Yes! There’s actually good empirical support for this (some cited in my thing)
Conversation
Yeah, this is an interesting discussion. I think your original point about SSC/IDW/etc may clarify something I don’t understand yet (but I’m not sure because I don’t understand it yet :)
1
2
This was a fantastic read! I'd say your analysis manages to avoid the issue I've highlighted with SCC/IDW the most of anything I've seen. There's much of the map that I'd draw differently, but it's clear that we're looking at the same thing.
2
1
Ven has gotten pretty close in the sense that I know he's looking at the same thing, but his personal disdain for the territory has made his map too stylistic for me to build on. Still get some good insights from it though.
1
1
But there is a humbleness in both that's lacking in SCC/LW/IDW. The latter attempt to draw a map that centres their own position, which turns it into a sort of solipsistic trap - they become *more* entrenched in their own position and self-righteousness
Quote Tweet
Replying to @tangled_zans @mwotton and 3 others
And I *could* create a meta-level that favors my own ethical position. Just as SCC/IDW tried to do. But that'd make me *less* able to communicate with them, not more. And no one I disagree with will accept my meta-level if to them I only invented it to change THEIR mind
1
1
"post-rationalism" takes care to avoid the rationalist mistake of self-centering itself on the map, but it doesn't *quite* succeed yet. perhaps it tries to be too nebulous and hard-to-define out of fear that by defining itself it will fall into the tribe-trap
1
1
but perhaps by not defining itself, it inadvertently side-steps its own criticisms by omitting itself from its own analysis. so there's still an accidental "us versus them" thing going. "them are the knightly status seekers, and us are the folks trying to stop them!" heh
1
1
so what im trying to articulate is a meta-level that treats itself on the same footing as all the other positions. so while on the object level i ie abhor IDW, my meta-analysis needs to make no judgement on which position is more correct/coherent/valid/logical/good-faith
2
1
so imo this is the way to avoid falling into the "ssc trap" - instead of pretending that one is neutral on the object level, as Scott tries to do, and then having your meta-analysis warped by un-examined bias, one needs to be explicit about what their object-level positions are
1
1
I don't know who you're talking about, but I personally have zero interest in trying to actually "solve" the culture war, resolving the conflict or anything along those lines.
Yup. I apologise for mischaracterizing you. It's not often that I get to participate in a thread that you're actually listening to, haha. But yes, this is what I alluded to - I can't use your analysis, as insightful as it sometimes is.
1
This is my prognosis for all this stuff and I'm actually happy with the natural course of events and am content to wait it out as energy naturally drains away.
1
3
Show replies


