/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

Yes. Unfortunately the next thing we already moved on to explicitly excludes anyone that posts on this thread acausally

There's no alternative.

ssc is currently a containment zone for politics, culture war, and all other us-versus-them discussion. and lets keep it that way

Define "later".

>>10233

Some time in the next three to eight billion years.

>>10234

Go back to Yahoo news Ken M.

>>6067

Mod deleted all the posts. Someone reclaimed the board and used a bot to restore them. It was a pretty exciting time but it's over now.

>>6049

No one is using this anymore so it's kind of pointless. Wish it caught on. I just don't read SSC comments. Without any voting or sorting it's just whoever happened to comment first.

Inb4 the irony of posting this on ratanon. We are a small community that gets like half a dozen comments a day at most and I can read all of them. If ratanon grew to 100s of posts a day I wouldn't use it either. I can also trust most other users will read my comments. Whereas if I post on SSC it's unlikely even a single person will ever read them, so what's the point? Also sorting by new vs sorting by old is completely different for that same reason.

>>10239

You're replying to a botpost. The original was made some time last year, and was about a different glitch.

This site likes to make things disappear. But usually it's just in the static files, not in the database, so they're not permanently lost.

>>9798

Holy shit, David Gerard is reddragdiva?

…

That explains this sort of thing.

https://reddragdiva.tumblr.com/post/161522586428/i-dont-want-to-go-on-about-eric-bruylant-i-hope

>>9800

Do you even anagram bro?

On the dysfunction of the Bay Area Rationalists

or

How to lose roommates and alienate people

>>9798

what a faggot

>>5686 is their endgame

>>10218

Exactly.

I'm antifa and I'm actively in the process of building a communist party. This is what I've arrived at after looking at the situation rationally.

>>10220

Wait, why not join forces with the existing communist party?

>>10220

A brilliant satire on where using "rational" as just an Applause Light can get us.

>>10212

You mean the accelerationist thing.

>still having ssc in your rss feed after the elections

You just know the bald man is buttblasted because he would take every chance to attack the right wing why completly ignoring shit done by the dnc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wmVZJiDjTjxmVshSFSk2rH-b8GLiQ0DJ0Cw1hyOnswM/edit?usp=sharing this might be up your alley

>>10161

This is a joke, right?

>>10156

It's a good thing for empathy-deficient rationalists who struggle with social intuition. It's understandable the OP wants to get away from such people.

>>10162

>It's a good thing for empathy-deficient rationalists who struggle with social intuition.

In my experience, making assumptions about social stuff routinely results in hurt feeling between normals, including, and especially, women. Sometimes it is either the intended result of a successful ploy or the unintended result of a ploy that misfires, but most of it happens because they basically keep underestimating the inferential distance.

Rats are worse than normals at social skills, but at least the really explicit ones understand their deficiency more accurately (unless they're simply cargo culting, which I bet at least a third of them is). They could have tried to standardize on everyone aspiring to become a diplomat, but this would have been a large upfront cost and autist-unfriendly, and nobody likes large upfront costs. The alternative they chose has a cost in efficiency, weirdness and sex appeal, but as an ongoing cost it is not felt as sharply. The optimum of explicitness for fairly neurotypical smart people probably lies between the normals' and that of today's mainstream rationalists.

>>10163

Well, I didn't say hanging around normals was a particularly appealing prospect either.

>>10164

I was commenting on normals' standard approach to communication, not just normals themselves. Most nerds operate under the same assumptions (and suffer even more for it). Actually, I'd appreciate hearing about any groups that clearly do not fall into the normals' or the rationalists' communication trap, whether by striking a good balance between implicitness and verbosity, or being diplomats, or some other means.

>Has never experienced motivated reasoning in his life

Resisting temptation is a bigger virtue than never having been temped.

This brings me back to my early high school days of watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit!.

>routinely changes his mind when confronted with superior reasoning

not a single lesswronger has actually done this

>has many religious friends, might convert himself

but no muslim friends, i assume

>>10107

It isn't a good idea, anyway.

>What is a rational basis for allocating your loyalty between large, intersecting groups of people like this?

1. What helps you win.

2. Shared values.

3. Likelihood of sustained cooperation.

> 1. What helps you win.

This is an identitarian answer. It is an argument for every member of a recognised "less privileged" group becoming an SJW. Just look at India, where in their version of affirmative action, jobs for the lower castes are guaranteed by law, irrespective of merit. Generally people should support what's optimal at a systems level, even if it doesn't give them an unfair advantage. The neoliberals have at least that part right.

> 2. Shared values.

> 3. Likelihood of sustained cooperation.

Yes. But also, the likelihood of them gaining shared values. And the existence of the infrastructure to promote and maintain those shared values. Such as the nation. Nothing is stronger or more durable than a tolerably well-functioning nation state, that we've yet created. (Religion looked like it might be, but for the most part it's crumbling under the onslaught of universal/Western culture and its cheap alcohol/sex/drugs/technology, and atheist books and media, which is why repressocracies are so desperate to censor the fuck out of all of that.)

