Right: in order to apply any rational method, you first have to fix the ontological parameters (e.g. metric of goodness). My objection to rationalism is that it doesn’t want to look at the “meta-rational” process whereby you make those ontological choices.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
My objection is not to rationality: if the ontological choices are made effectively, then rational methods are often extraordinarily valuable. Yay science, engineering, medicine, etc!
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
My suggestion is that rationality can be made more effective by teaching people that the ontological choices must be made deliberately, not by default, and teaching skills for ontology choice or construction.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
I'll do the paranoid thing here and say this sounds like trying to smuggle in pomo-ish ontological relativism through the back door (or meta door, in this case).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FPallopides @ESYudkowsky and
Yes; the main point of the book is to explain meta-rationality, which is about how to make ontological choices *well*. It’s not relativist at all; quite the opposite.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @FPallopides and
It’s specifically meant to help STEM people who have realized that there can be no ultimate foundation to knowledge, and are thereby thrown into pomo-ish nihilism. It gives a STEM-ish answer for how to proceed. This post explains that:https://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
Well, that was quite a slam-dunk falsification of my paranoia
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FPallopides @ESYudkowsky and
I’m glad! (Feeling paranoid is no fun)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ESYudkowsky and
One piece of belated but (I think) important feedback: Reading "A bridge to meta-rationality" & the Kegan model summary post linked from there, I repeatedly caught myself thinking, "uh-huh, true, this feels like my own journey, good to know I'm totes meta-rational". >
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FPallopides @ESYudkowsky and
That’s great! Many readers have the reaction “this is gibberish/obviously wrong.” It’s pretty binary. These pieces definitely do not make all/most readers feel good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Whether readers who say “yes I get this” would score as stage 5 on the psychometric test, and those who say “bunch of nonsense woo” would score as 4, is an interesting question that I have no strong prior about.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @FPallopides and
fwiw, my reaction is a mix of "yes, definitely" and "hang on, almost? but I don't quiiite understand how this relates to this other thing". And I've been SOI interviewed twice by a friend, both as 4.5 (1 yr ago and 1.5 yrs ago), though I've made some major 5 progress this month.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @catherineols @FPallopides and
How interesting! n=1, but it would make sense for half of it to make sense at 4.5. Glad to hear of the progress
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.