48 votes

Scott Alexander has deleted his Slate Star Codex blog due to the New York Times planning to reveal his real name in an article

69 comments

  1. [14]
    Grzmot
    Link
    So I don't know much about this blog or about this situation outside of what was written in this post, but I find it very strange that the journalist the author spoke with demanded on using his...

    So I don't know much about this blog or about this situation outside of what was written in this post, but I find it very strange that the journalist the author spoke with demanded on using his real name. Using fake names, or keeping people anonymous is one of the basic things a journalist should do, if the person they speak with wants to, no? The German newspaper I read does it all the time. They just use different names and state that it's a fake name. No one cares. Why is this persons' real identity so important in this case?

    27 votes
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      This is pretty sudden and I don't think anyone knows. Scott Alexander did post a little more in the Reddit topic.

      This is pretty sudden and I don't think anyone knows.

      Scott Alexander did post a little more in the Reddit topic.

      10 votes
    2. [3]
      Death
      Link Parent
      US journalism has gained something of a reputation as of late for not properly protecting sources and identities. Some of it seems related to a fear that anonymous sources are, by default, not...

      US journalism has gained something of a reputation as of late for not properly protecting sources and identities. Some of it seems related to a fear that anonymous sources are, by default, not credible.

      9 votes
      1. [2]
        ohyran
        Link Parent
        Anonymous sources are used extensively in US journalism though? I'm thinking of the recent White House insider articles. Also, lets make certain (not for you Death, but for others reading this)...

        Anonymous sources are used extensively in US journalism though? I'm thinking of the recent White House insider articles.

        Also, lets make certain (not for you Death, but for others reading this) that "anonymous sources" doesn't mean the journalist doesn't know who they are but that the sources are not presented in the article with their real names/with names. There is a slough of methods for ensuring the security and control of an article when the source is anonymous and one of the reason why journalists have the right to deny giving up sources in courtrooms, no matter what - is to ensure the right of informants and free journalism.

        13 votes
        1. Death
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Sure but that doesn't really change my point, using anonymous sources is a staple of journalism everywhere. Properly protecting sources is a choice and one newspapers tend to weigh differently...

          Anonymous sources are used extensively in US journalism though? I'm thinking of the recent White House insider articles.

          Sure but that doesn't really change my point, using anonymous sources is a staple of journalism everywhere. Properly protecting sources is a choice and one newspapers tend to weigh differently depending on the context.

          There's also a big difference between properly protecting a source or simply not disclosing some identifying information but not all of it, and especially in the latter category the US media has slipped more than once.

          1 vote
    3. [8]
      ohyran
      Link Parent
      My only logic here is if its a emotional or puff piece in which case the phrase "is not their real name" can distance the subject from the reader. Aside from that it can also be that the...

      My only logic here is if its a emotional or puff piece in which case the phrase "is not their real name" can distance the subject from the reader.
      Aside from that it can also be that the journalist thought the subject was a jerk or a bit too sensitive and queenie about the whole anonymity thing (although I think that is more common with an older generation of journalists) - although that can just be my prejudice from knowing a few journalists :)

      5 votes
      1. [7]
        Death
        Link Parent
        From SA's comments on the Reddit it seems the reason is that the NYT maintains a strict policy of publishing real names, and the editor of the story is not sympathetic to SA's requests not to...

        From SA's comments on the Reddit it seems the reason is that the NYT maintains a strict policy of publishing real names, and the editor of the story is not sympathetic to SA's requests not to publish his full name.

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          ohyran
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          That is an odd stand point for a magazine to have - I suppose that this is only when doing interviews and not getting sources? (otherwise thats just insane) EDIT: "odd" because it ensures that all...

          That is an odd stand point for a magazine to have - I suppose that this is only when doing interviews and not getting sources? (otherwise thats just insane)

          EDIT: "odd" because it ensures that all skeptical interview subjects will be hostile instead of just skeptical to the article being written. Won't that negative affect all future work?

