Logic is an awesome tool that took us from Greek philosophers to the gates on our computers. The challenge with pure rationalism is checking the first principles that the thinking comes from. Logic can lead you astray if the principles are wrong, or you miss the complexity along the way.
On the missing first principles, look at Aristotle. One of the history's greatest logicians came to many false conclusions.
On missing complexity, note that Natural Selection came from empirical analysis rather than first principles thinking. (It could have come from the latter, but was too complex) [1]
This doesn't discount logic, it just highlights that answers should always come with provisional humility.
And I'm still a superfan of Scott Aaronson.
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/aristotle-was-wrong-very-wrong-b...
I'm currently reading Yudkowsky's "Rationality: from AI to zombies". Not my first try, since the book is just a collection of blog posts and I found it a bit hard to swallow due its repetitiveness, so I gave up after the first 50 "chapters" the first time I tried. Now I'm enjoying it way more, probably because I'm more interested in the topic now.
For those who haven't delved(ha!) into his work or have been pushed back by the cultish looks, I have to say that he's genuinelly onto something. There are a lot of practical ideas that are pretty useful for everyday thinking ("Belief in Belief", "Emergence", "Generalizing from fiction", etc...).
For example, I recall being in lot of arguments that are purely "semantical" in nature. You seem to disagree about something but it's just that both sides aren't really referring to the same phenomenon. The source of the disagreement is just using the same word for different, but related, "objects". This is something that seems obvious, but the kind of thing you only realize in retrospect, and I think I'm much better equipped now to be aware of it in real time.
I recommend giving it a try.
I've never thought ill of Scott Aaronson and have often admired him and his work when I stumble across it.
However, reading this article about all these people at their "Galt's Gultch", I thought — "oh, I guess he's a rhinoceros now"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_(play)
Here's a bad joke for you all — What's the difference between a "rationalist" and "rationalizer"? Only the incentives.
This is vibe-based, but I think the Rationalists get more vitriol than they deserve. Upon reflecting, my hypothesis for this is threefold:
1. They are a community—they have an in-group, and if you are not one of them you are by-definition in the out-group. People tend not to like being in other peoples' out-groups.
2. They have unusual opinions and are open about them. People tend not to like people who express opinions different than their own.
3. They're nerds. Whatever has historically caused nerds to be bullied/ostracized, they probably have.
Probably the most useful book ever written about topics adjacent to capital-R Rationalism is "Neoreaction, A Basilisk: Essays on and Around the Alt-Right" [1], by Elizabeth Sandifer. Though the topic of the book is nominally the Alt-Right, a lot more of it is about the capital-R Rationalist communities and individuals that incubated the neoreactionary movement that is currently dominant in US politics. It's probably the best book to read for understanding how we got politically and intellectually from where we were in 2010, to where we are now.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41198053-neoreaction-a-b...
I once was interested in a woman who was really into the effective altruism/rationalism crowd. I went to a few meetings with her but my inner contrarian didn't like it.
Took me a few years to realize how cultish it all felt and that I am somewhat happy my edgy atheist contrarian personality overwrote my dicks thinking with that crowd.
The irony here is the Rationalist community are made up of the ones who weren't observant enough to pick that "identifying as a Rationalist" is generally not a rational decision.
Well that was a whole thing. I especially liked the existential threat of Cade Metz. But ultimately, I think the great oracle of Chicago got this whole thing right when he said:
-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.
He already had a rationalist “coming out” like ages ago. Dude just make up your mind
Some of the comments here remind me of online commentary about some place called "the orange site". Always wondered who they were talking about...
I feel like I'm witnessing something that Adam Curtis would cover in the last part of The Century of Self, in real time.
They call themselves rationalist, yet they don't have very rational opinions if you ask them about scientific racism [1]
[1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-le...
Just to confirm, this is about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_community
and not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
right?
These kinds of propositions are determined by history, not by declaration.
Espouse your beliefs, participate in certain circles if you want, but avoid labels unless you intend to do ideological battle with other label-bearers.
* 20 somethings who are clearly on spectrum
* Group are "special"
* Centered around a charismatic leader
* Weird sex stuff
Guys we have a cult!
