There’s a common failure mode whereby rationalists and EAs are averse to thinking about how their cognition is skewed by incentives and power dynamics
Man, I do often feel that rationalists, and especially EAs are too willing to be credulous based on social signals that aren’t all that epistemically reliable (and I plan to write about this sometime). But it also seems like rationalists and EAs do better at this than almost any similarly sized subculture?
Most people just uncritically adopt the views of their social peers, without almost any reflection!
The only similarly-sized group that I know of that might be doing better is the set of active political operators in DC? They’re definitely aware of the influence of power. But even so, I think most of them basically uncritically adopt parts of the party line?
I think most onlookers would interpret Richard as saying “Rationalists and EAs are unusually bad at this”. Insofar as Richard thinks that, I want to publicly dispute it. Insofar as he doesn’t, and this is a miscommunication, I want to correct the record.
That rationalists are better than average does not exempt us from the problems caused by our not being remotely good enough, which is why I plan to write about it.
Well, in theory it could for example suggest, directionally, whether it’s more a “my rationalist tools are breaking in my hands” situation vs. a “I have failed to live up to my rationalist tools” sort of situation.
Man, I do often feel that rationalists, and especially EAs are too willing to be credulous based on social signals that aren’t all that epistemically reliable (and I plan to write about this sometime). But it also seems like rationalists and EAs do better at this than almost any similarly sized subculture?
Most people just uncritically adopt the views of their social peers, without almost any reflection!
The only similarly-sized group that I know of that might be doing better is the set of active political operators in DC? They’re definitely aware of the influence of power. But even so, I think most of them basically uncritically adopt parts of the party line?
What is the relevance of this? It is written of the eighth virtue of humility that “it is useless to be superior [...] There is no guarantee that adequacy is possible given your hardest effort; therefore spare no thought for whether others are doing worse.”
I think most onlookers would interpret Richard as saying “Rationalists and EAs are unusually bad at this”. Insofar as Richard thinks that, I want to publicly dispute it. Insofar as he doesn’t, and this is a miscommunication, I want to correct the record.
That rationalists are better than average does not exempt us from the problems caused by our not being remotely good enough, which is why I plan to write about it.
Well, in theory it could for example suggest, directionally, whether it’s more a “my rationalist tools are breaking in my hands” situation vs. a “I have failed to live up to my rationalist tools” sort of situation.
Good point, I’ve added a parenthetical: “(especially relative to how clearly these groups think about other things)”