Thinking about what it would take to actually pull off a rebranding, I think you’ve got to get a few people on board who will both announce the rebrand and then actually use the new term in place of the old one. This means something like you need to get the following folks on board:
LW
CFAR
MIRI
probably some EA orgs like 80k and CEA
Scott and maybe whoever the top 10 most followed rationalists are after him
If you can do that it’s probably enough to both prevent an annoying schism of folks hanging on to the old term and create common knowledge that the name changed. People who stick to the old name are then stragglers who will be seen as left behind by virtue of the actions of prestigious people and organizations within the movement.
This seems doable if you can convince all the right people. Probably means convincing them individually and then making it common knowledge that they all agree and then pushing a specific, actionable plan they can carry out.
Strategically, I’m not sure if the right first move is to try and appeal to leadership. I think this is an idea that needs some organic support. So I see this post as a seed, rather than an announcement of an agenda.
Let’s play a game. We’ll use LW’s about page description of what we mean by “rationality.” I will give points for whether “rational agent,” “agency,” or “metacognition” seem like the best label, or whether it’s a tie.
Thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth. Tie between rationality and metacognition.
Thinking in ways which cause you to systematically achieve your goals. Agency.
Trying to do better on purpose. Agency.
Reasoning well even in the face of massive uncertainty. Agency.
Making good decisions even when it’s hard. Agency or rationality.
Being self-aware, understanding how your own mind works, and applying this knowledge to thinking better. Metacognition.
Since “rationality” sort of has the connotation of “agency,” maybe this tilts me more in favor of keeping the name we already have, at least for most of the established organizations?
On the other hand, I really do think there’s a strong contingent of people in this space who are more interested in metacognition, and have a skepticism of attempts to become a rational agent. Maybe this helps explain the discomfort with the name—there really are two different groups, in dialog, but with diverging values around agency.
Strategically, I’m not sure if the right first move is to try and appeal to leadership. I think this is an idea that needs some organic support. So I see this post as a seed, rather than an announcement of an agenda.
Sure, you gotta figure out what you want to ask these people to do and why you want to do it first, and if you hope to succeed it’s gotta be a solid enough argument that they buy it. The usual heuristic I’ve seen is that something has to be at least 3x better for people to pay whatever costs are associated with adopting something better (for some arbitrary version of adopting or replacing an old thing).
I don’t know that you have to wait for organic support, but organic support would be an indicator that you’ve got something good that you might be able to convince folks to switch to.
Thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth. Tie between rationality and metacognition.
Echoing what Rob said above: these labels apply in very different ways. “Rationality” applies in a definition-like way, which is how it’s used on the page. Metacognition applies in an example-like way. You would never say “what we mean by metacognition is thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth”, because even if the practice has that result, that’s not what the word means. (And I doubt the practice always does have that result.)
I really do think there’s a strong contingent of people in this space who are more interested in metacognition, and have a skepticism of attempts to become a rational agent.
Eh, my reaction to this is something like, then they can have their metacognitive movement. And it can overlap with the rationality community, but they shouldn’t be the same thing.
I’m not very worried about people remaining attached to the old term because nobody was ever attached to the old term.
I remember Eliezer saying he doesn’t love the term and doesn’t remember there ever being a decision to adopt it; most real ones put “aspiring” on the front, recognizing problems mentioned; a lot of living rationalist-adjacent communities have started calling themselves “post-rationalists” in explicit rejection of the term; and objectively speaking, most of the people in the world who flatly identify as “rationalists” haven’t read the any yudkowsky at all (seems to be most popular among skeptics operating in very religious regions, increasingly rare in the west).
Thinking about what it would take to actually pull off a rebranding, I think you’ve got to get a few people on board who will both announce the rebrand and then actually use the new term in place of the old one. This means something like you need to get the following folks on board:
LW
CFAR
MIRI
probably some EA orgs like 80k and CEA
Scott and maybe whoever the top 10 most followed rationalists are after him
If you can do that it’s probably enough to both prevent an annoying schism of folks hanging on to the old term and create common knowledge that the name changed. People who stick to the old name are then stragglers who will be seen as left behind by virtue of the actions of prestigious people and organizations within the movement.
This seems doable if you can convince all the right people. Probably means convincing them individually and then making it common knowledge that they all agree and then pushing a specific, actionable plan they can carry out.
Strategically, I’m not sure if the right first move is to try and appeal to leadership. I think this is an idea that needs some organic support. So I see this post as a seed, rather than an announcement of an agenda.
Let’s play a game. We’ll use LW’s about page description of what we mean by “rationality.” I will give points for whether “rational agent,” “agency,” or “metacognition” seem like the best label, or whether it’s a tie.
Since “rationality” sort of has the connotation of “agency,” maybe this tilts me more in favor of keeping the name we already have, at least for most of the established organizations?
On the other hand, I really do think there’s a strong contingent of people in this space who are more interested in metacognition, and have a skepticism of attempts to become a rational agent. Maybe this helps explain the discomfort with the name—there really are two different groups, in dialog, but with diverging values around agency.
Sure, you gotta figure out what you want to ask these people to do and why you want to do it first, and if you hope to succeed it’s gotta be a solid enough argument that they buy it. The usual heuristic I’ve seen is that something has to be at least 3x better for people to pay whatever costs are associated with adopting something better (for some arbitrary version of adopting or replacing an old thing).
I don’t know that you have to wait for organic support, but organic support would be an indicator that you’ve got something good that you might be able to convince folks to switch to.
fwiw I don’t think rationality has much connotation of agency, except for what it’s achieved by dint of association with us.
Echoing what Rob said above: these labels apply in very different ways. “Rationality” applies in a definition-like way, which is how it’s used on the page. Metacognition applies in an example-like way. You would never say “what we mean by metacognition is thinking in ways which systematically arrive at truth”, because even if the practice has that result, that’s not what the word means. (And I doubt the practice always does have that result.)
Eh, my reaction to this is something like, then they can have their metacognitive movement. And it can overlap with the rationality community, but they shouldn’t be the same thing.
I’m not very worried about people remaining attached to the old term because nobody was ever attached to the old term.
I remember Eliezer saying he doesn’t love the term and doesn’t remember there ever being a decision to adopt it; most real ones put “aspiring” on the front, recognizing problems mentioned; a lot of living rationalist-adjacent communities have started calling themselves “post-rationalists” in explicit rejection of the term; and objectively speaking, most of the people in the world who flatly identify as “rationalists” haven’t read the any yudkowsky at all (seems to be most popular among skeptics operating in very religious regions, increasingly rare in the west).