Conversation

Morality suffices to navigate well-defined ethical domains. It fails, and may be worse than useless, when facing “wicked problems”—nebulous ones, in my terminology. “Being a good person” is the essence of the culture war. Y’all should stop that. It’s profoundly destructive.
Image
3
31
I appear “weirdly confused, weak-willed, morally compromised, and inconsistent” and maybe it seems my politics are incoherent or ignorant or bland middle-of-the-road normie. I have, actually, strong political views, but they are not mappable if you seek moral “dry ground.”
Image
1
6
. and I are often cited as “postrationalists.” True inasmuch as we were rationalists at one time (PhDs in control theory & AI respectively) and no longer are. I don’t use the word, because “postrationalism” often means “emotions, yay!” Not my thing.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @LisaIRMcNulty and @St_Rev
Yes, I think that's right! I do somewhat feel some vague responsibility for explaining how "meta-rationalism" differs from (some) understandings of "postrationalism." But I feel responsible for explaining way more different things than I ever can, so I probably won't!
2
9
Replying to
I don't know if that's actually the same sense of the word... postrationalist seems to point specifically to pointing to being post-lesswrong-rationalism. The generic sort of rationality assumed/demonstrated by earning a STEM PhD is at once tighter and looser.
4
3
Replying to and
I'd say academic-STEM rationality is actually closer to the reasonable nebulous normie standard than LW-style. Parts of my PhD thesis are technical and formal (much more so than typical LW-rationalist discourses), but other parts are basically hand-waving narrative shitposting