          I mean I can understand SA's actions better now. Seems like a great method of handling a hostile article - kill the source of it and make a stink to high heaven. The downside of course is the old Streisand effect I suppose but since the article in the NYT is then "About the time we brought down a blog" which isn't a sexy article for a magazine to write about itself.

          6 votes
          1. NaraVara
            Link Parent
            Published writers are generally considered to be public figures and don't really have expectations of privacy. Being part of a public conversation means other people may need to be able to...

            That is an odd stand point for a magazine to have

            Published writers are generally considered to be public figures and don't really have expectations of privacy. Being part of a public conversation means other people may need to be able to reference their work or reach out to them for followup. The whole point of journalistic practice is to ensure transparency and independent verifiability. Which you can't really do if only one person has access to any of the subjects involved.

            Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the secret it's generally not worth anyone's trouble. Even Chris Poole, founder of 4Chan, didn't get any anonymity so I'm not sure why anyone else would. This is basically a bit of culture writing and not real political whistleblower type stuff, so it doesn't rise to the level of public interest.

            6 votes
        2. [5]
          Comment removed by site admin
          Link Parent
          1. [4]
            NaraVara
            Link Parent
            It's likely in those cases the people never provided their real names in the first place.

            It's likely in those cases the people never provided their real names in the first place.

            4 votes
            1. [4]
              Comment removed by site admin
              Link Parent
              1. [3]
                NaraVara
                Link Parent
                The policy isn't "only use real names." The policy is to not anonymize the subjects of an article.

                The policy isn't "only use real names." The policy is to not anonymize the subjects of an article.

                9 votes
                1. [2]
                  Grzmot
                  Link Parent
                  Using usernames anonymizes them. If the NYT had a "strict" policy they would've requested IRL identification from the mods or not run the story at all.

                  Using usernames anonymizes them.

                  If the NYT had a "strict" policy they would've requested IRL identification from the mods or not run the story at all.

                  8 votes
                  1. NaraVara
                    Link Parent
                    They're not the subjects of the article. And on a more general note if you want to lawyer your way through the technical interpretation of a rule, you need to actually have a technical...

                    They're not the subjects of the article.

                    And on a more general note if you want to lawyer your way through the technical interpretation of a rule, you need to actually have a technical understanding of the rule rather than a vague reference to it in someone's blog post. Trying to call "gotcha!" without any meaningful facts or information at hand isn't a super productive avenue for discussion.

                    8 votes
    4. GhostHardware
      Link Parent
      Exactly. I live in the Netherlands, where it's also common practice to use fake names if requested by the source or interviewee. I am actually a bit surprised that a quality publication like the...

      Exactly. I live in the Netherlands, where it's also common practice to use fake names if requested by the source or interviewee. I am actually a bit surprised that a quality publication like the NYT does not do the same. Very dissappointing.

      4 votes
  2. kfwyre
    Link
    I'm sympathetic. I love Tildes and have written a lot here, but if someone came forward with my real name linked to this account, I'd have the same response he did and would take everything down....

    I'm sympathetic. I love Tildes and have written a lot here, but if someone came forward with my real name linked to this account, I'd have the same response he did and would take everything down.

    I hope this situation can get resolved amicably. I don't know enough about journalism to know the reasons for why they'd insist on using his full name, but it seems to me the easy solution could simply be to refer to him as "Scott Alexander" which is already the preferred name he's been writing under?

    19 votes
  3. [36]
    Velrei
    Link
    I do wonder if there is a good reason behind this, some scandal or something where it's necessary. Which wouldn't be a surprise given everything I've seen of Scott Alexander he's come off as a...

    I do wonder if there is a good reason behind this, some scandal or something where it's necessary.

    Which wouldn't be a surprise given everything I've seen of Scott Alexander he's come off as a prick, although I admittedly don't follow the guy much.

