Thanks for writing this. I… am not particularly optimistic about the org updating based on this, which I’ll talk about below.
For the record, broadly the factual claims seem true as far as I know. A lot of details were news to me but I expect they’re all basically truthful, though I have a lot of nits about tone and implication. I’m making some small updates just based on some new info here, but otherwise no big update for me, at least atm.
I want to highlight what I discussed in my post last year. Framing this in terms of anti-cult literature is sort of assuming the conclusion: if what they were doing was appropriate, those models would condemn it just the same. There’s more nuance here, so part of your argument (inasmuch as you’re making an argument, and a lot of this post is descriptive, which 👍) is that the org is dysfunctional, bleeds people, and is flailing in its paranoia. Which, well, that’s still substantially subject to the same criticism… The point here is that within Maple’s frame their behavior is largely a reasonable response to intense constraints to a society which faces acute existential risk of its own making, etc etc.
He has asked a roomful of us to settle what proportion of students becoming traumatized through the training would be acceptable: “is it 20%? 50%? 100%!?!”.
I actually wasn’t there for this conversation, and during my time this wasn’t part of the rhetoric yet, but I made exactly this point in my post:
Part of the crux here is that under steep tradeoffs, we should be more willing to accept the costs of harming people, especially for modest amounts of harm. Special forces operatives just are traumatized, and no one reasonable says “this is unacceptable under any circumstances.”
I still basically endorse this point.
And more generally:
One common feature of critiques of Maple which is especially frustrating to me, especially from ex Maplers, is that they can only be made by recourse to some secular liberal scientism, and refuse to meet Maple and Soryu, as they say, “where they’re at.” To be clear, I haven’t done that here either, and maybe doing so could be a life’s work, and probably not mine.
That said, I think a reasonable objection there might be something like, “no, this memetic object is simply too toxic, and even trying to entertain it will ensnare you. All you can do is stand from a distance, notice the ways in which it looks diseased, and walk away.” My impression is that Maple got sympathetic attention from the broader rat scene circa 2019 because their schtick felt like a reasonable posture given what rats already believed, and potentially an important angle.
The point here is that within Maple’s frame their behavior is largely a reasonable response to intense constraints to a society which faces acute existential risk of its own making, etc etc.
Doesn’t this apply to pretty much any group? Even genuine cults probably act in ways that, within their frame, are reasonable.
One common feature of critiques of Maple which is especially frustrating to me, especially from ex Maplers, is that they can only be made by recourse to some secular liberal scientism, and refuse to meet Maple and Soryu, as they say, “where they’re at.”
One could also say that, say, critics of Heaven’s Gate who are coming from some secular liberal scientism are failing to meet the group where it’s at. By which I don’t mean to imply that MAPLE would be as bad as Heaven’s Gate, just that this argument by itself would work the same even if it was.
Framing this in terms of anti-cult literature is sort of assuming the conclusion: if what they were doing was appropriate, those models would condemn it just the same.
This line of reasoning confuses me a bit. I think what you’re saying here is “If [the behaviors that anti-cult people object to] turned out to actually be on the critical path for saving the world, the anti-cult people would still object to those behaviors.” Is that an accurate restatement?
Thanks for writing this. I… am not particularly optimistic about the org updating based on this, which I’ll talk about below.
For the record, broadly the factual claims seem true as far as I know. A lot of details were news to me but I expect they’re all basically truthful, though I have a lot of nits about tone and implication. I’m making some small updates just based on some new info here, but otherwise no big update for me, at least atm.
I want to highlight what I discussed in my post last year. Framing this in terms of anti-cult literature is sort of assuming the conclusion: if what they were doing was appropriate, those models would condemn it just the same. There’s more nuance here, so part of your argument (inasmuch as you’re making an argument, and a lot of this post is descriptive, which 👍) is that the org is dysfunctional, bleeds people, and is flailing in its paranoia. Which, well, that’s still substantially subject to the same criticism… The point here is that within Maple’s frame their behavior is largely a reasonable response to intense constraints to a society which faces acute existential risk of its own making, etc etc.
I actually wasn’t there for this conversation, and during my time this wasn’t part of the rhetoric yet, but I made exactly this point in my post:
I still basically endorse this point.
And more generally:
That said, I think a reasonable objection there might be something like, “no, this memetic object is simply too toxic, and even trying to entertain it will ensnare you. All you can do is stand from a distance, notice the ways in which it looks diseased, and walk away.” My impression is that Maple got sympathetic attention from the broader rat scene circa 2019 because their schtick felt like a reasonable posture given what rats already believed, and potentially an important angle.
Doesn’t this apply to pretty much any group? Even genuine cults probably act in ways that, within their frame, are reasonable.
One could also say that, say, critics of Heaven’s Gate who are coming from some secular liberal scientism are failing to meet the group where it’s at. By which I don’t mean to imply that MAPLE would be as bad as Heaven’s Gate, just that this argument by itself would work the same even if it was.
This line of reasoning confuses me a bit. I think what you’re saying here is “If [the behaviors that anti-cult people object to] turned out to actually be on the critical path for saving the world, the anti-cult people would still object to those behaviors.” Is that an accurate restatement?