Different connotations? For example, if you say “looking at the results, most rationalists are actually not that smart”, as an inside criticism it seems to imply “therefore, we should try harder and do rationality more consistently, or admit our limitations and develop techniques that take them into account”, but as an outside criticism it seems to imply “therefore you smartasses should not be so dismissive of astrology and homeopathy, unlike you those guys make lots of money”.
It reminds me of “concern trolling”, whose bailey is “any criticism or suggestion made by outgroup”, but the motte is, if I understand it correctly, trying to convice the group to do something suboptimal / create discord in the group / waste group’s time by providing what seems to be a helpful advice / genuine question.
Like, after outside criticism, the usual following step is offering an advice how to fix the problem. “Despite all the talk about winning, most rationalists don’t seem to significantly win at life. As a rationalist, you should reject armchair reasoning in favor of empirical evidence. I know many people whose lives have dramatically improved after finding Jesus. You should try it, too...”
And sometimes the following step was not made yet, but you already expect it. Which could be a mistake. But often is not. It is easy to err in either direction.
Different connotations? For example, if you say “looking at the results, most rationalists are actually not that smart”, as an inside criticism it seems to imply “therefore, we should try harder and do rationality more consistently, or admit our limitations and develop techniques that take them into account”, but as an outside criticism it seems to imply “therefore you smartasses should not be so dismissive of astrology and homeopathy, unlike you those guys make lots of money”.
It reminds me of “concern trolling”, whose bailey is “any criticism or suggestion made by outgroup”, but the motte is, if I understand it correctly, trying to convice the group to do something suboptimal / create discord in the group / waste group’s time by providing what seems to be a helpful advice / genuine question.
Like, after outside criticism, the usual following step is offering an advice how to fix the problem. “Despite all the talk about winning, most rationalists don’t seem to significantly win at life. As a rationalist, you should reject armchair reasoning in favor of empirical evidence. I know many people whose lives have dramatically improved after finding Jesus. You should try it, too...”
And sometimes the following step was not made yet, but you already expect it. Which could be a mistake. But often is not. It is easy to err in either direction.
Yes, this sounds like a reasonable interpretation.