The real question is: how big of an impact can this stuff make, anyway? And how much are people able to actually implement it into their lives?
Are there any good sources of data on that? Beyond PUA, The Game, etc?
calcsam
Karma: 569
Besides, in theory we want to discuss non-Dark Arts topics...
This is a good explanation for (some of) the lack of progress in philosophy.
The main restriction, of course, is time in live conversation. Of course, I’m sure time to process these thoughts decreases as you have more....
The second seems to be the crucial point...and problem....
Amanojack, could you explain that more?
Building rationalist communities: lessons from the Latter-day Saints
Building rationalist communities: a series overview
Point on the title. Changed. I used to write for a newspaper and prefer brevity.
Eliezer gave me Karma.
This all grew out of a couple extended discussions I had with Eliezer, Will and Divia.
Sam Bhagwat to Eliezer, William, Divia
Eliezer, Will, Divia,
I wrote a couple of posts based on our discussions. I tried to post them; however, I lack 20 karma points. Do any of you have the power to just magically give me those points? If not, I quickly posted seven relatively banal comments. If you all upvote all of them, that will give me 21 karma.
http://lesswrong.com/user/calcsam/
Thanks, Sam
Eliezer Yudkowsky to William, me, Divia
Actually, I just upvoted the two posts, since I can see the drafts. 10 points each = problem solved, I hope.
Correct.
Not me. This is the only handle I control.
Well, sort of. There is a common understanding that one of the biggest effects of “missionary work” is on the missionaries themselves. A joke line I’ve heard is “I had one convert on my mission: me.” This is a common theme in Mormonism, for example.
But I see this as experience rather than cognitive dissonance/brainwashing. For example, if you spent two years exclusive trying to explain to people about rationality, you’d probably get a far better understanding of what rationality is. As a result, you would become more rational. You would also be happier that you were able to become more rational.
Well, I’m sure cognitive dissonance is the case for some—probably a lot—of people. But there’s an alternative explanation for others.
But if you spent a couple years trying to convert people to Islam, or Buddhism, or Baha’i, you’d probably come away with stronger faith in those.
True. Remember what I said in my previous comment, that “you would become more rational”—the increase in faith is due to successful application of principles.
The increase in faith is independent of the truth of the religions one proselytizes, given that they can’t all be true, and the idea of gaining a better understanding of something that’s divorced from reality, without realizing that it’s divorced from reality, isn’t even coherent
Not true. Remember, the above faith-growing effect is due to practicing the religion you’re preaching. All major religions tap into a subset of a large group of techniques generally useful for improving life quality: forgiveness, prayer/meditation, belief that good deeds will ultimately be rewarded, discouragement from taking addictive substances, etc.
My argument, basically, is that fervently religious people can mistake a successful experience implementing universally good principles as a truth claim for a particular religious system.
Do you believe that this scenario is entirely impossible, or do you believe that at least some people would fall under this rubric?
Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves
This strikes me as a really good idea. In my next post, I complain about the lack of distillation. I happily find myself somewhat wrong.
Reading this, I wonder why a LDS missionary got interested in a rationalist community which is generally hostile to religion. I would appreciate some explanation about the author’s motivations.
Because there are things I can learn here. I can handle the hostility to religion. But if you don’t cross-pollinate, you become a hick.
Thanks Alan. You get my point. But even if rationalists don’t adopt any LDS norms—and I don’t expected them/us to (I’m hovering at the edge of the community at the moment) -- understanding that the framework here should be helpful.
Good post. This invokes, of course, the associated problem, of phrasing this in a way that might encourage listening on the other end.