Oh, okay, I found that a confusing way to communicate that? But thanks for clarifying. I will update my comment so that it doesn’t make you sound like you did something very dismissive.
I feel embarrassed by this misinterpretation, and the implied state of mind I was in. But I believe it is an honest reflection about something in my state of mind, around this subject. Sigh.
But I think it’s pretty important that people be able to do these kind of checks, for the purpose of updating their world model, without needing to fully boot up personal caring modules as if you were a friend they had an obligation to take care of. There are wholesome generators that would lead to this kind of conversation, and having this kind of conversation is useful to a bunch of wholesome goals.
There is a chance we don’t have a disagreement, and there is a chance we do.
In brief, to see if there’s a crux anywhere in here:
Don’t need ppl to boot up ‘care as a friend’ module.
Do believe compassion should be the motivation behind these conversations, even if not friends, where compassion = treats people as real and relationships as real.
So it matters if the convo is like (A) “I care about the world, and doing good in the world, and knowing about Renshin’s sanity is about that, at the base. I will use this information for good, not for evil.” Ideally the info is relevant to something they’re responsible for, so that it’s somewhat plausible the info would be useful and beneficial.
Versus (B) “I’m just idly curious about it, but I don’t need to know and if it required real effort to know, I wouldn’t bother. It doesn’t help me or anyone to know it. I just want to eat it like I crave a potato chip. I want satisfaction, stimulation, or to feel ‘I’m being productive’ even if it’s not truly so, and I am entitled to feel that just b/c I want to. I might use the info in a harmful way later, but I don’t care. I am not really responsible for info I take in or how I use info.”
And I personally think the whole endeavor of modeling the world should be for the (A) motive and not the (B) motive, and that taking in any-and-all information isn’t, like, neutral or net-positive by default. People should endeavor to use their intelligence, their models, and their knowledge for good, not for evil or selfish gain or to feed an addiction to feeling a certain way.
I used a lot of ‘should’ but that doesn’t mean I think people should be punished for going against a ‘should’. It’s more like healthy cultures, imo, reinforce such norms, and unhealthy cultures fail to see or acknowledge the difference between the two sets of actions.
I had written a longer comment, illustrating how Oliver was basically committing the thing that I was complaining about and why this is frustrating.
The shorter version:
His first paragraph is a strawman. I never said ‘take me at my word’ or anything close. And all previous statements from me and knowing anything about my stances would point to this being something I would never say, so this seems weirdly disingenuous.
His second paragraph is weirdly flimsy, implying that ppl are mostly using the literal words out of people’s mouths to determine whether they’re lying (either to others or to themselves). I would be surprised if Oliver would actually find Alice and Bob both saying “trust me i’m fine” would be ‘totally flat’ data, given he probably has to discern deception on a regular basis.
Also I’m not exactly the ‘trust me i’m fine’ type, and anyone who knows me would know that about me, if they bothered trying to remember. I have both the skill of introspection and the character trait of frankness. I would reveal plenty about my motives, aliefs, the crazier parts of me, etc. So paragraph 2 sounds like a flimsy excuse to be avoidant?
But the IMPORTANT thing is… I don’t want to argue. I wasn’t interested in that. I was hoping for something closer to perspective-taking, reconciliation, or reaching more clarity about our relational status. But I get that I was sounding argumentative. I was being openly frustrated and directing that in your general direction. Apologies for creating that tension.
The ‘endless list’ comment wasn’t about you, it was a more ‘general you’. Sorry that wasn’t clear. I edited stuff out and then that became unclear.
I mostly wanted to point at something frustrating for me, in the hopes that you or others would, like, get something about my experience here. To show how trapped this process is, on my end.
I don’t need you to fix it for me. I don’t need you to change.
I don’t need you to take me for my word. You are welcome to write me off, it’s your choice.
I just wanted to show how I am and why.
FTR, the reason I am engaging with LW at all, like right now…
I’m not that interested in preserving or saving MAPLE’s shoddy reputation with you guys.
But I remain deeply devoted to the rationalists, in my heart. And I’m impacted by what you guys do. A bunch of my close friends are among you. And… you’re engaging in this world situation, which impacts all of us. And I care about this group of people in general. I really feel a kinship here I haven’t felt anywhere else. I can relax around this group in a way I can’t elsewhere.
