Comment by noqc
17 hours ago
You should always be wary of arguments from people who name themselves "The correct people". Less wrong, and the "rationalists" generally, are engaged in magical cult-like thinking.
17 hours ago
You should always be wary of arguments from people who name themselves "The correct people". Less wrong, and the "rationalists" generally, are engaged in magical cult-like thinking.
The name Less Wrong was at least intended to be aspirational. From the about page:
> LessWrong is an online forum and community dedicated to improving human reasoning and decision-making.
The goal is to be less wrong. It isn't intended as a claim that Yudkowksy is less wrong than others.
Whether that actually reflects the attitudes of members of those communities today is doubtful, though.
All human epistemology is trying to be "less wrong", just like all cereal is "all natural". The rationalists aren't even the first to recognize the value of printing it on the box.
So they're unoriginal? Okay. What's your point?
Rationality (not "rationalism") does not present anything like such a mindset. The entire point of the name "less wrong" is that one is still wrong.
In fact commenters on Less Wrong are often _more wrong_!
The rat-adjacent types are not a monolith and are not of the same worldview. The distribution between left and right, politically, approximately matches the general population. What they're about is approaching the best data we have in good faith and being open to updating perspectives.
Sounds like you wouldn't fit in.
You can try to be rational without naming yourself a "rationalist".
Could you go ahead and cite an example of such thinking from this article?
Sure, but my point stands regardless.
All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things. This is a fundamental rule of economics. Using this as an argument against LVT just means that you are opposed to taxation generally as a way to generate revenue. This essay doesn't defend that position though, because it is engaged in magical thinking.
Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
> All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things
I think a majority would agree tobacco is not a good thing and yet we tax it.
2 replies →
The author is quite clear that they are just pointing out that the LVT has some downsides, and are not trying to make any case about its overall value. It's good for LVT supporters to understand the counterarguments and be able to weigh them and rebut them (or change their mind! but hopefully not in this case because the counterarguments are very weak).
I don't understand your "fundamental rule of economics" claim - carbon taxes are a clear counterexample, I would think.
2 replies →
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
It seems like you are equating self-labeling of this sort with claiming to be a paragon of that ideology.
Do you think someone who labels themselves as "Christian" inherently believes they are pure of soul and perfect, and sins less than non-Christians? Certainly there are plenty of self-righteous people out there, but "Christian" does not imply "Christ-like".
The same goes for rationalists - "rationalist" does not imply "rational". I don't know the proportion of self-described rationalists that would consider themselves truly rational, but I think a good portion of them would consider anyone who made that claim to be full of crap. The whole movement is predicated on studying and maintaining awareness of the mountains of cognitive bias humans carry. If you can study that and still think you are ultra-rational, you've got a special kind of hubris.
2 replies →
That is an absolutely hilarious argument, made even funnier by accusing other people of magical thinking. I don't even know where to start with it, "All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things"? A fundamental rule of economics? Is your argument that LVT generates revenue therefore you can't criticize that it could suppress development in some cases?
1 reply →
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
This frankly comes across as projection.
1 reply →
person 1: "i am a rational person."
person 2: "how dare you call me an irrational person!"
1 reply →
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
Consider, are you exceptional in the sense that you would not place yourself in any camp whatsoever, ascribe to any ideology? You're neither left or right? Actions dictate identity.
Having an interest in something is not the same as having a superiority complex.
1 reply →