around kicking everyone without the icon.
This sounds like a whole paragraph on how “talk is cheap” and thus have little value compared to costly signaling that actually demonstrate something.
If one thinks it about in that way, a generalized community symbol doesn’t really do anything and instead what is needed something that ties directly to the user and his abilities and contributions. What would work is a piece of code that provides information on the account used in Lesswrong, other tracking tools and tests that demonstrate rationality. This may result in competition to “karma up” on the site and perhaps some perverse behaviour, but it should be controllable with good moderation.
Some part of me feels like building a customized barcode format which allows for a stylish symbol for the general community that also provides customized information for each user, but that is likely overkill al the moment.
I agree with everything you say here, except maybe your last paragraph.
I also note that when you say ” “rationality” ” you refer to signaling rationality, which is orthogonal to rationality. But when you say ” “commitment” ” you refer to only having the appearance of commitment, which is mutually exclusive with commitment.
That is, the meaning of “X” relative to X is not consistent… in one case “X” implies -X, in the other case it doesn’t.
I’m not sure this matters, but it seems like a potential source of confusion.
Sorry, I will fix that.
Saying “It is important to me to be rational,” shows that it is important to me to to say “It is important for me to be rational,” so the words show most strongly that it is important to me to seem like rationality is important to me, even though the words mean that rationality is important to me.
So if I put on my business cards “I am committed to rationality”, I display a commitment to seeming to be committed to rationality, and this thing I am actually showing my commitment to is describable as “rationality”.
If I don’t have much of a commitment to rationality but do have a commitment to “rationality”, then I only have the appearance of a commitment to actual rationality. This isn’t a commitment, it is a “commitment”.
If I don’t actually put anything on my business cards and merely say it’s a good idea and that I will do it, I’m not truly committed to “rationality”, i.e. seeming rational. So I only have a false commitment to “rationality”, a “commitment” to it.
The problem with icons and other speech is that saying words with meanings merely expresses that meaning, it doesn’t embody it, though it does embody a different meaning. This is why no icon can express a commitment to rationality, only behaving in certain ways can, with behavior including speech.
If one is going to a bar, a photo ID embodies a commitment to rationality, and if one is in a cash only toll lane, money embodies a commitment to rationality; an icon designed to express rationality usually won’t embody it outside of artificial scenarios such as one in which a crazy person is going around kicking everyone without the icon.
This sounds like a whole paragraph on how “talk is cheap” and thus have little value compared to costly signaling that actually demonstrate something.
If one thinks it about in that way, a generalized community symbol doesn’t really do anything and instead what is needed something that ties directly to the user and his abilities and contributions. What would work is a piece of code that provides information on the account used in Lesswrong, other tracking tools and tests that demonstrate rationality. This may result in competition to “karma up” on the site and perhaps some perverse behaviour, but it should be controllable with good moderation.
Some part of me feels like building a customized barcode format which allows for a stylish symbol for the general community that also provides customized information for each user, but that is likely overkill al the moment.
I agree with everything you say here, except maybe your last paragraph.
I also note that when you say ” “rationality” ” you refer to signaling rationality, which is orthogonal to rationality. But when you say ” “commitment” ” you refer to only having the appearance of commitment, which is mutually exclusive with commitment.
That is, the meaning of “X” relative to X is not consistent… in one case “X” implies -X, in the other case it doesn’t.
I’m not sure this matters, but it seems like a potential source of confusion.