My eyes started to glaze over after a bit; so what I'm getting here is there a group that calls themselves "Rationalists," but in just about every externally meaningful sense, they're smelling like -- perhaps not a cult, but certainly a lot of weird insider/outsider talk that feels far from rational?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_community
"In particular, several women in the community have made allegations of sexual misconduct, including abuse and harassment, which they describe as pervasive and condoned."
There's weird sex stuff, logically, it's a cult.
Reading this made me realize that rationality isn’t really about joining a group. It’s more about whether you care about how you think. No matter how solid the logic is, if the starting assumptions are off, it doesn’t help much. Reality is often messier than any model we build. How do you decide when to trust the model vs trust your instincts?
It's encouraging to hear that behind all the internet noise, the real-life community is thriving and full of people earnestly trying to build a better future
The main things I don’t like about rationalism are aesthetic (the name sucks and misusing the language of Bayesian probability is annoying). Sounds like they are a thoughtful and nice bunch otherwise(?).
[flagged]
Rationalists as a movement remind me of the individuals who claim to be serious about history but are only interested in a very, VERY specific set of six years in one very specific part of the world.
And boy are they extremely interested in ONLY those six years.
Never heard of the man, but that was a fun read. And it looks like a fun club to be part of. Until in becomes unbearable perhaps. Also raises the chances to get invited to birthday orgies..? Perhaps I should have stayed a in academia..
It's weird that "being interested in philosophy" is like... a movement. My background is in philosophy, but the rationalist vs nonrationalist debate seems like an undergraduate class dispute.
My old roommate worked for Open Phil, and was obsessed with AI Safety and really into Bitcoin. I never was. We still had interesting arguments about it all the time. Most of the time we just argued until we got to the axioms we disagreed on, and that was that.
You don't have to agree with the Rationalist™ perspective to apply philosophically rigorous thinking. You can be friends and allies with them without agreeing with all their views. There are strong arguments for why frequentism may be more applicable than bayesianism in different domains. Or why transhumanism is a pipe dream. They are still conversations that are worthwhile as long as you're not so confident in your position that you think you might learn something.
"I’m still a computer scientist, an academic, a straight-ticket Democratic voter, a liberal Zionist, a Jew, etc. (all identities, incidentally, well-enough represented at LessOnline that I don’t even think I was the unique attendee in the intersection of them all)"
Not incidental!
"I have come out as a smart good thinking person, who knew"
>liberal zionist
hmmmm
Scott Aaronson, the man who turned scrupulosity into a weapon against his own psyche is a capital R rationalist?
Yeah, this surprises absolutely nobody.
One of my many problems with rationalism is that it generally fails to acknowledge it's fundamentally religious character while pronouncing itself superior to all other religions.
"Rationalists," the "objectivists" rebranded?
I used to snicker at these guys, but I realized I'm not being humble or to be more theologically minded: gracious.
Recognizing we all take a step of faith to move outside of solipsism into a relationship with others should humble us.
Are you really concerned about the consequences of AI?
Then, empower UN-like organizations to oversee the use of technology - like the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.
And, if you're even further concerned, put in place mechanisms that guarantee that the productivity gains, yields, and GDP increases obtained via the new technology of AI are distributed and enjoyed by all of the living population with a minimum of fairness.
For some reason, specially this last bit, doesn't really fly with our friends, The Rationalists. I wonder why...
I was at Lighthaven that week. The weekend-long LessOnline event Scott references opened what LightHaven termed "Festival Season", with a summer camp organised for the following 5 week days, and a prediction market & forecasting conference called Manifest the following weekend.
I didn't attend LessOnline since I'm not active on LessWrong nor identify as a rationalist - but I did attended a GPU programming course in the "summer camp" portion of the week, and the Manifest conference (my primary interest).
My experience generally aligns with Scott's view, the community is friendly and welcoming, but I had one strange encounter. There was some time allocated to meet with other attendees at Manifest who resided in the same part of the world (not the bay area). I ended up surrounded by a group of 5-6 folks who appeared to be friends already, had been a part of the Rationalist movement for a few years, and had attended LessOnline the previous weekend. They spent most of the hour critiquing and comparing their "quality of conversations" at LessOnline with the less Rationalist-y, more prediction market & trading focused Manifest event. Completely unaware or unwelcoming of my presence as an outsider, they essentially came to the conclusion that a lot of the Manifest crowd were dummies and were - on average - "more wrong" than themselves. It was all very strange, cult-y, pseudo-intellectual, and lacking in self-awareness.