>Do you identify more with your nation, your race, your "social class", your gender, your personality type, your fellow rationalists, your political party if any, people in a similar IQ class to you, or a combination of two or more of those?

Identity, in a rough order from most to least: probably my race (white), then my sex (male), then similar IQ, political beliefs, fellow rationalists, personality type and social class. I'm more certain about the beginning of the list than the end. Autism level is not included in the list, but if it was then it would be between sex and IQ or maybe even sex and race.

As for loyalty, I dunno, I don't have a strong intuitive feeling for the concentric circles of loyalty. It's much more system two than that. I have loyalty primarily to my family, then to close friends, and apart from that I try to act generically prosocial out of a sense of duty.

I don't think we should be atomised neoliberal globalists unless maybe Israel gets permanent open borders :^)

>>10093

EA are a bunch of cucks, they have no idea what the good is and always make things worse.

Try talking with them about it and they all band together to insult and link you to asinine bullshit by some emo pseudophilosopher that proves how destroying forests to prevent insect suffering, giving all your money to Yudkowsky and breeding african obligate parasites is a Good Thing.

>>10094

> breeding african obligate parasites is a Good Thing.

Nigger, they hate malaria.

>>10095

Kek.

I meant the africans.

>>10095

lmao

>>10096

Africans aren't obligate parasites, they're opportunistic parasites. African-Americans in the land of the gibmedats and the home of white guilt, have adapted to be obligate parasites, but actual Africans are more often than not economically productive, and will no doubt be more so if they're healthier and longer-lived.

This is obviously a crude 2D projection of an n-dimensional figure that is about as informative as a single MRI slice. But it conveniently, perhaps even strategically, hides the connection between NRx, LessWrong, etc., so I cannot complain.

>>10049

What most women consider "top 5%" is not the same as what we would consider top 5%. Yes, even though beauty is correlated with IQ.

>>10049

>>10051

What a lot of "redpill" types don't understand is that the skinny hipster SJW white knight who's sensitive to social mores and feelings yet brave enough to brick cops as a black knight of revolution and justice is the alpha of today.

Unlike men, women change what they find attractive based on social opinions.

The manosphere venerates the idea that "every woman loves a fascist" but it simply isn't true. You just end up with a load of trad gymcells whining about having no gf on 4chan.

>What a lot of "redpill" types don't understand is that the skinny hipster SJW white knight who's sensitive to social mores and feelings yet brave enough to brick cops as a black knight of revolution and justice is the alpha of today.

That rings true, I guess.

>Unlike men, women change what they find attractive based on social opinions.

What? Look at a goddamn Rubens painting, smh. Or the weird-ass behavior in Japanese porn.

>>10052

>the alpha of today

I don't see any of these alphas rolling in the pussy.

Even if they were, seeing what the pussy is attached to makes me not want to emulate them.

0/2, anon.

>>10049

Dont kid yourself.

>>10052

The brick-throwers are far from the average bugman and being gymcel is great anyway because extra gains from not chasing thots.

>>10029

It's about social approval. Endorsing Warren is a good choice socially. It's the right opinion for the weird circles he runs in in real life. His internet stuff is different and he tries to separate it out by filtering words and discouraging linking and so on.

>>10030

Explain the word filtering?

>>10030

Is Scott sending you secret signals to show that he really does share your right wing views? Maybe via your tooth filings?

>>10032

He's actually quite overt about it.

>>10031

Do you mean not being allowed to mention NRx?

Is that being extended to HBD now?

I masturbated to this post.

> modnafil, 80-hour work weeks, and cryptocurrencies

Sounds life-expectancy-reducing. Remember, the number of toys you have at the end, which you can't take with you, will be determined by the product of your productivity and your lifespan, not just your productivity.

If someone argues that he's a p-zombie does that make it more or less likely that he is?

>>10011

Neither, obviously.

Qualia are the "what it's like"-ness of experiences, but they are just a Darwinian meatbag relating one experience to another ("this is kind of like the sky looks, so let's call them both blue"), and in some cases attaching mystical importance to the fact that they are having any experience at all rather than being in a coma. But people in comas don't experience qualia simply because they are not laying down memories of experiences that can be later compared ("what it's like"-ness) with other experiences. You can't switch off qualia and you can't say anything more about them other than how they compare to other qualia, so they are just disguised material experiences. I can't believe we are still having this argument. It's like if you claimed the problem of free will hasn't been solved.

>>10013

You're just redefining qualia to mean something completely different. Make up your own word instead of fucking with an existing well-established one.

>>10014

I'm not redefining the word qualia. By "what-it's-like"-ness I was referring to the standard meaning. The rest is my reasoning. You can't handle the truth.