I feel like you're strawmanning (or perhaps weakmanning) rationalists. Like your first example with the poorly reasoning Dr John reads like something straight off of less wrong from 10 years ago , it is absolutely nothing new to the community. Your second example has the exact same issue. The rationalists have pretty low opinions of mainstream media like Bloomberg already. The term gell-mann amnesia has been floating around for years to describe the phenomenon of temporarily forgetting just how bad journalists really are, that's not exactly something you'd expect in a community that blindly trusts mainstream media. In the third example you spend a long time attacking Krugman who has never been part of the rationalist movement, there are economists who could be considered well known rationalists like Robin Hanson and tyler Cowen but Krugman is not one of us.
Overall your post has a very /r/Iamverysmart vibe. You pat yourself on the back a lot for noticing things everyone else missed but you don't seem to actually have a good grasp of what the rest of the community actually thinks.
I wasn't talking about the rationalist movement, I was talking about people who are generally considered very smart / rational / scientific / humanist, or whatever term you want to call them.
That being said, people in the rationalist movement do suffer from precisely the same deficiency, and proof of that is that many were duped by Sam Bankman-Fried.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The examples in the article are used to exemplify a single problem, do you understand what that problem is?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I feel like you're strawmanning (or perhaps weakmanning) rationalists. Like your first example with the poorly reasoning Dr John reads like something straight off of less wrong from 10 years ago , it is absolutely nothing new to the community. Your second example has the exact same issue. The rationalists have pretty low opinions of mainstream media like Bloomberg already. The term gell-mann amnesia has been floating around for years to describe the phenomenon of temporarily forgetting just how bad journalists really are, that's not exactly something you'd expect in a community that blindly trusts mainstream media. In the third example you spend a long time attacking Krugman who has never been part of the rationalist movement, there are economists who could be considered well known rationalists like Robin Hanson and tyler Cowen but Krugman is not one of us.
Overall your post has a very /r/Iamverysmart vibe. You pat yourself on the back a lot for noticing things everyone else missed but you don't seem to actually have a good grasp of what the rest of the community actually thinks.
I wasn't talking about the rationalist movement, I was talking about people who are generally considered very smart / rational / scientific / humanist, or whatever term you want to call them.
That being said, people in the rationalist movement do suffer from precisely the same deficiency, and proof of that is that many were duped by Sam Bankman-Fried.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The examples in the article are used to exemplify a single problem, do you understand what that problem is?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link