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

Why are there so many rationalist cults?

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 947 posts

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#421

Post by IX-103 »

os2warpman wrote: post #172

Rationalists are, to a man (and they’re almost all men) arrogant dickheads and arrogant dickheads do not see what they’re doing to be “a cult” but “the right and proper way of things because I am right and logical and rational and everyone else isn’t”.

That's an unnecessary charicaterature. I have met many rationalists of both genders and found most of them quite pleasant. But it seems that the proportion of "arrogant dickheads" unfortunately matches that of the general population. Whether it's "irrational people" or "liberal elites" these assholes always seem to find someone to look down on.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#422

Post by more_corn »

bearl wrote: post #367
tibbar wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I think most people err in the other direction. They 'know' the basics of health, of discipline, of charity, but have a hard time following through. 'Take a simple idea, and take it seriously': a favorite aphorism of Charlie Munger. Most of the good things in my life have come from trying to follow through the real implications of a theoretical belief.

And “always invert”! A related mungerism.

I always get weird looks when I talk about killing as many pilots as possible. I need a new example of the always invert model of problem solving.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#423

Post by antisthenes »

JohnMakin wrote: post #85

One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that m…

It's crazy to read this, because by writing what you wrote you basically show that you don't understand what an axiom is.

You need to review the definition of the word.

> The smartest people I have ever known have been profoundly unsure of their beliefs and what they know.

The smartest people are unsure about their higher level beliefs, but I can assure you that they almost certainly don't re-evaluate "axioms" as you put it on a daily or weekly basis. Not that it matters, as we almost certainly can't verify who these people are based on an internet comment.

> I immediately become suspicious of anyone who is very certain of something, especially if they derived it on their own.

That's only your problem, not anyone else's. If you think people can't arrive to a tangible and useful approximation of truth, then you are simply delusional.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#424

Post by JKCalhoun »

danaris wrote: post #334
twic wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a variant of this that argues that humans are already as intelligent as it's possible to be. Because if it's possible to be more intelligent, why aren't we? And a slightly more reasonable variant that argues that we're already as intelligent as it's useful to be.

While I'm deeply and fundamentally skeptical of the recursive self-improvement/singularity hypothesis, I also don't really buy this. There are some pretty obvious ways we could improve human cognition if we had the ability to reliably edit or augment it. Better storage & recall. Lower distractibility. More working memory capacity. Hell, even extra hands for writing on more blackboards or putting up more conspiracy th…

Some of your suggestions, if you don't mind my saying, seem like only modest improvements — akin to Henry Ford's quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”

To your point though, an electronic machine is a different host altogether with different strengths and weaknesses.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#425

Post by guerrilla »

dan_quixote wrote: post #339
jl6 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s just (or even particularly) bad axioms, I think it’s that people tend to build up “logical” conclusions where they think each step is a watertight necessity that follows inevitably from its antecedents, but actually each step is a little bit leaky, leading to runaway growth in false confidence. Not that non-rationalists are any better at reasoning, but non-rationalists do at least benefit from some…

As a former mechanical engineer, I visualize this phenomenon like a "tolerance stackup". Effectively meaning that for each part you add to the chain, you accumulate error. If you're not damn careful, your assembly of parts (or conclusions) will fail to measure up to expectations.

This is what I hate about real life electronics. Everything is nice on paper, but physics sucks.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#426

Post by o11c »

michaeldoron wrote: post #243
o11c wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "bears" story reads a lot more sensibly if you translated it correctly as "a gang of thugs tries to bully Elisha into killing himself." Still reliant on the supernatural, but what do you expect from such a book?

Where do you see that in the text? I am looking at the Hebrew script, and the text only reads that as Elisha went up a path, young lads left the city and mocked him by saying "get up baldy", and he turned to them and cursed them to be killed by two she bears. I don't think saying "get up baldy" to a guy walking up a hill constitutes bullying him into killing himself.

It's called context. The beginning of the chapter is Elijah (Elisha's master) being removed from Earth and going up (using the exact same Hebrew word) to Heaven. Considering that the thugs are clearly not pious people, "remove yourself from the world, like your master did" has only one viable interpretation.

As for my choice of the word "thugs" ("mob" would be another good word), that is necessary to preserve the connotation. Remember, there were 42 of them punished, possibly more escaped - this is a threatening crowd size (remember the duck/horse meme?). Their claimed youth does imply "not an established veteran of the major annual wars", but that's not the same as "not acquainted with violence".

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#427

Post by dylan604 »

to11mtm wrote: post #385
dan_quixote wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former mechanical engineer, I visualize this phenomenon like a "tolerance stackup". Effectively meaning that for each part you add to the chain, you accumulate error. If you're not damn careful, your assembly of parts (or conclusions) will fail to measure up to expectations.

I like this analogy. I think of a bike's shifting systems; better shifters, better housings, better derailleur, or better chainrings/cogs can each 'improve' things. I suppose where that becomes relevant to here, is that you can have very fancy parts on various ends but if there's a piece in the middle that's wrong you're still gonna get shit results.

You only as strong as the weakest link.

Your SCSI devices are only as fast as the slowest device in the chain.

I don't need to be faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#428

Post by projektfu »

EGreg wrote: post #361
JohnMakin wrote: post #85

One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that m…

There are certain things I am sure of even though I derived them on my own. But I constantly battle tested them against other smart people’s views, and just after I ran out of people to bring me new rational objections did I become sure. Now I can battle test them against LLMs. On a lesser level of confidence, I have also found a lot of times the people who disagreed with what I thought had to be the case, later came…

"genetically engineers high fructose corn syrup into everything"

This phrase is nonsense, because HFCS is a chemical process applied to normal corn after the harvest. The corn may be a GMO but it certainly doesn't have to be.

Re: Why are there so many rationalist cults?

#430

Post by EGreg »

projektfu wrote: post #428
EGreg wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain things I am sure of even though I derived them on my own. But I constantly battle tested them against other smart people’s views, and just after I ran out of people to bring me new rational objections did I become sure. Now I can battle test them against LLMs. On a lesser level of confidence, I have also found a lot of times the people who disagreed with what I thought had to be the case, later came…

"genetically engineers high fructose corn syrup into everything" This phrase is nonsense, because HFCS is a chemical process applied to normal corn after the harvest. The corn may be a GMO but it certainly doesn't have to be.

Agreed, that was phrased wrong. The fruits across the board have been genetically engineered to be extremely sweet (fructose, not the syrup): https://weather.com/news/news/2018-10-03-fruit-so-sweet-zoo-...

While their nutritional quality has gone down tremendously, for vegetables too: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10969708/

Post reply on HN