I would like to have the kind of debate where anything is allowed to be said and nothing is taboo
this kind of debate, combined with some intense extreme thoughts, causes some people to break down
it feels wrong to dismiss people as “not ready for this kind of debate”, and we probably can’t do it reliably
The first point because “what is true, is already true”; and also because things are connected, and when X is connected to Y, being wrong about X probably also makes you somewhat wrong about Y.
The second point because people are different, in how resilient they are to horrible thoughts, how sheltered they have been so far, whether they have specific traumas and triggers. What sounds like an amusing thought experiment to one can be a horrifying nightmare to another; and the rationalist ethos of taking ideas seriously only makes it worse as it disables the usual protection mechanisms of the mind.
The third point because many people in the rationality community are contrarians by nature, and telling them “could you please not do X” only makes it guaranteed that X will happen, and explaining them why X is a bad idea only results in them explaining to you why you are wrong. Then there is the strong belief in the Bay Area that excluding anyone is wrong; also various people who have various problems and have been in the past excluded from places would be triggered by the idea of excluding people from the rationality community. Finally, some people would suspect that this is some kind of power move; like, if you support some idea, you might exclude people who oppose this idea as “not mature enough to participate in the hardcore rationalist debates”.
Plus there is this thing that when all debates happen in the open, people already accuse us of being cultish, but if the serious debates started happening behind the closed doors, accessible only to people already vetted e.g. by Anna, I am afraid this might skyrocket. The Protocols of the Elders of TESCREAL would practically write themselves.
You mention the risks associated with meditation… makes me wonder how analogical is the situation. I am not an expert, but it seems to me that with meditation, the main risk is meditation itself. Not hanging out with people who meditate; nor hearing about their beliefs. What is it like with the rationality-community-caused mental breakdowns? Do they only happen at minicamps? Or is exposure to the rationality community enough? Can people get crazy by merely reading the Sequences? By hanging out at Less Wrong meetups?
I agree that the safety of the new members in the rationality community seems neglected. In the past I have suggested that someone should write a material on dangers related to our community, that each new member should read. The things I had in mind were more like “you could be exploited by people like Brent Dill” rather than psychosis, but all bad things should be mentioned there. (Analogically to the corporate safety trainings in my company, which remind us not to do X, Y, Z, illustrated by anonymized stories about bad things that happened when people did X, Y, Z in the past.) Sadly, I am too lazy to write it.
Then there is the strong belief in the Bay Area that excluding anyone is wrong; also various people who have various problems and have been in the past excluded from places would be triggered by the idea of excluding people from the rationality community.
I just want to say that, while it has in the past been the case that a lot of people were very anti-exclusion, and some people are still that way, I certainly am not and this does not accurately describe Lightcone, and regularly we are involved in excluding or banning people for bad behavior. Most major events we are involved in running of a certain size have involved some amount of this.
I think this is healthy and necessary and the attempt to include everyone or always make sure that whatever stray cat shows up on your doorstep can live in your home, is very unhealthy and led to a lot of past problems and hurtful dynamics.
(There’s lots more details to this and how to do justice well that I’m skipping over, right now I’m just replying to this narrow point.)
As I see it, the problem is the following:
I would like to have the kind of debate where anything is allowed to be said and nothing is taboo
this kind of debate, combined with some intense extreme thoughts, causes some people to break down
it feels wrong to dismiss people as “not ready for this kind of debate”, and we probably can’t do it reliably
The first point because “what is true, is already true”; and also because things are connected, and when X is connected to Y, being wrong about X probably also makes you somewhat wrong about Y.
The second point because people are different, in how resilient they are to horrible thoughts, how sheltered they have been so far, whether they have specific traumas and triggers. What sounds like an amusing thought experiment to one can be a horrifying nightmare to another; and the rationalist ethos of taking ideas seriously only makes it worse as it disables the usual protection mechanisms of the mind.
The third point because many people in the rationality community are contrarians by nature, and telling them “could you please not do X” only makes it guaranteed that X will happen, and explaining them why X is a bad idea only results in them explaining to you why you are wrong. Then there is the strong belief in the Bay Area that excluding anyone is wrong; also various people who have various problems and have been in the past excluded from places would be triggered by the idea of excluding people from the rationality community. Finally, some people would suspect that this is some kind of power move; like, if you support some idea, you might exclude people who oppose this idea as “not mature enough to participate in the hardcore rationalist debates”.
Plus there is this thing that when all debates happen in the open, people already accuse us of being cultish, but if the serious debates started happening behind the closed doors, accessible only to people already vetted e.g. by Anna, I am afraid this might skyrocket. The Protocols of the Elders of TESCREAL would practically write themselves.
You mention the risks associated with meditation… makes me wonder how analogical is the situation. I am not an expert, but it seems to me that with meditation, the main risk is meditation itself. Not hanging out with people who meditate; nor hearing about their beliefs. What is it like with the rationality-community-caused mental breakdowns? Do they only happen at minicamps? Or is exposure to the rationality community enough? Can people get crazy by merely reading the Sequences? By hanging out at Less Wrong meetups?
I agree that the safety of the new members in the rationality community seems neglected. In the past I have suggested that someone should write a material on dangers related to our community, that each new member should read. The things I had in mind were more like “you could be exploited by people like Brent Dill” rather than psychosis, but all bad things should be mentioned there. (Analogically to the corporate safety trainings in my company, which remind us not to do X, Y, Z, illustrated by anonymized stories about bad things that happened when people did X, Y, Z in the past.) Sadly, I am too lazy to write it.
I just want to say that, while it has in the past been the case that a lot of people were very anti-exclusion, and some people are still that way, I certainly am not and this does not accurately describe Lightcone, and regularly we are involved in excluding or banning people for bad behavior. Most major events we are involved in running of a certain size have involved some amount of this.
I think this is healthy and necessary and the attempt to include everyone or always make sure that whatever stray cat shows up on your doorstep can live in your home, is very unhealthy and led to a lot of past problems and hurtful dynamics.
(There’s lots more details to this and how to do justice well that I’m skipping over, right now I’m just replying to this narrow point.)