    Edit: Looking into him further has only solidified to me how terrible he is. For example, his entry here; https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander

    14 votes
    1. DanBC
      Link Parent
      Yes. He's written a long piece about why he thinks strong moderation is important and that it reflects on your brand. That piece, combined with the toxic hate he choses to leave up on his site in...

      Yes. He's written a long piece about why he thinks strong moderation is important and that it reflects on your brand. That piece, combined with the toxic hate he choses to leave up on his site in the comments section, is pretty grim.

      9 votes
    2. [26]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      Although it's heavily footnoted and some of Scott Alexander's views are recognizable, don't think that entry captures what's good about the blog. In particular, it's all about politics and the...

      Although it's heavily footnoted and some of Scott Alexander's views are recognizable, don't think that entry captures what's good about the blog. In particular, it's all about politics and the blog is not. His best articles aren't mentioned.

      5 votes
      1. [25]
        Macil
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yeah, I think it's good for anyone reading RationalWiki to know that they tend to laser focus on specific things. It's not good if you're trying to get a feel for why someone is popular or who...
        • Exemplary

        Yeah, I think it's good for anyone reading RationalWiki to know that they tend to laser focus on specific things. It's not good if you're trying to get a feel for why someone is popular or who they are to their fans; it's more like a listing of the weird issues that someone has doubled-down on. It can be useful for finding quick references to terrible political positions someone has doubled-down onto and may be pushing onto others, but beyond that I feel like RW tries too hard to spin things into a connected narrative of "this is a bad and weird person, and their badness and weirdness are linked". (For one thing, RW specifically seems to have a hate-boner for the field of AI risk, including on his page. I don't mind and actually find it useful the way they break down the bad politics of some people involved in the field, but then RW presents the field itself in an extremely slanted way to get another point in against them.) I feel like RW is much more concerned with painting people as uncool rather than making more weighty political arguments, though it may have good bits of political arguments along the way.


        I'm someone who has followed Slate Star Codex and has been critical of Scott and the community he fosters before, so I guess I'll give my take here as a way of contextualizing the RW article for others. I don't think Scott's posts directly try to push terrible things -- the main content of his posts are often great (his article on The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind is a recent favorite of mine) -- but he has a grating habit of doing things like occasionally slipping in anti-SJW digs, and treating arguments against HBD (race science; think The Bell Curve, which he's positively brought up on many occasions; I feel obligated to link this video debunking it which I posted a partial summary of) as coming from regressive anti-science leftist ideology that shouldn't even be considered (I think this is a double-whammy, because not only is it ignoring the very shaky ground of HBD science, but even if it were valid, he resists making any effort to contextualize it in a socially responsible way). These things repeated enough mean that his own communities have long since either self-selected or adapted to be in agreement, and the points being made regularly as small details make it seem like a distraction if you try to argue against them.

        Consider this random bit at the end of an article:

        Here is a story I heard from a friend, which I will alter slightly to protect the innocent. A prestigious psychology professor signed an open letter in which psychologists condemned belief in innate sex differences. My friend knew that this professor believed such differences existed, and asked him why he signed the letter. He said that he expected everyone else in his department would sign it, so it would look really bad if he didn’t. My friend asked why he expected everyone else in his department to sign it, and he said “Probably for the same reason I did”.

        This example isn't trying to strongly make the case that there are innate sex differences or what their importance to society is or ought to be, but it leaves you with the idea that people arguing against innate sex differences (either existing or being important to society) are doing it for ideological or otherwise bad reasons that should be ignored. I feel like this is representative of how he usually engages with these issues.

        In another article, he more directly goes on about how "regressive leftism" is getting in the way of pure supposedly-unbiased science. The cross-section of social issues and science in his articles is practically always that the non-scientist SJWs are going out of their lane and trying to get in the way of pure scientific progress. He doesn't spend much time talking about problems with the science or the social context that makes it more consequential. I want to bring up another quote just to show how casually he reaches for this angle:

        After college I went about a decade without thinking about it. Then people started making fun of Alex Jones’ CHEMICALZ R TURNING TEH FROGZ GAY!!! shtick. I innocently said that this was definitely happening and definitely deserved our concern, and discovered that this was no longer an acceptable thing to talk about in the Year Of Our Lord Two Thousand And Whatever. Okay. Lesson learned.

