The problem is language. If you use a concept frequently, you pretty much need a shorthand way of referring to it. “Mate selection for the male who values the use of a properly weighted Bayesian model in the evaluation of the probability of phenomena” would not make a very effective post title. Moreover, it wouldn’t communicate as effectively. “Mate selection for the male rationalist” tells you, immediately, that it is directed at a specific type of person with a fairly specific mode of thinking, and that it (probably) addresses him in this mode of thinking (since “rationalist” is a reasonably well understood term around these parts). The longer one doesn’t communicate all of that.
The real challenge, rather than disparaging “rationalist,” which, I agree, has some definite connotative problems, is to come up with another term. I personally have no suggestions, but I do have some meta suggestions.
-It should be short and as non-esoteric as possible. One word is ideal, two short words is probably maximum.
-It should avoid negative connotations and strongly positive ones (calling oneself, e.g., “bright” is rather off-putting by its implications for outsiders).
-It need not map directly to rationality or any such related concept. The Republicans and Democrats are not fundamentally about republicanism or democracy, and they manage just fine.
-That’s about all I can think of.
This is actually a PR issue worthy of thought. The term “rationalist” may be rather off-putting for someone new to the site, and, given how society works, if this system of thought develops a sufficient following, it’s going to want a label.
The main problem with “rationalist” is that instead of declaring one’s goal, one seems to be claiming to have achieved a goal. To most people it seems arrogant. So I like “truth seeker” because it so clearly avoids that problem. Of course “truth seeker” also has the problem that it implicitly accuses everyone else of not seeking truth. Believe me, most people understand this slight and are not happy with it. So which insults other folks less—saying we love truth when they don’t, or saying we are better at finding truth than they are?
Actually, a broader view of this seems useful. Any time we say “I am an X”, the person you’re talking to is likely to take it as you implying that they’re not an X, unless they already identify as being an X as well. So any good-sounding X will come off as insulting. A bad-sounding but interesting X might be useful, but that seems prone to backfiring, and neutral values of X are both difficult to construct and not very stable.
Stating it as ‘I do X’ or even ‘I do X well’ seems more likely to be taken well—there’s less of an intrinsic implication about whether the other person does X.
The problem is language. If you use a concept frequently, you pretty much need
a shorthand way of referring to it.
But I would ask, do you need that concept – a concept for labeling this type of person – in the first place?
“Mate selection for the male who values the use of a properly weighted
Bayesian model in the evaluation of the probability of phenomena” would
not make a very effective post title. [as] “Mate selection for the male rationalist”.
I don’t think that’s the only other option. Maybe it could’ve been called “Mate selection for rational male” or “Mate selection for males interested in rationality”.
I don’t see why it has to even make any mention of rationality. Presumably anything posted on Less Wrong is going to be targeted at those with an interest in rationality. Perhaps it could have been “Finding a mate with a similar outlook” or “Looking for relationship?”
I’m not suggesting that any of these alternatives are great titles, I’m just using them to suggest that there are alternatives.
In thinking up a new term to replace an existing term with negative connotations, one should give some attention to how to avoid the euphemism treadmill.
The problem is language. If you use a concept frequently, you pretty much need a shorthand way of referring to it. “Mate selection for the male who values the use of a properly weighted Bayesian model in the evaluation of the probability of phenomena” would not make a very effective post title. Moreover, it wouldn’t communicate as effectively. “Mate selection for the male rationalist” tells you, immediately, that it is directed at a specific type of person with a fairly specific mode of thinking, and that it (probably) addresses him in this mode of thinking (since “rationalist” is a reasonably well understood term around these parts). The longer one doesn’t communicate all of that.
The real challenge, rather than disparaging “rationalist,” which, I agree, has some definite connotative problems, is to come up with another term. I personally have no suggestions, but I do have some meta suggestions.
-It should be short and as non-esoteric as possible. One word is ideal, two short words is probably maximum.
-It should avoid negative connotations and strongly positive ones (calling oneself, e.g., “bright” is rather off-putting by its implications for outsiders).
-It need not map directly to rationality or any such related concept. The Republicans and Democrats are not fundamentally about republicanism or democracy, and they manage just fine.
-That’s about all I can think of.
This is actually a PR issue worthy of thought. The term “rationalist” may be rather off-putting for someone new to the site, and, given how society works, if this system of thought develops a sufficient following, it’s going to want a label.
How about “Truth seeker”?
I think this implies a number of useful characteristics:
Willingness to listen
Lack of attachment to some particular truth or way as absolute
Willingness to be wrong/change one’s mind
The main problem with “rationalist” is that instead of declaring one’s goal, one seems to be claiming to have achieved a goal. To most people it seems arrogant. So I like “truth seeker” because it so clearly avoids that problem. Of course “truth seeker” also has the problem that it implicitly accuses everyone else of not seeking truth. Believe me, most people understand this slight and are not happy with it. So which insults other folks less—saying we love truth when they don’t, or saying we are better at finding truth than they are?
Actually, a broader view of this seems useful. Any time we say “I am an X”, the person you’re talking to is likely to take it as you implying that they’re not an X, unless they already identify as being an X as well. So any good-sounding X will come off as insulting. A bad-sounding but interesting X might be useful, but that seems prone to backfiring, and neutral values of X are both difficult to construct and not very stable.
Stating it as ‘I do X’ or even ‘I do X well’ seems more likely to be taken well—there’s less of an intrinsic implication about whether the other person does X.
Unfortunately, the term is already taken. And I claim by people with too much confirmation bias.
reminiscent of ‘philosopher’.
But I would ask, do you need that concept – a concept for labeling this type of person – in the first place?
I don’t think that’s the only other option. Maybe it could’ve been called “Mate selection for rational male” or “Mate selection for males interested in rationality”.
I don’t see why it has to even make any mention of rationality. Presumably anything posted on Less Wrong is going to be targeted at those with an interest in rationality. Perhaps it could have been “Finding a mate with a similar outlook” or “Looking for relationship?”
I’m not suggesting that any of these alternatives are great titles, I’m just using them to suggest that there are alternatives.
“undeceiver”?
OK, not ideal, and slightly esoteric, but:
rolls of the tongue
parodies “unbeliever”
just odd enough to get attention without being impenetrable
has nice-ish connotations insofar as it implies that you won’t deceive others, and thereby avoids exclusive focus on the self.
fits with the “less wrong” tradition of understatement: trying to be less (self-)deceived, rather than claiming truth
In thinking up a new term to replace an existing term with negative connotations, one should give some attention to how to avoid the euphemism treadmill.