I concern myself with your norms, your ethical conduct, etc. I wish well for you, and wish you to do right by yourselves, each other, and the world. The way you conduct yourselves has big implications. Big implications for impacts to me, my friends, the world, the future of the world.
You’ve chosen a certain level of global-scale responsibility, and so I’m going to treat you like you’re AT THAT LEVEL. The highest possible levels with a very high set of expectations. I hold myself AT LEAST to that high of a standard, to be honest, so it’s not hypocritical.
And you can write me off, totally. No problem.
But in my culture, friends concern themselves with their friends’ conduct. And I see you as friends. More or less.
If you write me off (and you know me personally), please do me the honor of letting me know. Ideally to my face. If you don’t feel you are gonna do that / don’t owe me that, then it would help me to know that also.
so okay i’m actually annoyed by a thing… lemme see if i can articulate it.
I clearly have orders of magnitude more of the relevant evidence to ascertain a claim about MAPLE’s chances of producing ‘crazy’ ppl as you’ve defined—and much more even than most MAPLE people (both current and former).
Plus I have much of the relevant evidence about my own ability to discern the truth (which includes all the feedback I’ve received, the way people generally treat me, who takes me seriously, how often people seem to want to back away from me or tune me out when I start talking, etc etc).
A bunch of speculators, with relatively very little evidence about either, come out with very strong takes on both of the above, and don’t seem to want to take into account EITHER of the above facts, but instead find it super easy to dismiss any of the evidence that comes from people with the relevant data. Because of said ‘possibility they are crazy’.
And so there is almost no way out of this stupid box,; this does not incline me to try to share any evidence I have, and in general, reasonable people advise me against it. And I’m of the same opinion. It’s a trap to try.
It is both easy and an attractor for ppl to take anything I say and twist it into more evidence for THEIR biased or speculative ideas, and to take things I say as somehow further evidence that I’ve just been brainwashed. And then they take me less seriously. Which then further disinclines me to share any of my evidence. And so forth.
This is not a sane, productive, and working epistemic process? As far as I can tell?
Literally I was like “I have strong evidence” and Ben’s inclination was to say “strong evidence is easy to come by / is everywhere” and links to a relevant LW article, somehow dismissing everything I said previously and might say in the future with one swoop. It effectively shut me down.
And I’m like.…
what is this “epistemic process” ya’ll are engaged in
[Edit: I misinterpreted Ben’s meaning. He was saying the opposite of what I thought he meant. Sorry, Ben. Another case of ‘better wrong than vague’ for me. 😅]
To me, it looks like [ya’ll] are using a potentially endless list of back-pocket heuristics and ‘points’ to justify what is convenient for you to continue believing. And it really seems like it has a strong emotional / feeling component that is not being owned.
[edit: you → ya’ll to make it clearer this isn’t about Oliver]
I sense a kind of self-protection or self-preservation thing. Like there’s zero chance of getting access to the true Alief in there. That’s why this is pointless for me.
Also, a lot of online talk about MAPLE is sooo far from realistic that it would, in fact, make me sound crazy to try to refute it. A totally nonsensical view is actually weirdly hard to counter, esp if the people aren’t being very intellectually honest AND the people don’t care enough to make an effort or stick through it all the way to the end.
Anonymized paraphrase of a question someone asked about me (reported to me later, by the person who was being asked the question):
I have a prior about people who go off to monasteries sometimes going nuts, is Renshin nuts?
The person being asked responded “nah” and the question-asker was like “cool”
I think this sort of exchange might be somewhat commonplace or normal in the sphere.
I personally didn’t feel angry, offended, or sad to hear about this exchange, but I don’t feel the person asking the question was asking out of concern or care for me, as a person. But rather to get a quick update for their world model or something. And my “taste” about this is a “bad” taste. I don’t currently have time to elaborate but may later.
Ideas I’m interested in playing with:
experiment with using this feature for one-on-one coaching / debugging; I’d be happy to help anyone with their current bugs… (I suspect video call is the superior medium but shrug, maybe there will be benefits to this way)
talk about our practice together (if you have a ‘practice’ and know what that means)
Topics I’d be interested in exploring:
Why meditation? Should you meditate? (I already meditate, a lot. I don’t think everyone should “meditate”. But everyone would benefit from something like “a practice” that they do regularly. Where ‘practice’ I’m using in an extremely broad sense and can include rationality practices.)