All that said, the experience at Summer Camp and Manifest was a net positive, but there is some credence to sneers aimed at the Rationalist community.
Had to stop reading, everyone sounded so awful.
I read Scott Aaronson's blog and his papers and enjoy both. That said, he's a perfect example of a person who is a genius in one area, thinks this translates to expertise or intuition in other areas, and is often very, very wrong.
I think I'm missing something important.
My understanding of "Rationalists" is that they're followers of rationalism; that is, that truth can be understood only through intellectual deduction, rather than sensory experience.
I'm wondering if this is a _different_ kind of "Rationalist." Can someone explain?
Human emotions guide reasoning: that's why we need Politics.
These people should have read "Descartes' Error" with more attention than they spent on Friedman and Hayek.
> “You’re Scott Aaronson?! The quantum physicist who’s always getting into arguments on the Internet, and who’s essentially always right, but who sustains an unreasonable amount of psychic damage in the process?”
Give me strength. So much hubris with these guys (and they’re almost always guys).
I would have assumed that a rationalist would look for truth and not correctness.
Oh wait, it’s all just a smokescreen for know-it-alls to show you how smart they are.
I'm yet to see "Effective Altruism" or (neo-)"Rationalism" that is not mostly the rationalization of exploiting less privileged people than them, and justifying behaving in anti-social, exploitative and extractionary ways.
I would love a link to anything that could convince me the Rationalist community isn't just a bunch of hoo-haw.
I read the first third of HPMOR. I stopped because I found the writing poor, but more importantly, it didn't "open my mind" to any higher-order way of rationalist thinking. My takeaway was "Yup, the original HP story was full of inconsistencies and stupidities, and you get a different story if the characters were actually smart."
I've read a bunch of EY essays and a lot of lesswrong posts, trying to figure out what is the mind-shattering idea.
* The map is not the territory --> of course it isn't.
* Update your beliefs based on evidence --> who disagrees with this? (with exception on religion)
* People are biased and we need to overcome that --> another obvious statement
* Make decisions based on evidence and towards your desired outcomes --> thanks for the tip?
Seems to me this whole philosophy can be captured in about half page of notes, which most people would nod and say "yup, makes sense."
I don't understand the urge for Americans to name things the opposite of what they are.
I cannot falsify the thesis that so-called "Rationalism" and "Effective Altruism" is - in practice - just folklore so that top-percenters don't pay taxes and feel good about themselves.
As the least worse solution to maximize Social Utility has long been invented: Democracy and political action.
Since intuitive and non-rational thinking are demonstrably rational in the face of incomplete information, I guess we’re all rationalists. Or that’s how I’m rationalizing it, anyway.
Ah, so it's like the Order of the October Star: certain people have simply realized that they are entitled to wear it. Or, rather, that they had always been entitled to wear it. Got it.
I'm so out of the loop. What is the new, special sense of Rationalist over what it might have meant to e.g. Descarte?
I somehow was expecting talk about Descartes and Spinoza.
This is largely a cult, showing most of the red flags.
But if we put aside the narcissistic traits, lack of intellectual humility, religious undertones and (paradoxically) appeal to emotional responses with apocalyptic framing, the whole thing is still irrelevant BS.
They work in a vacuum, on either false or artificial premises with nothing to back their claims except long strings of syllogism.
This is not Science, no measurements, no experiments, no validation, zero value apart from maybe intellectual stimulation and socialisation for nerds with too much free time…
> The closest to right-wing politics that I witnessed at LessOnline was a session, with Kelsey Piper and current and former congressional staffers, about the prospects for moderate Democrats to articulate a moderate, pro-abundance agenda that would resonate with the public and finally defeat MAGA.
I can't say I'm surprised.
Does that mean he read the Harry Potter fanfic?
