What’s the exact wording and origin of the “when you don’t know what to choose, choose power” quote?
Bound_up
Karma: 526
I’m looking for a piece in the rationalist sphere, I think from 2018.
The section I remember talks about how if someone asks you what you’re watching on TV, that updates your model of the world in several simultaneous ways, some true and some not. The point of the piece is that you can’t “just tell the truth.” No matter what you do or say, you will update people in the correct way, but also update people in other incorrect ways.
I thought it was called “You can’t just tell the truth” or “The Impossibility of Just Telling the Truth” or something like this, but I’m not finding anything
That’s a fine point! I think I understand pretty well why there’s usually not sexual attraction between people of the same sex...If you take “love” and subtract the sex part out of it, is that what a close friendship looks like, or is there more to it than that?
An important lesson. At the same time, it can go both ways, at least, when applied broadly. Maybe the nuance to include is that slowness is for training and for learning. In the moment when you want maximum output right NOW, pushing to the limit will usually out-compete going slowly. So, methodical training, to-the-limit performance
I get a lot of mileage out of using Rationalist Taboo, or out of thinking about concepts rather than about words.
All of the following hot-button questions are very easily solved using this technique. As Scott Alexander points out, you can get a reputation as a daring and original thinker just by using this one thing over and over again, one of the best Hammers in the rationality community.
What is the meaning of life?
Is Islam a religion of peace?
Is America a Christian nation?
Is Abortion murder?
But do I really love him?
Does the Constitution create a wall of separation between Church and State?
Is this what I should do?
Are transgenders really women, or men?
Was that a lie?
What is a sandwich?
I am indeed repeating myself. New descriptions and examples pointing at the same concept over and over. Is that a problem?
Warp sounds right. I’m picturing an uneven lens type of thing that exaggerates some things and diminishes others as you look through it
Thank you, he speaks about some very interesting things. It’s possible that, as you say, he has great in-person speaking power.
I’ve definitely seen exactly this in large group dynamics. In 1-on-1 conversations, or maybe even with 3 or 4 people, I’ve seen chill conversations where people regularly pause for maybe up to 10 seconds before being interrupted.
It’s probably fair to say Julia’s good. I wasn’t aware of this valentinue figure; can you recommend a video of them speaking?
I’m describing two extremes, really, so no one person embodies either extreme. The question to ask when talking to someone is not “Is this person a nerd or a normal?” but rather something more like “How nerdy vs political is this person about this topic?” and then adjust your speaking accordingly so that you can cause true beliefs
In order to cause only true beliefs, you must understand both languages and then speak in the language of your interlocutor. As long as you talk nerdy to nerds and political to politicals, I’m not sure I see how trust might break down. That seems like a perfectly sustainable dynamic to me, but one of greater appeal and more general value.
Yes, it is a sad truth that it is easier to explain a math equation to people if you’re good-looking, have a nice voice, competently play social games and other things that should be, but are not (and we must come to terms with that), irrelevant
Excellent points. My model above happens, but it’s not the only kind of argument. As usual, there’s a spectrum, and I was mostly just describing one extreme of it.
It’s also worth pointing out that logic or proper reasoning don’t weaken this kind of argument. They’re unnecessary, but if you’re well-put-together enough to use them without having to stop and think, they’ll make you seem all the more impressive. So, logic doesn’t ruin this kind of social grandstanding; it’s just not necessary
A wonderful example of this is Richard Dawkins (nerd) meeting with Bill O’Reilly (competent political player) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ&t=1m27s
The great point is when Dawkins uses a reductio ad absurdum to point that Bill’s argument proves too much, it can be used just as well for Mithras and Thor, and Bill’s response is “Man, I saw Apollo over there; he’s not doing so good. You don’t want to go with Apollo.” PERFECT example. Repulsive nonsense; perfectly effective political rejoinder.
A nerd might think that a 10-second pause before changing the subject is no better or no worse than such an absurd reply like the above, but politically, socially, there’s an immense difference. Immense. If Bill had paused, lost for words for 10 seconds, and then changed the subject, it would have made headlines and would be a famous meme to this day. The content is no different, but the content doesn’t matter; the competent BSing is different, and that’s what most people care about.
I’m not quite sure how I’ve managed to give this impression. The rank-and-file, order-repeating members of most coalitions don’t necessarily have any skills at all. Naturally, some do; some are personable and charming and creative and so on, but that’s not my point at all. Their ability to get others to join their coalition is probably just about being good representatives of their coalition, seeming nice and powerful, while also offering status to joining members, I suppose. I think of them them as completely different from the people who decide what talking points they want the group to adopt and why, who are also probably more aware of PR needs and stuff. Those are the people who actually have to know how politics works, while most people just need to know how social interaction works and then repeat what they’re told to.
Thank you for the link; I’ll check it out. Writing about this stuff has garnered a great many fascinating links :)
As for conspiracy theories, you may well be right. My first thought is that rationalists don’t make up a strong enough faction, nor do they “infect” others enough to be worth paying attention to. It’s also possible that, practically speaking, you don’t turn a lot of normal order-following people into rationalists, you only turn nerds into rationalists, which is hardly a loss worth noticing.
Speculation aside, as I said, I have no reason to think this is happening; I mention a prediction that this whole system would make (or, at least, what might superficially seem like an appropriate prediction) as a way of clarifying it, by addressing it from another angle.
I probably should have been clearer.
Good players in general are trying strengthen political coalitions in the form of political parties, special interest groups, political movements, etc. So, there’s a natural push to grow each of these groups, that is, to fill them with people who will receive orders and carry them out in the form of reciting the groups talking points.
Then, the talkings come top-down, and are designed to use those groups, and the order-following, talking points-reciting pawns that make them up as vehicles to carry their vision, ie, the perception of the world that is warped to benefit them in some way.
As such, I wasn’t really thinking about how to make humans into adults that follow the “orders” of their tribe; it’s my impression that human are naturally tribe’s-order-followers, so, no need to make the schools produce them or anything like that. The effort is focused on getting those humans into your tribe rather than into one of your competitors.
Oh, and the difficult part is to realize that the status-maximizing answers resemble descriptions of reality, so you have to be careful about interpretation, and remember to consider the status-maximizing hypothesis when you hear someone giving logically contradictory answers without caring to fix the contradictions when they find them.
“once those things get a little bit smart they’re not going to stop at a little bit smart for very long they’re gonna be unbelievably smart like overnight. ”
Celebrity opinions count for something in ways that expert opinions do not. They seem to reach more people, for one thing. That’s partially because people just accept what celebrities say because they admire them, but it seems to me that it’s also because celebrities tend to find ways of expressing the essence of ideas that are more accessible to laypeople.
Anyway, for whatever the reason, celebrities who openly express their opinions can make a difference, and I think we should celebrate when one of them gets something right and is willing to talk about it.