Is there anything I don’t do that you think I should do?
How to develop collective awakening through technology
How to promote, maintain, develop, etc. ethical thoughts, speech, and action through technology
I think the thing I’m attempting to point out is:
If I hold myself to satisfying A&C’s criterion here, I am basically:
a) strangleholding myself on how to share information about Nonlinear in public
b) possibly overcommitting myself to a certain level of work that may not be worth it or desirable
c) implicitly biasing the process towards coming out with a strong case against Nonlinear (with a lower-level quality of evidence, or evidence to the contrary, being biased against)
I would update if it turns out A&C was actually fine with Ben coming to the (open, public) conclusion that A&C’s claims were inaccurate, unfounded, or overblown, but it didn’t sound like that was okay with them based on the article above, and they weren’t open to that sort of conclusion. It sounded like they needed the outcome to be a pretty airtight case against Nonlinear.
Anyway that’s … probably all I will say on this point.
I am grateful for you, Ben, and the effort you put into this, as it shows your care, and I do think the community will benefit from the work. I am concerned about your well-being and health and time expenditure, but it seems like you have a sense for how to handle things going forward.
I am into setting firm boundaries and believe it’s a good skill to cultivate. I get that it is not always a popular option and may cause people to not like me. :P
it seemed to me Alice and Chloe would be satisfied to share a post containing accusations that were received as credible.
This is a horrible constraint to put on an epistemic process. You cannot, ever, guarantee the reaction to these claims, right? Isn’t this a little like writing the bottom line first?
If it were me in this position, I would have been like:
Sorry Alice & Chloe, but the goal of an investigation like this is not to guarantee a positive reaction for your POV, from the public. The goal is to reveal what is actually true about the situation. And if you aren’t willing to share your story with the public in that case, then that is your choice, and I respect that. But know that this may have negative consequences as well, for instance, on future people who Nonlinear works with. But if it turns out that your side of the story is false or exaggerated or complicated by other factors (such as the quality of your character), then it would be best for everyone if I could make that clear as well. It would not serve the truth to go into this process by having already ‘chosen a winner’ or ‘trying to make sure people care enough’ or something like this.
Neither here nor there:
I am sympathetic to “getting cancelled.” I often feel like people are cancelled in some false way (or a way that leaves people with a false model), and it’s not very fair. Mobs don’t make good judges. Even well-meaning, rationalist ones. I feel this way about basically everyone who’s been ‘cancelled’ by this community. Truth and compassion were never fully upheld as the highest virtue, in the end. Justice was never, imo, served, but often used as an excuse for victims to evade taking personal responsibility for something and for rescuers to have something to do. But I still see the value in going through a ‘cancelling’ process, for everyone involved, and so I’m not saying to avoid it either. It just sucks, and I get it.
That said, the people who are ‘cancelled’ tend to be stubborn hard-heads about it, and their own obstinacy tends to lead further to an even more extreme downfall. It’s like some suicidal part of them kicks in, and drives the knife in deeper without anyone’s particular help.
I agree it’s good to never just give into mob justice, but for your own souls to not take damage, try not to clench. It’s not worth protecting it, whatever it happens to be.
Save your souls. Not your reputation.
After reading more of the article, I have a better sense of this context that you mention. It would be interesting to see Nonlinear’s response to the accusations because they seem pretty shameful, as is.
I would actively advise against anyone working with Kat / Emerson, not without serious demonstration of reformation and, like, values-level shifts.
If Alice is willing to stretch the truth about her situation (for any reason) or outright lie in order to enact harsher punishment on others, even as a victim of abuse, I would be mistrustful of her story. And so far I am somewhat mistrustful of Alice and very mistrustful of Kat / Emerson.
Also, even if TekhneMakre’s take is what in fact happened, it doesn’t give Alice a total pass in that particular situation, to me. I get that it’s hard to be clear-headed and brave when faced with potentially hostile or adversarial people, but I think it’s still worth trying to be. I don’t expect anyone to be brave, but I also don’t treat anyone as totally helpless, even if the cards are stacked against them.
These texts have weird vibes from both sides. Something is off all around.
That said, what I’m seeing: A person failed to uphold their own boundaries or make clear their own needs. Instead of taking responsibility for that, they blame the other person for some sort of abuse.
