| |
| ▲ | ImaCake 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not sure why you got down voted for this. The opening paragraph of the article reads as suspicious to the observant outsider: >The rationalist community was drawn together by AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky’s blog post series The Sequences, a set of essays about how to think more rationally. Anyone who had just read a lot about Scientology would read that and have alarm bells ringing. | | |
| ▲ | meowface 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Asterisk magazine is basically the unofficial magazine for the rationalist community and the author, Ozy Brennan, is a prominent rationalist blogger. Of course the piece is pro-rationalism. It's investigating why rationalism seems to spawn these small cultish offshoots, not trying to criticize rationalism. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 7 days ago | parent [-] | | "Unofficial?" Was that a recent change? But my point is that because the author neither can nor will criticize the fundamental axioms or desiderata of the movement, their analysis of how or why it spins off cults is necessarily footless. In practice the result amounts to a collection of excuses mostly from anonymees, whom we are assured have sufficient authority to reassure us this smoke arises from no fire. But of course it's only when Kirstie Alley does something like this we're meant to look askance. |
| |
| ▲ | radekn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's been 17 years since the series was written and rationalists haven't become a cult with Yudkowsky as leaders, so it's safe to say those were false alarms | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Out of curiosity, why would the bells be ringing in this case? Is it just the fact that a single person is exerting influence over their followers by way of essays? | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 7 days ago | parent [-] | | Even a marginal familiarity with the history of Scientology is an excellent curative for the idea that you can think yourself into superpowers, or that you should ever trust anyone who promises to teach you how. The consequences of ignorance on this score are all drearily predictable to anyone with a modicum of both good sense and world knowledge, which is why they've come as such a surprise to Yudkowsky. | | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 7 days ago | parent [-] | | You can say all of this of drug-oriented seekers of superpowers, too. Trust the SSRI cult much? It just seems to be a human condition that whenever anyone tries to find a way to improve themselves and others, there will always be other human beings who attempt to prevent that from occurring. I don't think this is a cult thing - I think its a culture thing. Humans have an innate desire to oppress others in their environment who might be making themselves more capable, abilities-wise - this isn't necessarily the exclusive domain of cults and religions, maybe just more evident in their activities since there's not much else going on, usually. We see this in technology-dependent industries too, in far greater magnitudes of scale. The irony is this: aren't you actually manifesting the very device that cults use to control others, as when you tell others what "specific others" should be avoided, lest one become infected with their dogma? The roots of all authoritarianism seem to grow deep in the fertile soil of the desire to be 'free of the filth of others'. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 7 days ago | parent [-] | | The phrase you failed to find is "crab-bucket thinking," but the one you really should have paid attention to this morning is "take with food." | | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I am interested in your ideology and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 6177c40f 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it's a meaningful distinction- most rationalists aren't running murder cults. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That we know about, I suppose. We didn't know at one point there were any outright rationalist cults, after all, whether involved in sex, murder, both, or otherwise. That is, we didn't know there were subsets of self-identifying "rationalists" so erroneous in their axioms and tendentious in their analysis as to succeed in putting off others. But a movement, that demonstrates so remarkably elevated rate of generating harmful beliefs in action as this, warrants exactly the sort of increased scrutiny this article vainly strives to deflect. That effort is in itself interesting, as such efforts always are. | | |
| ▲ | 6177c40f 7 days ago | parent [-] | | I mean, as a rationalist, I can assure you it's not nearly as sinister a group as you seem to make it out to be, believe it or not. Besides, the explanation is simpler than this article makes it out to be- most rationalists are from California, California is the origin of lots of cults. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > Besides, the explanation is simpler than this article makes it out to be- most rationalists are from California, California is the origin of lots of cults This isn't the defense of rationalism you seem to imagine it to be. I don't think the modal rationalist is sinister. I think he's ignorant, misguided, nearly wholly lacking in experience, deeply insecure about it, and overall just excessively resistant to the idea that it is really possible, on any matter of serious import, for his perspective radically to lack merit. Unfortunately, this latter condition proves very reliably also the mode. | | |
| ▲ | 6177c40f 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > his perspective radically to lack merit What perspective would that be? | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 7 days ago | parent [-] | | None in particular, as of course you realize, being a fluent reader of this language. It was just a longwinded way of saying rationalists suck at noticing when they're wrong about something because they rarely really know much of anything in the first place. That's why you had to take that scrap of a phrase so entirely out of context, when you went looking for something to try to embarrass me with. Why? Which perspective of yours has you so twitchingly desperate to defend it? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Viliam1234 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Funny how the comment making a factual correction gets downvoted. For me, that is the crucial information in the article: Yes, multiple people have succeeded to create a cult within the rationality community, but it always involved isolating their victims from the rest of the rationality community. (Now that we see the pattern, could it possibly help us defend against this?) | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 6 days ago | parent [-] | | If it took you this long to see a pattern that anyone with any experience at all can trivially recognize, why should anyone trust you to defend against anything? You are plainly incompetent. | | |
| ▲ | Viliam1234 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I am definitely plainly incompetent for not noticing a trivially recognizable pattern... > This article attempts to establish disjoint categories "good rationalist" and "cultist." ...that you have denied in another comment in the same thread. I guess that makes two of us plainly incompetent. | | |
| ▲ | throwanem 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I can't even tell what you mean to try to criticize here. Are you saying that because one may tell what the article tried to do and failed, it didn't fail? I can try to answer your point here, but you need to put in the effort of making it make sense, first. |
|
|
|
|
|
