@slatestarcodex .@glenweyl’s “Why I Am Not A Technocrat” is also very good and worth reading if you haven’t already.
I think there is much less disagreement here than it may seem. Both essays are quite complicated, so sorting this out point-by-point would be difficult, but…
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl Both essays take what I would call a meta-systematic, meta-rational position (which is why I admire both of them). They seem to agree on a core understanding (one that is, I think, very important and NOT widely recognized):
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl Systematic social institutions are absolutely necessary for large-scale civilizations, and can be improved via rational and empirical reason,
AND
are blind to factors their models overlook, depend on unmodeled human judgement to function, and are brittle to context changes
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl SO it’s critical to continually consider alternatives, search for blind spots, examine the concrete details of effects, investigate how judgements are made and according to what purposes, consider possible failure modes as circumstances change—
these are meta-rational activities
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl These quotes both roughly acknowledge that the disagreement is a matter of emphasis: is it more important to say “rationality is SO GOOD” (which it is) or to say “but it is limited and can fail catastrophically” (which it is and does)?
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl Better to consider who you are talking to (as Scott discusses in the “bravery debate” essay).
If someone is not yet rational, YAY RATIONALITY is the right message.
If someone is firmly ensconced in rationalism, RATIONALISM IS FALSE AND HARMFUL is the right message.
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl There are two entirely different critiques of rationalism, the Romantic and the meta-rational. These are rarely clearly distinguished, which contributes to confusion in this pair of essays.
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl I take Glen’s critique to be mainly meta-rational, but his invocation of “humanities, continental philosophy, or humanistic social sciences” could be taken as Romantic—and Scott seized on that, suggesting that Glen was recommending them as a replacement, rather than supplement:
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl When self-described rationalists object to my critique, they universally misinterpret it as Romantic and therefore anti-rational; none of them has ever addressed the meta-rational critique at all.*
So I’m more sympathetic by predilection to Glen’s argument than Scott’s,
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl (* “addressed” in the sense of “argued against”; some rationalists who have read The-Eggplant-So-Far have said “oh! NOW I get it… this seems right.” Which I’m glad of, of course…)
@slatestarcodex @glenweyl OTOH, with 40% of America in the grip of QAnon, any criticism of rationality seems dangerous and missing the point!
Rationalism is false and harmful, but it is a hell of a lot LessWrong than the new cultural mainstream… so I’m more sympathetic to Scott’s argument by necessity.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"People tell you everything you need to know about them in the first minute after you meet them"
On graduating, my sometime-collaborator Phil Agre went to interview for a faculty job at Yale, where Roger Schank was the senior AI guy. Phil came back somewhat shaken... (1/n)
Schank was a very weird dude. Phil was also a very weird dude.
In fact, everyone of significance in AI at that time was stupid, crazy, or evil.
Everyone of significance in AI now is also stupid, crazy, or evil. This is important; try not to forget it over the next few years.
Schank opened the interview with "why are you so hostile?"
Phil was not sure how to answer that, sputtered a bit, and asked why Schank would ask.
The conversation piled on layers of meta at a dizzying rate.
Huh! Just figured something out (I think). It was bugging me that the silly “pandita hat” worn by Buddhist academics (pandita=pundit) reminded me of something…
It’s the “Phrygian cap” worn throughout the Iranian world in ancient times…
Is it historically plausible that the pandita hat is a variant of the Phrygian cap? Yes it is! The Sakas, an Iranian people, controlled Gandhara and Taxila, which were the centers of Buddhist academia when Buddhist academia was just getting started (circa 100 BC).
An academic rant: startling cluelessness where I'd expected intelligent error...
I'm trying to understand how pomo replaced the classical undergraduate humanities curriculum, and how how people thought about it at the time, in preparation for writing about the consequences.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
@StephenPiment BTW I'm reading Douthat's Privilege, about his time at Harvard, which is relevant and fun. I recommend it! twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Replies have been helpful, thank you!
My interest here is somewhat unusual. I understand pomo, and the opposition to it. What I don't know is why decision makers didn't understand replacing the undergrad humanities curriculum would be a disaster.
⌚️ I did not anticipate a future in which you lie to your watch about meeting your hydration goal for the day so it doesn't give you a hard time the next morning.
⌚️ When I was a kid, watches were all radioactive. The hands were coated in radium so you could see the time in the dark by the radioactive glow. Miniaturizing either a battery or an incandescent bulb into a watch was completely technologically impossible.
⌚️ The world with radioactive watches seems even more alien than the world with watches you have to lie to. It might as well be Ancient Rome, although I lived in it.
Incisive thinking about transness, also from @jessi_cata. "Trans" is a iron maiden category constructed by cis authorities which, for many people trying to fit into it, is grossly false to facts and harmful, painful, sometimes fatal. unstableontology.com/2023/02/07/am-…
On May 7th, @_awbery_ and I will participate in an Evolving Ground community discussion of gender, including trans/enby, from a Vajrayana Buddhist perspective. This is something we've planned for ~15 years but never quite gotten to before!
An extraordinary essay on ethics by @jkcarlsmith, highly recommended for those willing to work through its difficulty.
What happens when you realize moral philosophy doesn't and can't work, but saying "whatever, then, I guess" is also utterly inadequate? joecarlsmith.com/2023/02/17/see…
"Seeing more whole" is difficult both textually and conceptually. I had to read it three times. It's probably also necessary to have read a precursor essay, which is less exciting but lays out distinctions the later one relies on: joecarlsmith.com/2023/02/16/why…
What follows are some reactions to "Seeing more whole." These should not be taken as a reliable summary; I may misunderstand it, and the ways I think about ethics have different sources and vocabulary, although perhaps convergent implications. I will talk in my terms, not his.