This is called playing the victim. I don’t buy it.
I think it would generally be helpful if people were informed by the Drama Triangle when judging cases like these.
this is a good question
thanks for asking it
curious how much you know about koan traditions and practices. this article is like an interesting mix of koan practice and analytical meditation.
I have way more to say on this subject now. It’s actually a huge topic, with many parts.
If I were going to teach a curriculum about this, that curriculum would include:
Why do I not want to get out of bed in the mornings?
Shoulding vs Serving
Eros vs Ego
What am I identifying with? How does that affect my life?
Blue pill vs Red pill moment—continuity break
Initiation into the unknown
What am I here to serve? What am I here to live according to? Personal life missions
Vow work
Resting vs Collapsing
Places where I don’t honor myself
What’s a boundary?
Forgiveness
Internal vs External (Spiritual orientation vs material orientation)
Am I willing to change my life? - continuity break
“Having a practice”—My life as Training
Possible paths forward—intro to different spiritual lineages and paths
Finding a teacher, if you want
Using everyone and everything as a teacher
Creating the new vow
I am probably not fully qualified to teach this curriculum, but if you are interested, let me know. I think I could do one-on-one work with a few people. Everyone’s gotta start somewhere.
I have different hypotheses / framings. I will offer them. If you wish to discuss any of them in more detail, please reach out to me via email or PM. Happy to converse. !
//
Mythical/Archetypal take:
There are large-scale, old, and powerful egregores fighting over the minds of individuals and collectives. They are not always very friendly to human interests or values. In some cases, they are downright evil. (I’d claim the Marxist egregore is a pretty destructive one.)
The damage done by these egregores is multigenerational. It didn’t start with just THIS generation. Shit started before any of us was born.
It’s kind of like the Iliad. Petty, powerful gods fighting over some nonsense; humans get caught in the hurricane-sized effects; chaos ensues. Sometimes humans become willing to sacrifice their souls to these egregores in exchange for the promise of power, wealth, security, sex, etc.
It’s not just unusual people like Ziz who might do this. Pretty normal-seeming, happy-seeming people have sacrificed their souls to certain egregores (e.g. progressivism, humanism, etc) and become mouthpieces for the egregores’ values and agendas. When you try to have conversations with these people, it’s like they’re not speaking from their true beliefs or actual internal experience. They’ve become living propaganda.
The rationalist / EA community attracts plenty of ‘egregore activity’ because of their concentration of intelligent, resourceful, good-hearted people. They are valuable to control. They’re also near the center of the actual narrative, the fight for humanity’s soul and evolutionary direction. They are particularly vulnerable to egregore activity because of high rates of trauma and disembodiment and strong ideological bent, making them relatively easy to manipulate.
OK, but how does one properly defend against these huge forces, tossing humans around like rag dolls?
The main trick is embodiment. Being totally in the body, basically all the time. An integrated person, integration between heart, mind, body, and soul. Resolving and overcoming any addictions to anything, including seemingly innocuous ones. Resolving and healing trauma as much as possible (which is an ongoing journey). Finding a deeper, more fundamental happiness and peace that can’t be disturbed by any external circumstance (thus, no longer being subject to temptations for power, wealth, security, relationship, or sense pleasure).
//
Main other story:
Some people made some really bad choices.
Integrity isn’t something that happens to you. You have to choose it and choose it again. If you fail to choose it, and then fail to recognize and reconcile the error… and keep failing to choose it… that path leads to more slippage and things can spiral out of control.
Ziz made certain choices, and that had consequences. Ziz didn’t reform. Ziz didn’t apologize. Ziz kept digging that hole. That negative-spiral path erodes one’s ability to see what’s happening and can lead to deep insanity.
A person’s moral system does not thrive under a guilty conscience. It gets unbearable. And you just have to keep hurting more people to justify it to yourself, and to temporarily escape the pain. This is what happens when one isn’t willing to feel remorse, grieve, and acknowledge the damage they’ve caused. It becomes hell on earth for you, and you create hell on earth for others.
Whatever hypothesis you come up with, don’t absolve the individuals of their moral responsibility to avoid evil actions. It gets this bad when people fuck up that badly. Not due merely to external circumstances or internal drives like ‘wanting to belong’. Regardless of any of that, they made choices, and they didn’t have to make those choices.
