This would be the local dilemma in a nutshell, yes. People are interested in winning at real life as they see it, and, if you tell them “rationalists should WIN” then they’ll say “OK” and try to apply it to what they presently see as their problems … but actually discussing anything political on LessWrong has gone badly enough that quite a lot of the community now behaves phobically even to allusion to politics, going so far as to euphemise the word to “mindkilling.” It’s not clear how to get past this one. (I have a vague idea that worked examples of success in doing so might help.)
actually discussing anything political on LessWrong has gone badly enough that quite a lot of the community now behaves phobically even to allusion to politics
Why do you judge that the past history has made us irrationally averse to discussing politics, rather than rationally averse?
Because the responses look to me more like conditioned reaction than something considered.
If it is, as you hypothesise, rational to avoid even slightly politically-tinged discussion to this degree, then that greatly reduces the hope of raising the sanity waterline. Because very few problems people want and need to solve are going to be free of such a tinge.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, this doesn’t mean I think we should dive headfirst into it on LW. I don’t have a handy solution. But I do think it’s a problem.
i’m a bit new to all of this, but its oddly convenient to conclude that it is rational to ignore a topic that doesn’t lend itself to classic rational thought.
It’s a question of whether to respond to a track record of failure by going off and doing something else instead or persevering. When is it best to attend to developing one’s strengths, and when to attend to remedying one’s weaknesses?
what is your focus, i.e. what would be the ideal goal that you are saying is difficult or impossible to achieve and so it is rational to avoid -- what goal do you find elusive here—personal understanding of the correct “answer” in spite of biases, “raising the sanity waterline” as someone mentioned above, or something else?
Both these items suggest a need for an definitive answer to political questions and I’m not sure that is the correct focus.
If applying rational thought to politics has a track record of failure and we agree politics is a part of everyone’s reality, do you think rational thought cannot explain politics and is an inherent shortcoming of the theory? (this is other way of saying we should move on to things). We talk about rationality like its the way to live life. its troubling that it cannot answer or explain political issues, which shape our government, laws and community. The value of the a theory should partially be tested based on issues and questions it cannot answer. If there are things rational thinking cannot solve, that is an issue/problem with rational theory, not the particular subject matter.
This would be the local dilemma in a nutshell, yes. People are interested in winning at real life as they see it, and, if you tell them “rationalists should WIN” then they’ll say “OK” and try to apply it to what they presently see as their problems … but actually discussing anything political on LessWrong has gone badly enough that quite a lot of the community now behaves phobically even to allusion to politics, going so far as to euphemise the word to “mindkilling.” It’s not clear how to get past this one. (I have a vague idea that worked examples of success in doing so might help.)
edit: hrm. Reason for downvote?
Why do you judge that the past history has made us irrationally averse to discussing politics, rather than rationally averse?
Because the responses look to me more like conditioned reaction than something considered.
If it is, as you hypothesise, rational to avoid even slightly politically-tinged discussion to this degree, then that greatly reduces the hope of raising the sanity waterline. Because very few problems people want and need to solve are going to be free of such a tinge.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, this doesn’t mean I think we should dive headfirst into it on LW. I don’t have a handy solution. But I do think it’s a problem.
i’m a bit new to all of this, but its oddly convenient to conclude that it is rational to ignore a topic that doesn’t lend itself to classic rational thought.
It’s a question of whether to respond to a track record of failure by going off and doing something else instead or persevering. When is it best to attend to developing one’s strengths, and when to attend to remedying one’s weaknesses?
what is your focus, i.e. what would be the ideal goal that you are saying is difficult or impossible to achieve and so it is rational to avoid -- what goal do you find elusive here—personal understanding of the correct “answer” in spite of biases, “raising the sanity waterline” as someone mentioned above, or something else?
Both these items suggest a need for an definitive answer to political questions and I’m not sure that is the correct focus.
If applying rational thought to politics has a track record of failure and we agree politics is a part of everyone’s reality, do you think rational thought cannot explain politics and is an inherent shortcoming of the theory? (this is other way of saying we should move on to things). We talk about rationality like its the way to live life. its troubling that it cannot answer or explain political issues, which shape our government, laws and community. The value of the a theory should partially be tested based on issues and questions it cannot answer. If there are things rational thinking cannot solve, that is an issue/problem with rational theory, not the particular subject matter.
No, merely a contingent failure of people almost everywhere and always.
so its a problem of the individual, not the theory. not sure how you conclude that if no one can apply the theory to prove it.
OK, understood. I wasn’t asking we broaden the discussion here, as it is very good, just curious as to the thinking. Thanks.
sorry, what are you referring to in your last paranthetical?