Cayenne

Karma: 403

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 12:53 PM
0 points
on: Norms survey (dead)
We should encourage and support self-experimentation by our members.

Unless the experiment is obviously harming the experimenter, encouraging this will help us find more efficient ways of doing things. I think that respecting a fellow rationalist’s decision is a way of respecting their rationality as well.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 12:50 PM
1 point
in reply to: prase’s comment on: Norms survey (dead)
Norms really are a ‘should’ type of thinking. I don’t like using ‘should’ in any capacity, because it sounds like I’m telling someone what to do, but in this case that’s exactly what norms do.

It’s a high priority because of the recent posts suggesting that we adopt select practices from religions. I want to know now if I should walk away, and if any efforts I’m in the process of making are just sunk costs already. Before we start adopting things from other groups, we need to have something to compare them to so that we can make sure that there aren’t hidden conflicts. In general, isn’t writing things down a way to avoid or expose biases?

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 12:28 PM
−1 points
in reply to: AdeleneDawner’s comment on: Norms survey (dead)
Not lying to each other sounds like a very good one.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 12:22 PM
5 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves
Some of it is difficult to pull apart into clear thought, but I’ll try.

I don’t want to have a list of groups I have to hate to belong. I don’t want to have someone trying to control my behavior by defining things as ‘sin’. I don’t want to be told ‘we love you, we just don’t like your actions’, when it’s clear that there is no love involved in any case. I don’t want to have to remember people and feel sorry that they’re part of a malignant memeplex, and that I can’t do anything to help them. I don’t want to dread going to a meet because I don’t fit in.

No, I really don’t like the LDS church. That’s probably never going to change, though I’ll try not to influence others’ decisions on the matter. I don’t hate the members, I just feel sad when I think of them, and of my ex-family.

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 12:07 PM
0 points
in reply to: AdeleneDawner’s comment on: Norms survey (dead)
Oh, so it isn’t. Oops. Hm.

Norms do usually contain taboos, but there isn’t any particular reason that we have to. Should that category be deleted, or do we have things that we think should be taboo?

One that springs to mind as a possibility would be the use of the Dark Arts.

edit—I was thinking that our list of endorsed beliefs would be slightly more basic, things like ‘rationality is worth pursuing’ or something. http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html is the small amount of norms that the LDS church has codified as an easy reference to point potential converts to, and while I don’t like the idea of converting people, being able to point to a set of beliefs that sounds boringly sane might be a good thing.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 11:52 AM
0 points
in reply to: AdeleneDawner’s comment on: Norms survey (dead)
Perhaps add a version number with a datestamp?

Rationalist taboo comes to mind, and actually updating based on evidence, and generally changing one’s behavior to match one’s beliefs. That last one seems to require a bit more give and take than just handing someone a set of rules, but I think that’s a good thing, and we could streamline the process by coming up with a list of common beliefs and behavioral implications thereof (cryo, for example).

I took the categories of the norms from this post you made earlier. The ‘updating based on evidence’ seemed more like a skill than a belief, and the other two categories you mention explicitly. If they end up not being a useful division, then they’ll end up getting changed. I don’t have any investment in them.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 11:46 AM
0 points
in reply to: mendel’s comment on: The 5-Second Level
Mostly I don’t even feel frustration, but instead sadness. I’d like to be able to help, but sometimes the best I can do is just be patient and try to explain clearly, and always immediately abandon my arguments if I find that I’m the one with the error.

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 11:42 AM
1 point
in reply to: sixes_and_sevens’s comment on: Norms survey (dead)
Both of these seem true. Making our norms rigid will decrease our ability to adapt, and codifying them will make them harder to change.

If the group consensus ends up determining that this isn’t a worthwhile endeavor, then I’ll delete the article and if anyone wishes to contact me I’ll apologize for the wasted time involved.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 11:31 AM
0 points
in reply to: sixes_and_sevens’s comment on: Norms survey (dead)
It doesn’t have to happen often to cumulatively waste more time than this process will take.

Another reason to do this is that it will give us something very easy to point people to when they ask us ‘what is a rationalist, anyway?’

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 11:24 AM
0 points
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves
It seems that the proper answer to this is to develop our norms in a rational manner, and reject arbitrary norms that have no purpose.
Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 11:19 AM
−4 points
on: Norms survey (dead)
We should have a clear and concise list of our norms.

