Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guess I'm a rationalist now

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#291

Post by mariusor »

the_af wrote: post #164
Bjartr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the whole community side to rationality is, at best, questionable. But the tools of thought that the literature describes are invaluable with one very important caveat . The moment you think something like "I am more correct than this other person because I am a rationalist" is the moment you fail as a rationalist. It is an incredibly easy mistake to make. To make effective use of the tools, you need to become…

> The moment you think something like "I am more correct than this other person because I am a rationalist" is the moment you fail as a rationalist. It's very telling that some of them went full "false modesty" by naming sites like "LessWrong", when you just know they actually mean "MoreRight". And in reality, it's just a bunch of "grown teenagers" posting their pet theories online and thinking themselves "big thinke…

> you just know they actually mean "MoreRight".

I'm not affiliated with the rationalist community, but I always interpreted "Less Wrong" as word-play on how "being right" is an absolute binary: you can either be right, or not be right, while "being wrong" can cover a very large gradient.

I expect the community wanted to emphasize how people employing the specific kind of Bayesian iterative reasoning they were proselytizing would arrive at slightly lesser degrees of wrong than the other kinds that "normal" people would use.

If I'm right, your assertion wouldn't be totally inaccurate, but I think it might be missing the actual point.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#292

Post by gadders »

exoverito wrote: post #190
amarcheschi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that they're not "rational". If you take a look at the biodiversity survey here https://reflectivealtruism.com/2024/12/27/human-biodiversity... 1/3 of the users at acx actually support flawed scientific theories that would explain iq on a scientific basis. The Lynn study on iq is also quite flawed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations If you want to read about human biodiversity, https://e…

Human ethnic groups are measurably different in genetic terms, as based on single nucleotide polymorphisms and allelic frequency. There are multiple PCA plots of the 1000 Genomes dataset which show clear cluster separation based on ancestry: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Example-Ancestry-PCA-plo... We know ethnic groups vary in terms of height, hair color, eye color, melanin, bone density, sprinting ability, la…

As we all know, genetics and evolution only apply from the neck down.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#293

Post by Dracophoenix »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #253
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't really ever show a sense of "hey, I've got a thought, maybe I haven't considered all angles to it, maybe I'm wrong - but here it is". Aren't these the people who started the trend of writing things like " epistemic status: mostly speculation " on their blog posts? And writing essays about the dangers of overconfidence? And measuring how often their predictions turn out wrong? And maintaining webpages tit…

Weirdly enough, both can be true. I was tangentially involved in EA in the early days, and have some friends who were more involved. Lots of interesting, really cool stuff going on, but there was always latent insecurity paired with overconfidence and elitism as is typical in young nerd circles. When big money got involved, the tone shifted a lot. One phrase that really stuck with me is "exceptional talent". Everyone…

[dead]

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#295

Post by nyeah »

jltsiren wrote: post #289
js8 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not be so sure. There are many fields where reductionism was applied in practice and it yielded useful results, thanks to computers. Examples that come to mind: statistical modelling (reduction to nonparametric models), protein folding (reduction to quantum chemistry), climate/weather prediction (reduction to fluid physics), human language translation (reduction to neural networks). Reductionism is not that u…

I meant that the word "reductionist" is usually an accusation of ignorance. It's not something people doing reductionist work actually use.

But that common use of the word is ignorant nonsense. So, yes, someone is wrong on the internet. So what?

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#296

Post by cubefox »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #269
dcminter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also... > they gave off some (not all) of the vibes of a cult ...after describing his visit with an atmosphere that sounds extremely cult-like.

At least one cult originates from the Rationalist movement, the Zizians [1]. A cult that straight up murdered at least four people. And while the Zizian belief system is certainly more extreme then mainstream Rationalist beliefs, it's not that much more extreme. For more info, the Behind the Bastards podcast [2] did a pretty good series on how the Zizians sprung up out of the Bay area Rationalist scene. I'd highly re…

[flagged]

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#297

Post by the_af »

mariusor wrote: post #291
the_af wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moment you think something like "I am more correct than this other person because I am a rationalist" is the moment you fail as a rationalist. It's very telling that some of them went full "false modesty" by naming sites like "LessWrong", when you just know they actually mean "MoreRight". And in reality, it's just a bunch of "grown teenagers" posting their pet theories online and thinking themselves "big thinke…

> you just know they actually mean "MoreRight". I'm not affiliated with the rationalist community, but I always interpreted "Less Wrong" as word-play on how "being right" is an absolute binary: you can either be right, or not be right, while "being wrong" can cover a very large gradient. I expect the community wanted to emphasize how people employing the specific kind of Bayesian iterative reasoning they were prosely…

> I'm not affiliated with the rationalist community, but I always interpreted "Less Wrong" as word-play on how "being right" is an absolute binary: you can either be right, nor not be right, while "being wrong" can cover a very large gradient.

I know that's what they mean at the surface level, but you just know it comes with a high degree of smugness and false modesty. "I only know that I know nothing" -- maybe, but they ain't no modern day Socrates, they are just a bunch of nerds going online with their thoughts.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#298

Post by TimorousBestie »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #209
greener_grass wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is an arbitrage going on where STEM types who lack background in philosophy, literature, history are super impressed by basic ideas from those subjects being presented to them by stealth. Not saying this is you, but these topics have been discussed for thousands of years, so it should at least be surprising that Yudkowsky is breaking new ground.

Rationalism largely rejects continental philosophy in favor of a more analytic approach. Yes these ideas are not new, but they’re not really the mainstream stuff you’d see in philosophy, literature, or history studies. You’d have to seek out these classes specifically to find them.

They largely reject analytic philosophy as well. Austin and Whitehead are roughly as detestable to a Rationalist as Foucault and Marx.

Carlyle, Chesterton and Thoreau are about the limit of their philosophical knowledge base.

Re: Guess I'm a rationalist now

#299

Post by Fraterkes »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #84
Fraterkes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really buy this at all: I am more emotionally invested in things that I know more about (and vice versa). If Rationalism breaks down at that point it is essentially never useful.

> I don’t really buy this at all For what it’s worth, you seem to be agreeing with the person you replied to. Their main point is that this break down happens primarily because people identify as Rationalists (or whatever else). Taken from that angle, Rationalism as an identity does not appear to be useful.

My reading of the comment was that there was only a small subset of contentious topics that rationalism is unsuited for. But I think you are correct
Post reply on HN