That’s what I was going to reply with. To begin with, a rationalist style of rethoric should force you to write/speak like that, or make it easy for the audience to tell whether or not you do.
(Rationalist rethoric can mean at least three things: ways of communication you adopt in order to be able to deliver your message as rationally and honestly as possible, not in order to persuade; techniques that persuade rationalists particularly well; or new forms of dark arts discovered by rationalists)
(We should distinguish between forms of rhetoric that optimize for persuasion and those that optimize for truth. Eliezer’s proposed “ethical writing” seems to optimize for truth. That is, if everyone wrote like that, we would find out more truths and lying would be harder, or even persuading people of untruths. Though it’s also awfully persuasive… On the other hand, political rhetoric probably optimizes for persuasion, in so far as it involves knowingly persuading people of lies and bad policies.)
That’s what I was going to reply with. To begin with, a rationalist style of rethoric should force you to write/speak like that, or make it easy for the audience to tell whether or not you do.
(Rationalist rethoric can mean at least three things: ways of communication you adopt in order to be able to deliver your message as rationally and honestly as possible, not in order to persuade; techniques that persuade rationalists particularly well; or new forms of dark arts discovered by rationalists)
(We should distinguish between forms of rhetoric that optimize for persuasion and those that optimize for truth. Eliezer’s proposed “ethical writing” seems to optimize for truth. That is, if everyone wrote like that, we would find out more truths and lying would be harder, or even persuading people of untruths. Though it’s also awfully persuasive… On the other hand, political rhetoric probably optimizes for persuasion, in so far as it involves knowingly persuading people of lies and bad policies.)