        Of course he skips by the whole idea that Alex Jones' shtick is ridiculous because Alex Jones frames it as intentional and yet another part of the gay agenda. That part is worth laughing off. If you bring up the issue in context of and bundled with Alex Jones, then you're just being obtuse if you don't unambiguously separate out the issues. I feel like he's being obtuse about it here just to score another example of "the regressive left" ignoring science, and that this is par for the course for him.

        I think the way he avoids talking about the kinds of social issues around stuff like race science and discrimination leads to his communities treating it as the domain of the other tribe, the terrible SJWs. He'll reference neoreactionary people and politics casually, even if just to disagree with them, but in a way that establishes that he practically expects his readers to be familiar with it and that it's an acceptable subject in SSC spaces, but he'll stay far away from spending time on issues that are too progressive-coded and instead litter his posts with digs at SJWs. With all this, it's not surprising that his subreddits find it tremendously uncool to argue for left-leaning ideas but find ethnonationalists cool (ugh, I really wish I was kidding).

        24 votes
        1. [24]
          reifyresonance
          Link Parent
          Agree with pretty much everything you've said. Used to follow the blog closely, Unsong was my favorite web-book, participated in the open threads. I don't know when things started getting worse,...

          Agree with pretty much everything you've said. Used to follow the blog closely, Unsong was my favorite web-book, participated in the open threads.

          I don't know when things started getting worse, or if I was just noticing for the first time, but I started to regularly see Blanchard's name come up any time transgender-related topics were mentioned. And people either engaged with those ideas, or ignored them. It struck me as so odd - I thought these people were "rationalists", far too critical for that? (For the uninitiated, I recommend Julia Serano's writing to both summarize the arguments and discuss the flaws in the "science" that birthed them.)

          Then I noticed the HBD stuff, and realized that the people who didn't believe in it, or at the very least tolerate it, had either left for greener pastures or never been there at all.

          There is definitely value in Scott's writing, and the internet rationalist mode of thought jives with my own in a way I haven't found a substitute for. Some of the blog posts from that corner of the noosphere I really appreciate, like the high/low decoupling one, the intelligent social web, and the "get out of the car" short story. (I think it was Scott who wrote about assuming the least convenient possible world for thought experiments - gotten a lot of mileage out of that one.)

          But the whole tolerating "scientific" racism... I dunno. If you're creating an environment where said people feel welcome, or if you're not, but said people flock to you anyways... I can't in good conscience see myself enthusiastically contributing to that community. Hope the blog comes back up, if just so I can see the next iteration of the community survey - I'm real interested in how their demographics have changed.

          I check out /r/SneerClub from time to time to see what the internet rationalists are on about, and to try and excise the last vestiges of whatever was instilled in me there. It's nice to know I'm not alone in my disillusionment.

          12 votes
          1. [19]
            mftrhu
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            It has been at least a couple of years. It's what caused me to stop identifying as a rationalist, and to start giving the side eye to those who still do so. I believe the main causes are two: the...
            • Exemplary

            I don't know when things started getting worse, or if I was just noticing for the first time, but I started to regularly see Blanchard's name come up any time transgender-related topics were mentioned. And people either engaged with those ideas, or ignored them. It struck me as so odd - I thought these people were "rationalists", far too critical for that?

            It has been at least a couple of years. It's what caused me to stop identifying as a rationalist, and to start giving the side eye to those who still do so.

            I believe the main causes are two:

            • the alt-right making "facts and logic" its motto;
            • people in the rationalist/free-thinking community being more interested in the idea of searching for knowledge, than in the knowledge itself.

