Yoda Timed (plus an extra 30 seconds at the end to finish up, and then another minute to edit):
There is a type of diversity that is super important for communities. It isn’t race or gender, and it isn’t even belief/ tribe. It has more to do with having lots of Different Types of People.
If your car breaks down, is there a mechanic in your community you can trust to not screw you over? If everyone is making high salaries, who in your community would be available to dog-sit in your home for twenty bucks a night?
This is one reason why I don’t think the Archipelago solution will work. It is even further sub-dividing an already homogenous group. Let’s say some people are more of the social sort, and some people are more of the intellectual conversation sort. The social sorts will hold parties that won’t have the interesting conversations they desire. The intellectual sorts will have to be intellectual by themselves since they aren’t the “arrange a gathering” type.
This also leads to the (erroneous) assumption that because the rationality community consists primarily of Type X of person, that that specific type of person must be inherently better at rationality as a whole.
This really resonated with me. My instinctive reaction was that what you mean by Different Types of People is first D&D Alignment (Lawful-Chaotic, Good-Evil), and second personality type (Big Five/Myers Briggs). Is this closer to what you mean, or are you more focusing on skill specialization? What do you think Type X of rationality people consists of, and can anything be done to increase this kind of diversity?
Separate comment disagreeing with your last sentence on “rationality as a whole”:
I have the notion that rationality doesn’t belong to the rationality community. Rationality is systematized winning. It isn’t any single set of teachings or professions of belief. The rationality community is just one of many groups of people who explicitly aspire to win systematically—perhaps even the one that has gotten the farthest towards the Way, but nevertheless a community of aspiring rationalists. Real rationalists are people who win systematically. If you want to learn real rationality, look to the Elon Musks of the world, even if they don’t wear LessWrong badges.
What I originally meant does align more with skillsets. A healthy community has people who fill all the roles a community needs. Hosting, cooking, debating, organizing, leading, etc. An ideal community ALSO has people who fill roles the community MEMBERS need (helping fix your roof, providing childcare, medical consultation for simple things, etc)
We have people who like to blog and program. Not super helpful if you want someone to help plan/ set up your garden.
Things COULD be done to increase diversity along these lines I suppose, but they probably shouldn’t. It trades off against other values that are held in too high regard here. My recommendation is to get your “healthy community” needs met elsewhere.
I agree that rationality doesn’t belong to the rationality community. The five-minute yoda timer meant I wasn’t super-clear that I think the last sentence is an erroneous belief.
Yoda Timed (plus an extra 30 seconds at the end to finish up, and then another minute to edit):
There is a type of diversity that is super important for communities. It isn’t race or gender, and it isn’t even belief/ tribe. It has more to do with having lots of Different Types of People.
If your car breaks down, is there a mechanic in your community you can trust to not screw you over? If everyone is making high salaries, who in your community would be available to dog-sit in your home for twenty bucks a night?
This is one reason why I don’t think the Archipelago solution will work. It is even further sub-dividing an already homogenous group. Let’s say some people are more of the social sort, and some people are more of the intellectual conversation sort. The social sorts will hold parties that won’t have the interesting conversations they desire. The intellectual sorts will have to be intellectual by themselves since they aren’t the “arrange a gathering” type.
This also leads to the (erroneous) assumption that because the rationality community consists primarily of Type X of person, that that specific type of person must be inherently better at rationality as a whole.
This really resonated with me. My instinctive reaction was that what you mean by Different Types of People is first D&D Alignment (Lawful-Chaotic, Good-Evil), and second personality type (Big Five/Myers Briggs). Is this closer to what you mean, or are you more focusing on skill specialization? What do you think Type X of rationality people consists of, and can anything be done to increase this kind of diversity?
Separate comment disagreeing with your last sentence on “rationality as a whole”:
I have the notion that rationality doesn’t belong to the rationality community. Rationality is systematized winning. It isn’t any single set of teachings or professions of belief. The rationality community is just one of many groups of people who explicitly aspire to win systematically—perhaps even the one that has gotten the farthest towards the Way, but nevertheless a community of aspiring rationalists. Real rationalists are people who win systematically. If you want to learn real rationality, look to the Elon Musks of the world, even if they don’t wear LessWrong badges.
What I originally meant does align more with skillsets. A healthy community has people who fill all the roles a community needs. Hosting, cooking, debating, organizing, leading, etc. An ideal community ALSO has people who fill roles the community MEMBERS need (helping fix your roof, providing childcare, medical consultation for simple things, etc)
We have people who like to blog and program. Not super helpful if you want someone to help plan/ set up your garden.
Things COULD be done to increase diversity along these lines I suppose, but they probably shouldn’t. It trades off against other values that are held in too high regard here. My recommendation is to get your “healthy community” needs met elsewhere.
I agree that rationality doesn’t belong to the rationality community. The five-minute yoda timer meant I wasn’t super-clear that I think the last sentence is an erroneous belief.