I like the concept of “things that are good in moderation and harmful in excess”, but I don’t think that’s what’s usually meant by “vice”, and calling this a “list of rationalist vices” will easily connote that these are all bad. Especially if/when people start talking about them in casual conversation and saying things like “assuming good faith is a rationalist vice”, without also giving the context of how vice is being used in a non-standard sense. That would quickly lead to the list being understood in a way entirely different than you meant it.
If you don’t believe that the usage here is non-standard, consider that none of the meanings that dictionary.comoffers for “vice” include “a thing that’s good in moderation” but are things like “an immoral or evil habit or practice”. Wikipedia also defines vice as “a practice, behaviour, habit or item generally considered morally wrong” or “a fault, a negative character trait, a defect, an infirmity, or a bad or unhealthy habit”.
Claude (Sonnet 4.5) also thought that your definition doesn’t match the classical sense:
In the classical framework—whether we’re looking at Aristotle’s ethics or the later Christian systematization of the seven deadly sins—vices weren’t understood as “too much of a good thing.” They were understood as distortions or corruptions of proper human functioning.
Take gluttony as an example. The traditional vice of gluttony isn’t just “eating food” done to excess. It’s a disordered relationship with food—eating for the wrong reasons (solely for pleasure rather than sustenance), at wrong times, in wrong ways, or with wrong attitudes. The virtuous mean isn’t “moderate gluttony”; it’s temperance—eating appropriately according to need and circumstance. So the passage’s claim that “moderate amounts of gluttony is just eating food” misidentifies what gluttony actually is. Eating food properly isn’t a little bit of gluttony; it’s the absence of gluttony.
Similarly with envy. The traditional vice of envy isn’t merely “wanting things”—it’s specifically resenting others for having good things, or taking pleasure in their misfortunes. Wanting to improve your own situation isn’t envy in the classical sense; it would fall under legitimate ambition or desire for good things. Envy specifically involves ill-will toward others. You can want things without envying anyone.
But again, I do like the concept, even if I think the term is misleading! One possibility for a better one might be hormeses(singular hormese) - a made-up word referencing hormesis, the phenomenon where a low dose of something is beneficial but a high dose of it is harmful. It has the disadvantage that most people aren’t going to understand it without having it explained, but that also means that they’re not going to incorrectly think they understand what it means. And that gives you the chance to explain a neat concept to people who haven’t heard about it before.
I’d say “things that are good in moderation and harmful in excess… and most people (in our community) do them in excess”.
Even better, we should have two different words for “doing it in moderation” and “doing it in excess”, but that would predictably end up with people saying that they are doing the former while they are doing the latter, or insisting that both words actually mean the same only you use the former for the people you like and the latter for the people you dislike.
I am not even sure whether “contrarianism” refers to the former or the latter (to a systematically independent honest thinker, or to an annoying edgy clickbait poser—many people probably don’t even have separate mental buckets for these).
I like the concept of “things that are good in moderation and harmful in excess”, but I don’t think that’s what’s usually meant by “vice”, and calling this a “list of rationalist vices” will easily connote that these are all bad. Especially if/when people start talking about them in casual conversation and saying things like “assuming good faith is a rationalist vice”, without also giving the context of how vice is being used in a non-standard sense. That would quickly lead to the list being understood in a way entirely different than you meant it.
If you don’t believe that the usage here is non-standard, consider that none of the meanings that dictionary.com offers for “vice” include “a thing that’s good in moderation” but are things like “an immoral or evil habit or practice”. Wikipedia also defines vice as “a practice, behaviour, habit or item generally considered morally wrong” or “a fault, a negative character trait, a defect, an infirmity, or a bad or unhealthy habit”.
Claude (Sonnet 4.5) also thought that your definition doesn’t match the classical sense:
But again, I do like the concept, even if I think the term is misleading! One possibility for a better one might be hormeses (singular hormese) - a made-up word referencing hormesis, the phenomenon where a low dose of something is beneficial but a high dose of it is harmful. It has the disadvantage that most people aren’t going to understand it without having it explained, but that also means that they’re not going to incorrectly think they understand what it means. And that gives you the chance to explain a neat concept to people who haven’t heard about it before.
Perhaps “7 Pathologies of Rationalists”.
or “7 Vicious Virtues”
I think “pathologies” also connotes something purely bad.
I’d say “things that are good in moderation and harmful in excess… and most people (in our community) do them in excess”.
Even better, we should have two different words for “doing it in moderation” and “doing it in excess”, but that would predictably end up with people saying that they are doing the former while they are doing the latter, or insisting that both words actually mean the same only you use the former for the people you like and the latter for the people you dislike.
I am not even sure whether “contrarianism” refers to the former or the latter (to a systematically independent honest thinker, or to an annoying edgy clickbait poser—many people probably don’t even have separate mental buckets for these).