I've read it. Almost the first thing I saw was:
"Slate Star Codex was a window into the Silicon Valley psyche."
This is just so obviously, insanely wrong that it's impossible to take anything else in the article seriously.
"Slate Star Codex was a window into the Silicon Valley psyche."
This is just so obviously, insanely wrong that it's impossible to take anything else in the article seriously.
What process of data collection and rational evaluation did you use to test your hypothesis that it’s beneficial to your human development to disregard any story that doesn’t have the degree of supporting evidence you require?
I have a hypothesis that few are truly applying the principles of grey so deeply, as it’s quite a cognitive burden to do so, but to decry the question would contradict their principles to the core, exposing unconsidered cognitive dissonance that - if they’re rational enough - would force them to question their entire belief model to its very core. And so, instead, they will challenge the question itself, rather than apply their belief’s principles of rationality to their own beliefs.
Your datapoint in this matter would be a valuable contribution to my rational evaluation of this hypothesis, but of course I understand if you feel unable or unwilling to contribute. I shall continue developing it regardless, for any future encounters with greyfolk.
It would please me greatly to find that none are willing to respond to it, as that would perfectly contradict your belief using the honorable practices and methods of the greyfolk themselves. But it would please me most to find that they are able to reason and respond to such a question, and acknowledge their own irrationality if any is exposed, because it’s more important to me that they integrate rationality and human nature than it is that I be right.
(One caveat. The question you I expected you to have asked is why I would consider it appropriate to make such a statement without defending it further, and how I could possibly expect any outcome from that other than complete disregard by all readers. Your reply ignored that rational opportunity in favor of being dismissive. It’s a curious choice that conflicts with my read of you as a grey rationalist who’s set out to try and promote rationality at HN. If that is indeed your mission here, feedback duly noted so that you can improve the quality of your evangelism. If you aren’t a rationalist, I apologize for my misread and intend no insult by describing you as such, and I will take no offense if you simply disregard this entire reply.)
EDIT: To be clear, I don't know what the geographic distribution of Rationalists is. I also don't care. The fact of the matter is that the movement is irrelevant everywhere except Silicon Valley, and within Silicon Valley it is fairly powerful with several prominent adherents. This is spelled out in the New York Times article and its citations.
X: "This textbook says the earth is flat. It's wrong"
You: "But the earth is flat!"
X: "Citation please?"
You: "Look in the textbook you're holding!"
Uh... okay. I really want to know how the hell you came to that conclusion. It's an area full of companies that have pr campaigns that boil down to "making the world a better place" while still being the most greed filled, ideological oppressive, and privacy violating companies in the country, let alone world.
Maybe you're right. Yes, they are the most rational. It is the academic and corporate elite's job to control and plunder the majority of civilization for their own benefit. So yea, best to go where the rest of them are doing it. Never mind, you're right. If you're a snake, best to go into the same snake pit as other snakes. Let that marinate.