This will give us a clearer picture of what is expected of us, by us.
‘Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group. This sociological term has been defined as “the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit.’ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology)

Without explicit norms, we invite debates over exactly what a ‘real’ rationalist should believe, and whether or not any specific person might qualify. This seems like it would just waste our time, and the time spent in codifying our norms seems like it would be small in comparison.

Norms survey (dead)

CayenneMay 10, 2011, 11:01 AM

1 point

71 comments1 min readLW link

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 10:49 AM
10 points
in reply to: AdeleneDawner’s comment on: Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves
Well, to be slightly more clear, I am trans-gender. This is a sin in the LDS church, since the surgeries and hormones ‘desecrate my temple’ (temple == body). There is a limit to how much discrimination against ANY group I can stand before I leave, even if that group is ‘those people that want to kill us because we don’t believe in their god’.

At the same time, I really dislike the idea that I might be keeping a group from succeeding by giving negative input. I’m fairly likely to just withdraw without much fanfare if I decide that that is what’s happening, since I hate drama and making a scene about something like that would feel like an attempted hostage situation. Just no.

Since I believe in the ‘step-forward’ method of getting things done, I’ll start a discussion now to try to codify our norms.

Edit—please disregard this post, especially the last part. Empirical testing shows that I am not good at this kind of thing.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 10:04 AM
9 points
in reply to: AdeleneDawner’s comment on: Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves
It’s not a knee-jerk reaction, but more like a visceral rejection. The thought of this community becoming something with the feel of the church I grew up in makes me feel sick, and if it happened I would walk away and never look back. This is certainly a bias, but I would still do it.

We need to have a clear and concise list of taboos, skills, and beliefs that we want to make into norms, and then the whole community has to talk them over and make sure that we really, really want to make them into our norms. If we’re going to start adopting practices from other groups, I believe this should be our highest priority.

Edit—please disregard this, it’s needlessly prescriptive.

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 9:49 AM
2 points
in reply to: Jordan’s comment on: Scholarship: How to Do It Efficiently
An ‘open-source science’ original-research version of Wikipedia, perhaps? With everything explicitly licensed under an attribution-required copyright?

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 9:45 AM
−1 points
on: Scholarship: How to Do It Efficiently
This seems to be focused mostly on scientific research in specific fields. Do you have strategies for learning more general, lower-level skills such as essay-writing, report-writing, math, or programming?

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 9:23 AM
4 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves
I’m not interested in making this into a church-like group either. Some norms are useful (e.g. respond to words with words and never ever with bullets), while others (you must marry a rationalist? you must never do $list-of-sins or else?) would be abhorrent to me.

Helping people is a good goal to have. Regimenting their lives is not a goal I find appealing at all. I have enough trouble with my own life, why would I want to be in charge of other’s lives too? Ick!

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 9:10 AM
3 points
in reply to: MartinB’s comment on: Building rationalist communities: lessons from the Latter-day Saints
In some ways, my ‘Insufficiently Awesome’ project is a fork. I’m going to be concentrating on community-building, helping people to become effective physically and socially, and most importantly having fun. I’m not ever going to be one of the ‘first-tier’ rationalists, and I view a contribution on the supporting side to be my most effective plan of action.

I’m not going to try to pull people away from LW. Instead, I’m going to try to form a group that is fun enough that people not already in LW join it, and possibly get interested in joining the main community.

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 9:03 AM
6 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Building rationalist communities: lessons from the Latter-day Saints
I’m not sure that we should adopt any kind of dress code at all, other than not offending the fashion sense of others inadvertently. Perhaps something small, like a sigil that people could wear as jewelry would be sufficient?

Branding ourselves should only be done after we become an effective group, and one that is admired. We want to be known as ‘those sensible people that get things done’, not ‘that group of nerds that talks way too much about how my thinking sucks’. Eventually we’d like everyone to aspire to rationality, not just the people that test over some arbitrary IQ score.

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne May 10, 2011, 8:55 AM
5 points
in reply to: atucker’s comment on: Building rationalist communities: lessons from the Latter-day Saints

Like, I know the Dark Arts would be bad for rationalists to exploit, but I’m not sure that it would necessarily be less effective at introducing people to rationality.

A ‘defense against the Dark Arts’ focus might be a good way to implement this. Come join us and find a way to protect yourself from the worst parts of marketing and manipulation.

Edit—please disregard this post

Cayenne

Norms sur­vey (dead)

Norms survey (dead)