I’m missing a lot of context here. How is this post connected to the other things you’re referring to as a “cancer” and what is wrong with those things and this post?
Meta note: I don’t like that your comment has a lot of “this is bad” but not a lot of why.
edit: To be clear, I’m genuinely curious. This post is also extremely confusing and bizarre, so I would appreciate hearing your take on it as someone who is skeptical but also seems to understand what it’s pointing at.
Insofar as I understand what it’s pointing at, it is pointing at something I’d paraphrase as “logical thought is overrated”. There’s nuance to what exactly it’s being pushed aside in favor of, but that’s the core piece I object to. I object to it the most strongly because it’s from an intellectual lineage that draws adherents mostly from the rationalist community and is based around disparaging logical thought and a naive view of truth in favor of various wooy “instinct/social reasoning/tradition/spirituality without understanding is good” frameworks. And while there’s value to system 1 reasoning, I think that A) CFAR is handling that quite fine with more care and purpose and B) Anything that hooks tightly to system 1 without being moderated by the strong endorsement of system 2 should be treated as BADSCARYATOMICFIRESPIDERS, even while trying to extract value from it.
I’m missing a lot of context here. How is this post connected to the other things you’re referring to as a “cancer” and what is wrong with those things and this post?
Meta note: I don’t like that your comment has a lot of “this is bad” but not a lot of why.
edit: To be clear, I’m genuinely curious. This post is also extremely confusing and bizarre, so I would appreciate hearing your take on it as someone who is skeptical but also seems to understand what it’s pointing at.
Insofar as I understand what it’s pointing at, it is pointing at something I’d paraphrase as “logical thought is overrated”. There’s nuance to what exactly it’s being pushed aside in favor of, but that’s the core piece I object to.
I object to it the most strongly because it’s from an intellectual lineage that draws adherents mostly from the rationalist community and is based around disparaging logical thought and a naive view of truth in favor of various wooy “instinct/social reasoning/tradition/spirituality without understanding is good” frameworks.
And while there’s value to system 1 reasoning, I think that A) CFAR is handling that quite fine with more care and purpose and B) Anything that hooks tightly to system 1 without being moderated by the strong endorsement of system 2 should be treated as BADSCARYATOMICFIRESPIDERS, even while trying to extract value from it.