            We probably all know what the first one means from thousands of encounters with edgelords on the 'net. "Facts and logic", being pitted against "you triggered, mate?" by pseudo-rationalists and bad-faith actors.

            The former think that "being rational" means acting like a Vulcan, and that emotions cannot possibly co-exist with it. If someone reacts badly to some argument being brought up, for whatever reason, they consider it proof that they must be biased, and therefore wrong - it helps that they are seldom actually invested in the outcome of the discussions they participate to.

            The latter, helped by the former, co-opt the language of science because they are ideologically opposed to some group or another. While the pseudo-rationalists might not be trying to hurt anyone by playing devil's advocate and "just asking questions", the bad-faith actors use that to acquire a soapbox from which to spew their drivel.

            If I had to describe, in one word, how the pseudo-rationalists act, I would say "superficially".

            Most of those I have encountered have been lazy, parroting nonsense claims that they have heard once - Blanchard's bullshit, Littman's bullshit, desistance rates, detransition rates, suicide rates, effectiveness of HRT & SRS* - while all but demanding a 10k words rebuttal to even consider changing their own mind.

            Like most other people, they are eager to embrace beliefs that "make sense" to them - "transition is not the solution! trans people are delusional!" - while somehow fancying themselves above that.

            Worse, I said earlier that they consider the idea of searching for knowledge more important than the search itself: any whiff of what they consider censorship is enough to push them towards the "underdog". "We can't even talk about it? What is this nonsense?" - if someone is trying to suppress research, then it stands to reason that they must both know the answer, and not want it spread!

            Groups where a large fraction of people have this attitude tend to gravitate towards culture war topics, having long, neverending discussions about human bio-diversity, the dangers of letting too many migrants in, whether evolution would have selected against homosexuality or not, the effectiveness of transition, whether trans people are delusional or not, whether Blanchard had a point or not... You get the gist.

            LessWrong had a post about evaporative cooling of group beliefs, and that's how they get more and more extreme. People get tired of the same topics being brought up, over and over again, especially if they touch them personally. Having to defend yourself is something that tends to push people away. Having to defend yourself, against the same arguments, against the same people playing "devil's advocate" for the nth time in as many weeks? Seeing allies leave because of that, while the fuckwits who join feel right at home?

            That can make even the most stubborn person give up, as I experienced firsthand.


            Something amusing I have observed is how self-professed rationalists pay more attention to the tone of a discussion, than its contents. I am quite argumentative, and after spending more than five years defending LGBT+ people I am both completely confident in my arguments, and bored out of my skull by having to have them.

            When I know I am dealing with Yet Another Devil's Advocate, I ramp up on the arrogance - I'm more interested in shutting down these discussions than having them, providing misinformation a soapbox - and more often than not, they react positively to it, almost as if they were expecting it. I think it's because they evaluate the goodness of the arguments they encounter by using the confidence of their interlocutor as a proxy.

            To add to the "superficially", they tend to treat citations as... goons, meant to stand around and be menacing: I have lost count of how many times people have cited something unrelated to the discussion, or that doesn't quite support their claim, or that flat-out disproves it.


            * What really gets me these days is how repetitive they get. They always:
               (1) assert that we are mentally ill, "delusional" - ignoring every single DSM from 1980 onwards - and that we need "real therapy", ignoring the effectiveness of transition and without supporting any of their claims in any way;
               (2) mis-cite Dhejne, 2011 - the "Swedish cohort study" - as proof that transition doesn't work, despite what the study itself and its author have to say;
               (3) cite Steensma, 2011 to argue against "children transitioning", ignoring all the guidelines saying that only blockers should be given 'till 14-16 (Hembree, 2009 and 2017; Cohen-Kettenis, 2011), ignoring the glaring flaws with the Steensma paper itself;
               (4) cite Blanchard, ignoring the fact that his hypothesis is not falsifiable, and often managing to misquote even him when they claim that "AGPs" should not be "allowed" to transition;
               (5) cite Littman, usually together with (3) to make an argument for the "transgender recruitment" of children, ignoring the fact that the only people she polled were from "support" forums for transphobic parents;
               (6) cite McHugh and the ACPeds, which in turn go through (1), (2), and (3);
               (7) mis-cite a 2014 Williams Institute survey, asserting that 41% of trans people kill themselves - that figure refers to lifetime attempted suicide rates - falsely asserting that "not even Jews in death camps killed themselves that often!", therefore (1).

