The funny thing I've noticed about people like that is that they don't tend to be people who enjoy arguing. I'm not claiming that this is a good thing about me, but I'm very fond of a good argument. But if you're going to enjoy it, at least the version of arguing I like, you need to get everyone's position, and the evidence they're relying on, clear, which is a whole lot of work -- that's what takes most of the time. And everyone has to keep their temper, or at least be able to get it back.
If you run into someone who's talking in a generalized way about facts and logic and not caring about your emotions, IME they reliably don't want to have a nice dispassionate argument about what they believe the facts are, and if you try they'll get upset and go away.
I think the silver lining is this anger indicates it's more difficult to live in a white-male bubble as of late. In the 2000s, guys like this could just drift along in ignorance, cossetted by the ambient culture.
The silver lining in the Trump administration is that generations of positive stereotypes about men being more rational or less ruled by emotion than women are being destroyed in real time.
I mean, basic human decency is being destroyed much faster, but "silver lining" implies a small offset in a larger tragedy.
3: I should probably have combined this with the link you sent me.
Clearly these men have some unresolved shit
That's how I tended to think about the New Atheists, back when they were a thing. Even though on paper I shared most of their positions, the whole vibe of that crowd put me off. Too smug and self-satisfied, too convinced they were geniuses because they had Seen Through The Lie(Tm).
I figured that a lot of them had escaped from repressive, or even outright emotionally abusive, environments and were working through some issues by being so loud and swaggering and cocky. I assumed that once they got it out of their system, they'd grow out of it. I wonder how many did?
5: You should probably just forget that. It was mentioned in the comments and discussed already.
Discussed here. Anyway, I think it's a different thing because that was just a rich person shitting down on his workers (and kid) while this red pill stuff is affecting a broader portion of society.
Great. I'm great at forgetting shit.
I've committed so much science I must be logical.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd. But please tell me who I am.
Anyway, I don't really deal with many self-described rationalists. Probably none at all, unless somebody here.
One nicely explanatory tweet thread I saw about horrible YouTube communities is that YouTube's algorithm has always fundamentally striving to push people toward whichever videos are conducive to them watching more videos over time. Recently they've made token efforts to highlight scientific debunking and opposing views, but these efforts were always swimming upstream because flat earth videos are inherently more likely to make people inveterate YouTube watchers then round earth videos are.
flat earth videos are inherently more likely to make people inveterate YouTube watchers then round earth videos are.
Can you prove that using logic?
I've recently been watching feminist movie reviews and haven't been recommended a single similar feed, although I know they exist. I recently finished watching one and was recommended another on the same movie from a different account that described itself as about "controversial bioethics" issues and whose uploads quickly turned to two genders, Jordan Peterson, etc.
1.1 is a great observation.
... they reliably don't want to have a nice dispassionate argument about what they believe the facts are, and if you try they'll get upset and go away.
Even if they physically stay, every utterance will be verbal chaff.
16: At a quick glance, I first read that as "flat earth videos are inherently more likely to make people invertebrate YouTube watchers then round earth videos are," which would be an interesting take on the situation, if true.
Oh yeah, that was a typo. There's a secret society to find flat-earthers and rip out all their bones.
No, they think the earth lacks bones.
When I was in my early-to-mid-20s, I thought I was good at arguing, based mostly on the comment sections of blogs. In my late 20s I still would have said I was good at arguing but would have added a long list of caveats about the meanings of "good" and "arguing". In my early 30s I decided that the most important thing about winning an argument was deciding whether or not to get involved to begin with. Now I've decided that it's almost never worth getting involved.
22: I was imagining some kind of reverse-evolution for those who don't believe in evolution (Evolution: like Road-Runner physics - it only works as long as you believe in it), but I suppose the secret society works too.
It reminds me of how people say Trump is an idiot's idea of a smart person.
That was Newt Gingrich, wasn't it? Trump is a poor idiot's idea of a rich person.
At least the total shits can recognize authentic shittiness when they see it.
The main thing I learned from Twitter this week is that I don't have enough towels. The other thing I learned is that Air France will let me fly in boxers.
I have found some self-described 'rationalists' to be among the better 'read things from people who I politically disagree with to ensure I don't get overconfident in beliefs that could be wrong'. I think 'rationalists', and people who self describe as 'logical' and also 'redpilled', aren't exactly the same though there is some overlap.