Published on October 8, 2024 8:25 PM GMT
Some friends and I were discussing "what makes one a rationalist", which is a less strict criteria than "what makes one a member of the rationalist community", which is a less strict criteria still than "what makes one a high status, well liked, or enthusiastic member of the rationalist community", and I am most interested in the first question.
It seems obvious to me that 99% of people you meet on the street are very clearly (and mostly joyously) not rationalists. But what is it they do or don't do that makes them so obviously not members?
It also seems to be a trope that people will say they are not rationalists, but will also read all the literature of rationalists, agree with all the thought processes and intellectual rules of engagement. This seems to be very common. As I was listening to an episode of the Bayesian Conspiracy (can't recall which one) and hearing a guest start to quibble that they are just "rationalist adjacent" but not a real rationalist, I started to realize that my own reasons at that time for why I wasn't one were similar, and further realized how absurd and in denial they sounded. Some people call that group "post-rats" but to me that seems not like an exit from the group, nor even a scism, but just a church of the same theology adopting different social norms.
From what I was told LessOnline was hosting at the same time as a major EA event, and some even joked that LessOnline was allowed to have meat catered because the die hard EA rationalists had gone to that instead of LessOnline. I met at guy at a co-working space in the Presidio during a short day trip out during the week of LessOnline, and he mentioned that he liked that "rationalists are getting back to a more pure version of themselves" and ditching the requirement to be an EA.
All of this made me think that rationalism is basically about deriving "Is" statements, and moral offshoots are about "Ought" statements. And that one can be a complete rationalist without being an EA or utilitarian.
So I wanted to extend my conversation with my friend to the community.
Here are the things Claude thought might make one a rationalist:
(I have bolded the only ones that I think are strict requirements to be a rationalist)
Curiosity about discovering truthWillingness to change mind when presented with evidenceInterest in improving reasoning and decision-making skillsFamiliarity with key rationalist concepts (e.g. Bayesian reasoning, cognitive biases)Engagement with rationalist-adjacent communities (LessWrong, EA, etc.)Belief in the importance of AI alignment researchAcceptance of scientific consensus on major issuesOpenness to unconventional ideas if well-arguedInterest in futurism and emerging technologiesCommitment to intellectual honestySkepticism towards traditional religious beliefsUtilitarian-leaning ethical frameworkBelief in moral uncertaintyInterest in optimizing charitable givingFamiliarity with rationalist fiction (e.g. HPMOR)Openness to cryonics and life extensionBelief in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanicsPolyamory or openness to non-traditional relationship structuresInterest in nootropics and human enhancementBelief in the importance of existential risk reduction
It seems that my view is that curiosity is basically the only criteria I think distinguishes a rationalist from a non-rationalist. Jurgen Schmidhuber has written a lot on dissecting what makes a mind curious, that might help us break down the term.
Artificial Curiosity & Creativity Since 1990-91
Given his theories always end up going back to something about compression, and given that my personal mission is omniscience, I wonder if my view is that rationalist are basically just people who are also ultimately seeking omniscience (maximum possible compression of all data).
Discuss
