Wait a second, now we’re using Jews trying to run a synagogue as an example of a group who cooperate and don’t always disagree with each other for the sake of disagreeing? Your synagogue must have been very different from mine. You never heard the old “Ten Jews, ten opinions—or twenty if they’re Reform” joke? Or the desert island joke?
I also agree with everyone. In particular, I agree with Cameron and Prase that it’s tough to just say “I agree”. I agree with ciphergoth that I worry that I’m sucking up to you too much. I agree with Anna Salamon that we tend to be intellectual show-offs. I agree with Julian that many of us probably started off with a contrarian streak and then became rationalists. I agree with Jacob Lyles that there’s a strong game theory element here—I lose big if rationalists don’t cooperate, I win a little if we all cooperate under Eliezer’s benevolent leadership, but to a certain way of thinking I win even more if we all cooperate under my benevolent leadership and there’s no universally convincing proof that cooperating under someone else is always the highest utility option. And I agree with practically everything in the main post.
One thing I don’t agree with: being ashamed of strong feelings isn’t a specifically rationalist problem. It’s a broader problem with upper/middle class society. Possibly more on this later.
I’ve never been dragged to any other religious institution, so I wouldn’t have any other example to use. I expect these forces are much stronger at Jesus Camp or the Raelians. But yes, even Jewish institutions still coordinate better than atheist ones.
Granting that the jokes you refer to are generally accurate, wouldn’t that make the synagogue a better example for a rationalist Cat Herd than some other religious organization where people “think” in lockstep with the Dear Leader? The synagogue would represent an example of a group of people who manage to cooperate effectively even with a high level of dissensus (neologism for the opposite of consensus). Which, as I understand it, is the goal Eliezer is aiming for in this post.
I was not asserting that rationality is all that you need to make the most efficient group, if that was what you are getting at.
I think we agree that starting with groups A and B both with x skills if group A is more rational it will also be the more effective group.
My argument was as the ability of the group to act rationally increases, the utility difference between being a member and being the leader will decreases as the group becomes better at judging the leaders value.
Wait a second, now we’re using Jews trying to run a synagogue as an example of a group who cooperate and don’t always disagree with each other for the sake of disagreeing? Your synagogue must have been very different from mine. You never heard the old “Ten Jews, ten opinions—or twenty if they’re Reform” joke? Or the desert island joke?
I also agree with everyone. In particular, I agree with Cameron and Prase that it’s tough to just say “I agree”. I agree with ciphergoth that I worry that I’m sucking up to you too much. I agree with Anna Salamon that we tend to be intellectual show-offs. I agree with Julian that many of us probably started off with a contrarian streak and then became rationalists. I agree with Jacob Lyles that there’s a strong game theory element here—I lose big if rationalists don’t cooperate, I win a little if we all cooperate under Eliezer’s benevolent leadership, but to a certain way of thinking I win even more if we all cooperate under my benevolent leadership and there’s no universally convincing proof that cooperating under someone else is always the highest utility option. And I agree with practically everything in the main post.
One thing I don’t agree with: being ashamed of strong feelings isn’t a specifically rationalist problem. It’s a broader problem with upper/middle class society. Possibly more on this later.
I’ve never been dragged to any other religious institution, so I wouldn’t have any other example to use. I expect these forces are much stronger at Jesus Camp or the Raelians. But yes, even Jewish institutions still coordinate better than atheist ones.
Granting that the jokes you refer to are generally accurate, wouldn’t that make the synagogue a better example for a rationalist Cat Herd than some other religious organization where people “think” in lockstep with the Dear Leader? The synagogue would represent an example of a group of people who manage to cooperate effectively even with a high level of dissensus (neologism for the opposite of consensus). Which, as I understand it, is the goal Eliezer is aiming for in this post.
And you win the most when the group is so rational that almost anyone could serve as the benevolent leader.
The group trait required is not rationality—it is other traits that also share positive affect.
I was not asserting that rationality is all that you need to make the most efficient group, if that was what you are getting at.
I think we agree that starting with groups A and B both with x skills if group A is more rational it will also be the more effective group.
My argument was as the ability of the group to act rationally increases, the utility difference between being a member and being the leader will decreases as the group becomes better at judging the leaders value.