(Unfortunately) the actual rationalist-who-wins is the one who goes about his ambitions like a good Slytherin and never publicly states his beliefs.
I think this is mostly true, though there are a few problems with “Slytherin Rationality”.
it was irrational for Aaronson to open his mouth about Feminism
Suppose modern elevator-gate-y feminism operates a bit like a mafia protection racket: they (the feminists) cream off status and money for themselves by propagating a set of ideas that are clearly ridiculous, but they keep everyone in line by threatening to doxx and shame and generally destroy the reputation of anyone who challenges them. A small group of Rebecca Watsons could dominate a much larger group of Slytherin Rationalists if all the Slytherins aren’t prepared to take even a small risk to stand up for what they believe in.
talking about identitarian-adjacent topics like genetic modification without first carefully preparing the ground for discussion is going to risky.
If you never talk about the things that you actually care about, you will never manage to find people who you want to be close friends and allies with.
You can “prepare the ground” to some extent, but really what that means is that you take the slow route to unfriending the person rather than the fast route. You want to hang around in your free time with someone who you have to constantly filter yourself around and construct elaborate lies for? I didn’t think so.…
Preparing the ground is probably best used on someone who you see as a means to something, for example you want to extract favors from them, get money or other contacts from them, etc.
If you never publicly state your beliefs, how are you supposed to refine them?
But if you do publicly state your beliefs, the Rebecca Watsons can eat you, and if you don’t, the Rebecca Watsons can coordinate against you.
How do you solve that?
“I believe that it’s always important to exchange views with people, no matter what their perspectives are. I think that we have a lot of problems in our society and we need to be finding ways to talk to people, we need to find ways to talk to people where not everything is completely transparent. … I think often you have the best conversations in smaller groups where not everything is being monitored. That’s how you have very honest conversations and how you can think better about the future.”—Thiel on Bilderberg
Suppose modern elevator-gate-y feminism operates a bit like a mafia protection racket: they (the feminists) cream off status and money for themselves by propagating a set of ideas that are clearly ridiculous, but they keep everyone in line by threatening to doxx and shame and generally destroy the reputation of anyone who challenges them. A small group of Rebecca Watsons could dominate a much larger group of Slytherin Rationalists if all the Slytherins aren’t prepared to take even a small risk to stand up for what they believe in.
You’re absolutely right. I don’t know of any good coordinative solution to this that doesn’t look more like people sticking their necks out and getting guillotined in sequence.
You can “prepare the ground” to some extent, but really what that means is that you take the slow route to unfriending the person rather than the fast route. You want to hang around in your free time with someone who you have to constantly filter yourself around and construct elaborate lies for? I didn’t think so....
I find it’s much easier to do this kind of thing in real life. If you really want to talk about some unusual belief, you can always calibrate your approach based on the initial position of the person you’re trying to talk to. On the Internet (which is where this type of thing usually goes wrong) you’re usually posting semi-contextualized text in public. It’s almost doomed to failure.
Well it isn’t as if this is the first time ever that humans have had to coordinate on something. The usual tricks would include creating anti-SJW movements, setting up an alternative status-structure with its own reward and punishment mechanisms, giving power and status to key people who challenge SJWs.
I think this is mostly true, though there are a few problems with “Slytherin Rationality”.
Suppose modern elevator-gate-y feminism operates a bit like a mafia protection racket: they (the feminists) cream off status and money for themselves by propagating a set of ideas that are clearly ridiculous, but they keep everyone in line by threatening to doxx and shame and generally destroy the reputation of anyone who challenges them. A small group of Rebecca Watsons could dominate a much larger group of Slytherin Rationalists if all the Slytherins aren’t prepared to take even a small risk to stand up for what they believe in.
If you never talk about the things that you actually care about, you will never manage to find people who you want to be close friends and allies with.
You can “prepare the ground” to some extent, but really what that means is that you take the slow route to unfriending the person rather than the fast route. You want to hang around in your free time with someone who you have to constantly filter yourself around and construct elaborate lies for? I didn’t think so.…
Preparing the ground is probably best used on someone who you see as a means to something, for example you want to extract favors from them, get money or other contacts from them, etc.
If you never publicly state your beliefs, how are you supposed to refine them?
But if you do publicly state your beliefs, the Rebecca Watsons can eat you, and if you don’t, the Rebecca Watsons can coordinate against you.
How do you solve that?
“I believe that it’s always important to exchange views with people, no matter what their perspectives are. I think that we have a lot of problems in our society and we need to be finding ways to talk to people, we need to find ways to talk to people where not everything is completely transparent. … I think often you have the best conversations in smaller groups where not everything is being monitored. That’s how you have very honest conversations and how you can think better about the future.”—Thiel on Bilderberg
You’re absolutely right. I don’t know of any good coordinative solution to this that doesn’t look more like people sticking their necks out and getting guillotined in sequence.
I find it’s much easier to do this kind of thing in real life. If you really want to talk about some unusual belief, you can always calibrate your approach based on the initial position of the person you’re trying to talk to. On the Internet (which is where this type of thing usually goes wrong) you’re usually posting semi-contextualized text in public. It’s almost doomed to failure.
Well it isn’t as if this is the first time ever that humans have had to coordinate on something. The usual tricks would include creating anti-SJW movements, setting up an alternative status-structure with its own reward and punishment mechanisms, giving power and status to key people who challenge SJWs.