From a marketing perspective, when introducing something novel it is frequently a good idea to name things descriptively, so that if someone lacks the right keywords but has a felt need for “your thing” they find you anyway because you already use those keywords in your name or associated description. This is potentially a project in itself because you have to do market research and figure out what inferentially distant potential “customers” think, when they think about your stuff.
Looking at the tag cloud for the discussion area I would say that what we actually do in the discussion area is “talk and share links about psychologically rational meta-philosophy concerned with artificial intelligence and the singularity”. Based on the tag cloud, the front page is for “meetup scheduling and discussion of a bayesian moral meta-philosophy inspired by science and artificial intelligence, with specific concern for the psychology of self deception and akrasia”.
Another possible angle: Sometimes it’s useful to identify and reclaim the name applied to you by your critics, who are likely to have a good handle on what about you is distinctive enough to object to. (I’ve heard that Christian sects like the Puritans did this sort of epithet reclamation back in the 1600′s.) If that’s a useful strategy we might impatiently adopt Jaron Lanier’s term “cybernetic totalism” or if we have more patience then wait until someone else comes up with a more piercing criticism :-)
If we follow Lanier’s term maybe we could be said to be a community of cybernetic totalists dedicated to refining the human art of “cybernetic efficacy”?
Sometimes I actively appreciate the fuzziness of the status quo. Sometimes if you have a stable name for something it causes people to go crazy about it in specific ways and imagine it has an “essence” that grows out of its dictionary definition and then you have this whole stupid conversation about words instead of talking about regularities within the world and expectations about them. The name of the site is “less wrong” and that phrase pretty hard hard to go wrong with. The stoics were named after the fact that they hung out around a specific building in Athens called the “Stoa Poecile”. Maybe instead we could just talk about “that which is praised and cultivated by LessWong commenters”, and let the substantive claims dominate the interpretative processes rather than have the pre-existing dictionary definition of a term appropriated by us for discussion purposes?
I agree with the first and third bullet points, but could you please elaborate on what you mean by the second one?
Also, I would like to add that we usually divide rationality into epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality, as described in What Do We Mean By “Rationality”? So whichever name we pick, it has to describe both branches, which is tricky. Maybe we should ask ourselves what the connection is between the two, and focus on that?
I agree with the first and third bullet points, but could you please elaborate on what you mean by the second one?
Just that we shouldn’t call it “uber-better-than-everyone-else-ism” or the “FindTheRightAnswer™ method” or, you know, something silly like that. (Though what I actually had in mind when I wrote that bullet point was Francis Bacon’s “idols of the marketplace” and the like.)
Yes, good idea. Here are some things I can think of:
It should be free of confusing double meanings.
It should not be silly.
It should be suggestive of what we’re about.
Any other thoughts?
From a marketing perspective, when introducing something novel it is frequently a good idea to name things descriptively, so that if someone lacks the right keywords but has a felt need for “your thing” they find you anyway because you already use those keywords in your name or associated description. This is potentially a project in itself because you have to do market research and figure out what inferentially distant potential “customers” think, when they think about your stuff.
Looking at the tag cloud for the discussion area I would say that what we actually do in the discussion area is “talk and share links about psychologically rational meta-philosophy concerned with artificial intelligence and the singularity”. Based on the tag cloud, the front page is for “meetup scheduling and discussion of a bayesian moral meta-philosophy inspired by science and artificial intelligence, with specific concern for the psychology of self deception and akrasia”.
Another possible angle: Sometimes it’s useful to identify and reclaim the name applied to you by your critics, who are likely to have a good handle on what about you is distinctive enough to object to. (I’ve heard that Christian sects like the Puritans did this sort of epithet reclamation back in the 1600′s.) If that’s a useful strategy we might impatiently adopt Jaron Lanier’s term “cybernetic totalism” or if we have more patience then wait until someone else comes up with a more piercing criticism :-)
If we follow Lanier’s term maybe we could be said to be a community of cybernetic totalists dedicated to refining the human art of “cybernetic efficacy”?
Sometimes I actively appreciate the fuzziness of the status quo. Sometimes if you have a stable name for something it causes people to go crazy about it in specific ways and imagine it has an “essence” that grows out of its dictionary definition and then you have this whole stupid conversation about words instead of talking about regularities within the world and expectations about them. The name of the site is “less wrong” and that phrase pretty hard hard to go wrong with. The stoics were named after the fact that they hung out around a specific building in Athens called the “Stoa Poecile”. Maybe instead we could just talk about “that which is praised and cultivated by LessWong commenters”, and let the substantive claims dominate the interpretative processes rather than have the pre-existing dictionary definition of a term appropriated by us for discussion purposes?
I agree with the first and third bullet points, but could you please elaborate on what you mean by the second one?
Also, I would like to add that we usually divide rationality into epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality, as described in What Do We Mean By “Rationality”? So whichever name we pick, it has to describe both branches, which is tricky. Maybe we should ask ourselves what the connection is between the two, and focus on that?
Just that we shouldn’t call it “uber-better-than-everyone-else-ism” or the “FindTheRightAnswer™ method” or, you know, something silly like that. (Though what I actually had in mind when I wrote that bullet point was Francis Bacon’s “idols of the marketplace” and the like.)