Sounds like they hear only themselves? There is a common type of sophisticated thinkers who have trained their intellectual muscle to a remarkable degree and got stuck there, refusing to see that intellect isn't the capstone of life. Their mind, ears and mouth quickly form a closed loop that makes them hear only what they themselves say. When this loop strengthens, this thinker becomes a dogmatic cult leader with a sophisticated, but dimly lit inner world that can, nevertheless impress smaller minds. Such inner worlds are always like mazes, with lots of rooms and corridors, all dimly lit, without exits and with their impressively developed mind roaming along these corridors like the Minotaur.
The problem with rationalism is we don't have language to express our thoughts formally enough nor a compiler to transform that language into something runnable (platonic AST) nor a machine capable of emulating reality.
Expecting rational thought to correspond to reality is like expecting a 6 million line program written in a hypothetical programming language invented in the 1700s to run bug free on a turing machine.
Tooling matters.
>"frankly, that they gave off some (not all) of the vibes of a cult, with Eliezer as guru. Eliezer writes in parables and koans. He teaches that the fate of life on earth hangs in the balance, that the select few who understand the stakes have the terrible burden of steering the future"
One of the funniest and most accurate turns of phrases in my mind is Charles Stross' characterization of rationalists as "duck typed Evangelicals". I've come to the conclusion that American atheists just don't exist, in particular Californians. Five minutes after they leave organized religion they're in a techno cult that fuses chosen people myths, their version of the Book of Revelation, gnosticism and what have you.
I used to work abroad in Shenzhen for a few years and despite meeting countless of people as interested in and obsessed with technology, if not more than the people mentioned in this blogpost, there's just no corellary to this. There's no millenarian obsession over machines taking over the world, bizarre trust in rationalism or cult like compounds full of socially isolated new age prophets.
> A third reason I didn’t identify with the Rationalists was, frankly, that they gave off some (not all) of the vibes of a cult, with Eliezer as guru.
Apart from a charismatic leader, a cult (in the colloquial meaning) needs a business model, and very often, a sense of separation from, and lack of accountability to those who are outside the cult, which provides conveniently simpler environment under which the cults ideas operate. A sort of "complexity filter" at the entry gate.
I'm not sure how the Rationalists compare to those criteria, but I'd be curious to find out.
I stopped reading once I read the word "zionist"
Sorry, I haven't followed what is it that these guys call Rationalism?
The narcissism in this movement is insufferable. I hope the conditions for its existence will soon pass and give way to something kinder and more learned.
"I'm a Rationalist"
"Here are some labels I identify as"
So they arent rational enough to understand first principles don't objectively exist.
They were corrupted by words of old men, and have built a foundation of understanding on them. This isnt rationality, but rather Reason based.
I consider Instrumentalism and Bayesian epistemology to be the best we can get towards knowledge.
I'm going to be a bit blunt and not humble at all, this person is a philosophical inferior to myself. Their confidence is hubris. They haven't discovered epistemology. There isnt enough skepticism in their claims. They use black and white labels and black and white claims. I remember when I was confident like the author, but a few empirical pieces of evidence made me realize I was wrong.
"it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy."
> “You’re [X]?! The quantum physicist who’s always getting into arguments on the Internet, and who’s essentially always right, but who sustains an unreasonable amount of psychic damage in the process?”
> “Yes,” I replied, not bothering to correct the “physicist” part.
Didn't read much beyond that part. He'll fit right in with the rationalist crowd...
As someone who likes both the Rationalist community and the Rust community, it's fascinating to see the parallels in how the Hacker News crowd treats both.
The contempt, the general lack of curiosity and the violence of the bold sweeping statements people will make here are mind-boggling.
[flagged]
What the fuck am I reading lmao.
Very Bay Area to assume you invented Bayesian thinking.
This is what rationalisme entails: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
The article made me think deeper about what rubs me the wrong way about the whole movement
I think there is some inherent tension btwn being "rational" about things and trying to reason about things from first principle.. And the general absolutist tone of the community. The people involved all seem very... Full of themselves ? 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". The type of people that would be embarrassed to not have an opinion on a topic or say "I don't know"
In the Pre-AI days this was sort of tolerable, but since then.. The frothing at the mouth convinced of the end of the world.. Just shows a real lack of humility and lack of acknowledgment that maybe we don't have a full grasp of the implications of AI. Maybe it's actually going to be rather benign and more boring than expected