Comment by api
4 days ago
I think their self-criticism is an act, a sham to make their arguments look stronger. They pick battles they can win and don't engage with ideas that really are challenging to their reasoning methods or priors, especially if they come from outside the rationalist community.
It's like this:
I can write an unbreakable cryptographic system by inventing one, going through the motions of making up attacks and showing that those attacks are impossible, and then concluding my system is unbreakable. Anyone can design cryptography they themselves cannot break.
Ask any cryptographer how well that works.
This is pretty normal human behavior, but it's not rational.
> They pick battles they can win and don't engage with ideas that really are challenging to their reasoning methods or priors
What's an example of one?
Scott Alexander's comment on Effectivealtruism.org's purchase of a £15M estate is an example. See [0] for the quote and my comment on it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38035639
I'm not sure what the mistake was there? I thought their whole thing was judging orgs by cost:benefit calculation, which this seems to fit.
That or it’s just a blind spot. Plenty of people can say they are rational but not execute on it well.