There’s a thing with people who deconvert from Christianity. They often have something like a god-sized hole and sometimes they start to believe in evolution in a way that’s silly. They had all sorts of ideas to evolution that an professor in the subject doesn’t have. You could call the professor a “postevoluionist” but that has all sorts of implications that aren’t really warrented.
Taking rationality as being about “rationality is about thinking through everything” is something that comes easy to people who haven’t invested much time in rationality. If I see someone who has that mindset I don’t think “well that’s a rationalist”. On the other hand if I hear someone say “The value of information of spending five more minutes thinking about that is good while the value of information of spending an hour on it isn’t” that’s to me an immediate flag for someone showing the rationalist vibe.
Rationality is about thinking well and that’s what the vibe is about, but “all thinking should be explicit” is just a thinking error.
If there are a variety of responces to the material that the author didn’t intend and we only count “positive” deviations as “being true” to the original and count “negative” deviations as “not being true” that paints a rosier picture than the communication actually accomplishes.
Then there is also the effect that if the listener is smart and can imagine what would have been a smart thing for the speaker to say or “what they must have meant”.
If there is a reasonable listenening process that results in a unstandard interpretation that should probably be taken seriously.
If you take Quantum physics, then you find that some people upon learning of it start talking about Quantum consciousness and others start doing proper physics.
Doing proper physics takes work. Rationality also takes work. Without putting in the work neither is worth much.
There’s a thing with people who deconvert from Christianity. They often have something like a god-sized hole and sometimes they start to believe in evolution in a way that’s silly. They had all sorts of ideas to evolution that an professor in the subject doesn’t have. You could call the professor a “postevoluionist” but that has all sorts of implications that aren’t really warrented.
Taking rationality as being about “rationality is about thinking through everything” is something that comes easy to people who haven’t invested much time in rationality. If I see someone who has that mindset I don’t think “well that’s a rationalist”. On the other hand if I hear someone say “The value of information of spending five more minutes thinking about that is good while the value of information of spending an hour on it isn’t” that’s to me an immediate flag for someone showing the rationalist vibe.
Rationality is about thinking well and that’s what the vibe is about, but “all thinking should be explicit” is just a thinking error.
If there are a variety of responces to the material that the author didn’t intend and we only count “positive” deviations as “being true” to the original and count “negative” deviations as “not being true” that paints a rosier picture than the communication actually accomplishes.
Then there is also the effect that if the listener is smart and can imagine what would have been a smart thing for the speaker to say or “what they must have meant”.
If there is a reasonable listenening process that results in a unstandard interpretation that should probably be taken seriously.
If you take Quantum physics, then you find that some people upon learning of it start talking about Quantum consciousness and others start doing proper physics.
Doing proper physics takes work. Rationality also takes work. Without putting in the work neither is worth much.