I’ve also done well academically but I am talking about success on a different order of magnitude, repeated for several people and causally related to an increase in rationality, not merely a halo effect.
For instance, Paul Graham has been incredibly successful in guiding the world towards his preferred outcomes (Hacker News, YCombinator, Startup Visa, lots more), and his first step was to build and sell a startup for approx $150m. Not everyone will agree with what he has to say, but with a calling card like that, they have to take his point of view seriously, and he’s good at leveraging his success to create more Paul Grahams (making himself even more successful in the process). That’s the sort of thing I have in mind.
Edit: To summarize, if Paul Graham is making a killing with domain-specific rationality, surely we should be raking in the billions or at least doing as well with general rationality? If not, why?
I understand what you mean by successful. I am not particularly successful by society’s standards, nor by my current standards.
I agree that if a handful of overtly rationalist, spectacularly successful entrepreneurs emerged, it would lend incredible credibility to outreach efforts. After thought, I agree this would be more helpful than almost any other form of success. But there isn’t any evidence that being rational (or even being identical to a wildly successful entrepreneur) can let you make $100M reliably. I hope it does, and I’m sure plenty of rational (in the style of LW) people will try.
People have been analogizing the art of rationality to punching and the art of overcoming akrasia to kicking. This is a way of explaining why rationality alone is incomplete. Others have seen the lack of spectacular results by rationalists as evidence of its non-utility. I can improve on this and offer new analogies that are closer parallels.
Rationality is not like punching, it is like blocking. As has been said, it is the art of not being stupid. As such, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. (Luck)x(Perseverance)x(Talent)=Success, and rationality decreases the amount of luck that is needed without providing perseverance (overcoming akrasia, striking) or talent (natural athleticism).
Regarding health, a hunter-gather lifestyle is healthier than a primitive farming one. Farming took over the world by being better for its societies, not its societies’ individuals. Yet, only farming could have provided the infrastructure that gives us modern medicine. By analogy, there’s hope yet for formal rationality. Gradually improving systemization will eventually outstrip what has evolved to be the natural path to success, so long as it can keep improving.
I’ve also done well academically but I am talking about success on a different order of magnitude, repeated for several people and causally related to an increase in rationality, not merely a halo effect.
For instance, Paul Graham has been incredibly successful in guiding the world towards his preferred outcomes (Hacker News, YCombinator, Startup Visa, lots more), and his first step was to build and sell a startup for approx $150m. Not everyone will agree with what he has to say, but with a calling card like that, they have to take his point of view seriously, and he’s good at leveraging his success to create more Paul Grahams (making himself even more successful in the process). That’s the sort of thing I have in mind.
Edit: To summarize, if Paul Graham is making a killing with domain-specific rationality, surely we should be raking in the billions or at least doing as well with general rationality? If not, why?
I understand what you mean by successful. I am not particularly successful by society’s standards, nor by my current standards.
I agree that if a handful of overtly rationalist, spectacularly successful entrepreneurs emerged, it would lend incredible credibility to outreach efforts. After thought, I agree this would be more helpful than almost any other form of success. But there isn’t any evidence that being rational (or even being identical to a wildly successful entrepreneur) can let you make $100M reliably. I hope it does, and I’m sure plenty of rational (in the style of LW) people will try.
People have been analogizing the art of rationality to punching and the art of overcoming akrasia to kicking. This is a way of explaining why rationality alone is incomplete. Others have seen the lack of spectacular results by rationalists as evidence of its non-utility. I can improve on this and offer new analogies that are closer parallels.
Rationality is not like punching, it is like blocking. As has been said, it is the art of not being stupid. As such, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. (Luck)x(Perseverance)x(Talent)=Success, and rationality decreases the amount of luck that is needed without providing perseverance (overcoming akrasia, striking) or talent (natural athleticism).
Regarding health, a hunter-gather lifestyle is healthier than a primitive farming one. Farming took over the world by being better for its societies, not its societies’ individuals. Yet, only farming could have provided the infrastructure that gives us modern medicine. By analogy, there’s hope yet for formal rationality. Gradually improving systemization will eventually outstrip what has evolved to be the natural path to success, so long as it can keep improving.