//
I could probably find more hypotheses, but I will stop there! :0 Thanks for reading.
This question points at the mystery of this phenomenon! That’s part of my investigation. I’m not totally sure what exactly would be lost, but it sure seems like there is something.
Hard to go into it further without a live, real-time example. But maybe you’ll run into some examples in your own life.
Try observing when two people seem to be in an intractable communication. Or in a long-term estrangement. Why are they unwilling to take the perspective of the other person? Unwilling to even try to model them?
In some cases, it’s just that they’re holding too tightly onto their own frame (e.g. taking something as personal that wasn’t personal), in a way that is obviously unhelpful and counterproductive. And you may see how their frame is wrong or misguided.
But in the more interesting cases, it’s like a deeper philosophical or existential clash? Again they might be holding their frame more tightly than they strictly need to, but it seems like something critical would be lost if they let go and tried on the other person, even for a second. What is this? This is my inquiry.
Your attempt to break down the Circling skill is creating a good example of the original problem at hand.
I notice a fracture between my frame of Circling and your frame of it. The gap is not all that bad, as far as I can tell. Like, bridging seems fairly plausible (rather than totally impossible, as it seems in certain situations). But also, it seems like it might take quite a bit of work to bridge with appropriate fidelity.
IMO a sloppy, imprecise, or agreeable person might be willing to interpret your version as a ‘basically good enough’ translation of Circling practice into rationalist terminology… and consider them basically describing the same thing in the end.
But I’m not willing to compromise the significant assumptions underneath my frame, and I imagine the other person shouldn’t either… at least as long as we’re both keeping track of something Real. Compromising on this seems good for coordination and harmony purposes but not good for getting to the bottom of what each of us really sees, believes, and acts in accord with.
So here, you and I might actually be able to try the technique and see what happens. ! :0
My own attempt to Taboo Circling… here is the skill breakdown:
Staying at the level of sensation. This is one of the 5 Principles in the Circling Europe school. So, the ability to not automatically go into stories but to stay present with the arising and passing of phenomena, especially based in the physical, emotional, and energetic bodies.
Sincerity. Or maybe meta-sincerity, if you like. Showing up without pretense, as much as possible. Authentic, real-time expression. (Obviously, some amount of insincerity or pretense is fine, esp if this can be held and revealed sincerely.)
Holding one’s own experiences without putting it on the other person, aka owning one’s experience, and being responsible for your nervous system responses. Avoiding victim consciousness / getting swallowed by the drama triangle. You can hold your own wounded inner children, trauma responses, etc. You don’t fall into total nervous system dysregulation when triggered. You can stay conscious and present even while activated. You take responsibility for your own reactions and don’t resort to merely blaming external circumstances.
Ability to go beyond ego. If the ego drives, then instead of just being with what is happening, the ego will attempt to do things like… turn everything that is happening into a story about the self. Or get something it wants, like validation or a sense of belonging or a pleasant experience or a novel idea. One of the main issues with the ego driving is that you will fail to see the other person as a person, instead trying to use them as a means to an end. While assuming that you ARE seeing them and treating them like a full person.
Bonus skill: You are very perceptive about what’s going on, at multiple levels. And you can turn that into articulate words. ! But if you yourself aren’t good at this, it seems fine… a third party can do this part.
Hm, neither of the motives I named include any specific concern for the person. Or any specific concern at all. Although I do think having a specific concern is a good bonus? Somehow you interpreted what I said as though there needs to be specific concerns.
RE: The bullet point on compassion… maybe just strike that bullet point. It doesn’t really affect the rest of the points.
I think I get what you’re getting at. And I feel in agreement with this sentiment. I don’t want well-intentioned people to hamstring themselves.
I certainly am not claiming ppl should make a model justify its usefulness in a specific way.
I’m more saying ppl should be responsible for their info-gathering and treat that with a certain weight. Like a moral responsibility comes with information. So they shouldn’t be cavalier about it.… but especially they should not delude themselves into believing they have good intentions for info when they do not.
And so to casually ask about Alice’s sanity, without taking responsibility for the impact of speech actions and failing to acknowledge the potential damage to relationships (Alice’s or others), is irresponsible. Even if Alice never hears about this exchange, it nonetheless can cause a bunch of damage, and a person should speak about these with eyes open, about that.