            † In a memorable occasion, in a "free thinkers" group, I found myself arguing with a person who denied the Holocaust. At one point, he told me he had a paper "proving" that the Auschwitz ovens could not have burned that many bodies, and he linked me to the Nikzor rebuttal of the Leuchter report. I thanked him for that, and then proceeded to mock him mercilessly.


            Edit: s/two \(main causes are two\)/\1/; s/Littman, usually together/& with/

            14 votes
            1. [9]
              NaraVara
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              This is one of the main things. There's a general idea that expert consensus on subjects doesn't matter and if they're dismissing things out of hand it must be because they're closed minded rather...

              Worse, I said earlier that they consider the idea of searching for knowledge more important than the search itself: any whiff of what they consider censorship is enough to push them towards the "underdog". "We can't even talk about it? What is this nonsense?" - if someone is trying to suppress research, then it stands to reason that they must both know the answer, and not want it spread!

              This is one of the main things. There's a general idea that expert consensus on subjects doesn't matter and if they're dismissing things out of hand it must be because they're closed minded rather than the fact that they've heard permutations of this nonsense before and recognize that it's a waste of time.

              There's a pervasive notion that you should be able to explain to them (generally total laymen and non-experts on the topic) all the relevant points and conclusions in the span of a blog post. This is generally subject matter that the people they're arguing with probably have a degree in and it is assumed to be a fault of the expert for not being able to reconstruct a degree curriculum's worth of knowledge and acculturation for them from first principles in a Reddit post. Their unwillingness to acknowledge that there is just some stuff that they're not going to be experts in and will simply need to take on authority leads them to accept simplistic narratives and reductive stories full of biased anecdotes and cherry-picked data.

              10 votes
              1. [8]
                mftrhu
                Link Parent
                And they will happily assume that - generalizing it to entire fields - even for people who are not experts, and who never claimed to be experts in the first place.

                This is generally subject matter that the people they're arguing with probably have a degree in and it is assumed to be a fault of expert for not being able to reconstruct a degree curriculum's worth of knowledge and acculturation for them from first principles in a Reddit post.

                And they will happily assume that - generalizing it to entire fields - even for people who are not experts, and who never claimed to be experts in the first place.

                3 votes
                1. [7]
                  NaraVara
                  Link Parent
                  Yeah. I think what bugs me most is the willingness to strongly hold opinions about things they know nothing about. And it's everyone else's responsibility to disabuse them of mistaken notions....

                  Yeah. I think what bugs me most is the willingness to strongly hold opinions about things they know nothing about. And it's everyone else's responsibility to disabuse them of mistaken notions. There is absolutely zero humility about what they know or don't know. It's deeply intellectually incurious and uninterested in actually understanding the truth of anything. It's not really an application of reason so much as being really sophistic.

                  I had a discussion on HackerNews recently about social science, and in the course of the discussion he kept asking me for examples of economics and political science studies to provide evidence that quantitative methods are commonly used now because he wasn't convinced. This guy was sure that all Social Science is just about categorization and observation and not actual experimentation because he read some blog post about positivism and Karl Popper.

                  He had scarcely any idea what behavioral econ. was even though it's the hottest field in economics right now, to the point where economists make memes about how much of a fad it is. I could not, for the life of me, imagine holding such firm opinions about a subject when I manifestly know so little about it. Generally when I talk about things like that I spend most of my time asking questions, not demanding that people smarter than me explain why I'm wrong. It's just so tiresome.

