FWIW, I’ve always understood the referent for “politics” in “politics is the mind-killer” to be, not political principles or opinions (which in fact get discussed here all the time, typically civilly and sometimes usefully), but tribal affiliation with powerful governmental/nationalist camps. I often refer to it as “partisan politics” for that reason, and around here I sometimes refer to it as “Blue/Green politics.” (Both formulations of which neglect the nationalist aspect, but not for any principled reason, just for convenience. If the Blue/Green teaching-story had included a neighboring nation known as the “Purples,” I might refer to it as “Blue/Green/Purple” politics.)
We would presumably find partisan religious discussion equally problematic if we didn’t already filter for alignment with a particular camp. We do find sex/gender discussion problematic, I think for similar reasons, and would find it much more so Less Wrong didn’t filter for a particular gender. We similarly find race/ethnicity discussion problematic, though for the most part it doesn’t come up… there’s one member who periodically talks about how some races are superior to others, and that causes a certain amount of turbulence before it dies down. Etc.
In general, if we believe there are powerful groups or entities fighting for control over large-scale decisions that affect our lives, we tend to pick a side and invest emotionally in supporting whatever positions are conventionally associated with that side, and signalling considerations start to predominate. This makes analysis difficult.
Partisan politics is too narrow—some “political concepts” become enmeshed in one’s personal identity even if they are irrelevant to whether the community organizer or the business executive should be President of the United States.
Consider how and why the “creepiness” and “feminism” discussions broke down so badly, so quickly, and so acrimoniously.
In short, Paul Graham is right when he says (essentially) “Personal identity is the mindkiller”
I agree. I should have said “definition #5 is clearly the closest to what Eliezer is talking about.” As my suggested tabooing phrase indicates, I think “affiliations that don’t pay rent” are the problem.
FWIW, I’ve always understood the referent for “politics” in “politics is the mind-killer” to be, not political principles or opinions (which in fact get discussed here all the time, typically civilly and sometimes usefully), but tribal affiliation with powerful governmental/nationalist camps. I often refer to it as “partisan politics” for that reason, and around here I sometimes refer to it as “Blue/Green politics.” (Both formulations of which neglect the nationalist aspect, but not for any principled reason, just for convenience. If the Blue/Green teaching-story had included a neighboring nation known as the “Purples,” I might refer to it as “Blue/Green/Purple” politics.)
We would presumably find partisan religious discussion equally problematic if we didn’t already filter for alignment with a particular camp.
We do find sex/gender discussion problematic, I think for similar reasons, and would find it much more so Less Wrong didn’t filter for a particular gender.
We similarly find race/ethnicity discussion problematic, though for the most part it doesn’t come up… there’s one member who periodically talks about how some races are superior to others, and that causes a certain amount of turbulence before it dies down.
Etc.
In general, if we believe there are powerful groups or entities fighting for control over large-scale decisions that affect our lives, we tend to pick a side and invest emotionally in supporting whatever positions are conventionally associated with that side, and signalling considerations start to predominate. This makes analysis difficult.
Partisan politics is too narrow—some “political concepts” become enmeshed in one’s personal identity even if they are irrelevant to whether the community organizer or the business executive should be President of the United States.
Consider how and why the “creepiness” and “feminism” discussions broke down so badly, so quickly, and so acrimoniously.
In short, Paul Graham is right when he says (essentially) “Personal identity is the mindkiller”
Yeah, I agree that we find sex/gender discussions problematic for similar reasons.
I agree. I should have said “definition #5 is clearly the closest to what Eliezer is talking about.” As my suggested tabooing phrase indicates, I think “affiliations that don’t pay rent” are the problem.