That wasn’t a very strong signal of non-guru status. Six out of those nine people are dead (why choose the dead?) and can’t condemn your ideas or compete for current authority with you, making for a less informative signal of non-guru status. You praise Kahneman for academic knowledge of heuristics and biases, but notably not for actually overcoming bias. Mentioning Dawes’ total output of students, given his line of work and greater age, is very different from praising his ability to actually convey rationality.
A guru could say those things and still consistently claim to be the most generally intelligent and personally rational do-gooder currently living on the planet Earth, a view which is false for most. Are you ready to explicitly reject that proposition with respect to yourself? To say that people who do not agree with you on some important matters of fact and of value (e.g. relating to your work), and who might hinder your accumulation of supporters and resources, are your rivals or superiors in general rationality? To specify significant ways in which you have been persistently (and harmfully on balance) more biased than interlocutors concerned with rationality like Nick or Robin?
You could easily address such questions in a much more informative fashion than in the list above.
Eliezer,
That wasn’t a very strong signal of non-guru status. Six out of those nine people are dead (why choose the dead?) and can’t condemn your ideas or compete for current authority with you, making for a less informative signal of non-guru status. You praise Kahneman for academic knowledge of heuristics and biases, but notably not for actually overcoming bias. Mentioning Dawes’ total output of students, given his line of work and greater age, is very different from praising his ability to actually convey rationality.
A guru could say those things and still consistently claim to be the most generally intelligent and personally rational do-gooder currently living on the planet Earth, a view which is false for most. Are you ready to explicitly reject that proposition with respect to yourself? To say that people who do not agree with you on some important matters of fact and of value (e.g. relating to your work), and who might hinder your accumulation of supporters and resources, are your rivals or superiors in general rationality? To specify significant ways in which you have been persistently (and harmfully on balance) more biased than interlocutors concerned with rationality like Nick or Robin?
You could easily address such questions in a much more informative fashion than in the list above.