Is there a single thing associated with the Rationalist (tm) brand you're willing to admit to sincerely liking or would that ruin your street cred forever?
-
-
Replying to @yashkaf
oh sure! off the top of my head scott's irreplaceable, early EA around charity efficacy was fantastic, Hanson's earlier work was a great help to me
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
My sense is that the real reason you don't want to like circling is not because it's a hippy cult or manipulative or touchy feely, but because it's about legibility. So are many other Rationalist things like polyamory and CFAR and making bets on object level things.
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @yashkaf
eigenrobot Retweeted eigenrobot
there is some of that--i am very suspicious of legibility otoh i owe someone $20 thank you for reminding mehttps://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1288199215122849792?s=19 …
eigenrobot added,
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
By and large, rats are happy if others understand them better, especially if it lets you understand yourself. Post rats are prob worried this makes you vulnerable to predators? I think that being weird protects against predators, as is being legible to friends for coordination.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @yashkaf
There's some of that Some of it is just a neurotype, probably Partly some illegibility is socially load-bearing A lot of it is that object-level legible expression is typically expensive and inefficient relative to metalegible expression
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @yashkaf
Ask and Tell Culture are very popular but Guess Culture works better in an attuned group
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
My general view of this is that people are 90% illegible to each other, with rats it's maybe down to 80%, not 10%. That's why everyone loves a good "guesser" who anticipates your desires, even nerds. We're not actually robots with a source code one can read
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @yashkaf
I think people are quite a lot more interpretable than that! But it doesn't usually translate to a legible model so easily Like, I bet you could make a good guess about how your close friends would behave in a wide variety of situations; acquaintances in a good many; and so on
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @yashkaf
But if you were to sit down and try to explain your reasoning for your prediction you'd probably end up with a bunch of just-so stories, or stray anecdotes that don't pass any kind of empirical test Hardly anything that you could translate to a general model
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
(I could be completely wrong about this, I probably interpret other people differently than . . . other people)
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @yashkaf
For me anyway there are a lot of things that work perfectly well or even better in an inchoate or cryptic mode than they do when I try to rigorously demonstrate my reasoning, and often the demonstration is actually a little painful and "feels fake"
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @yashkaf
Hm
@selentelechia curious what you make of this conversation if you have a minute, you might have some kind of medial inferential position here1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
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.