                  6 votes
                  1. [6]
                    mftrhu
                    Link Parent
                    Yeah, this lack of curiosity is the most infuriating thing. They like to mock the idea of the skeleton warrior going "educate yourself, you bigot!", but unwillingness to do even a cursory amount...

                    Yeah, this lack of curiosity is the most infuriating thing. They like to mock the idea of the skeleton warrior going "educate yourself, you bigot!", but unwillingness to do even a cursory amount of research on some topic before engaging in conversation about it? That doesn't make them look particularly clever.

                    It's not a very good defense against accuses of bigotry, either. I keep on saying that bigotry is, at its most basic level, laziness, because it's a refusal to engage either one's emotional or rational circuitry. When someone doesn't try to empathize, when they hold something or someone in contempt for very little reason, when they refuse to think about that even when challenged, when they only change their mind because they were all but forced to admit they were wrong - I can't see that as anything else.

                    I had a discussion on HackerNews recently about social science, and in the course of the discussion he kept asking me for examples of economics and political science studies to provide evidence that quantitative methods are commonly used now.

                    Ah, the infinite "[citation needed]" people spit out against the most basic of claims. It's the best part of being on the Internet.

                    5 votes
                    1. [2]
                      NaraVara
                      Link Parent
                      I do worry about that side of things. Not so much because it's wrong to insist people educate themselves, but often I feel the people who say "It's not on queer/trans/POC/whomever to explain...

                      They like to mock the idea of the skeleton warrior going "educate yourself, you bigot!",

                      I do worry about that side of things. Not so much because it's wrong to insist people educate themselves, but often I feel the people who say "It's not on queer/trans/POC/whomever to explain things to you" inadvertently end up sending lots of curious fence-sitters into the arms of Prager U and other pseudo-intellectual crap. It's not realistic to expect everyone to be an activist, but if you're gonna call yourself an activist it's kind of on you to do the activism.

                      7 votes
                      1. mftrhu
                        Link Parent
                        I really don't. There isn't a penury of activists willing and able to teach people, there never has been, and even activists should not be expected to do their "job" full-time, everywhere from IRL...

                        I really don't. There isn't a penury of activists willing and able to teach people, there never has been, and even activists should not be expected to do their "job" full-time, everywhere from IRL to their own safe spaces. We can draw a line. We should draw a line, because our time isn't free, our energy isn't limitless, we can and do burn out. Explaining basic concepts that someone could learn by doing a simple search, or looking up the FAQs, is just not worth it in my opinion.

                        1 vote
                    2. [3]
                      skybrian
                      Link Parent
                      It seems fine to ask the "citation needed" people to be more polite with their requests; that's usually not the appropriate way to ask for sources outside Wikipedia. And there should also be norm...

                      It seems fine to ask the "citation needed" people to be more polite with their requests; that's usually not the appropriate way to ask for sources outside Wikipedia. And there should also be norm than nobody is required to answer any question, but then you can just not reply, or block them if they're being too disruptive.

                      But I think that the "educate yourself" mockery, while rude, does get at something that's sometimes true. There are communities were people expect to be able to "shitpost" whenever they want and nobody can ask questions. And sometimes it's not even writing your own posts; it's just sharing memes created by others. These are toxic communities and should be avoided. And unfortunately, this stuff is often viral. As a result, we often see other communities at their witty worst. (Ironically you seem to be focusing on the witty worst of the rationalist diaspora.)

                      I've probably said this before, but I think it actually is wrong to tell people to educate themselves, because it doesn't work and can't be made to work. The way to get people to educate themselves is recommend stuff to read. (Preferably short and specific, but with references for going broader or deeper.) Compare saying "that's an urban legend, educate yourself" to linking to Snopes. The Snopes link doesn't always work either but reasonable people will learn something from it.

                      Probably the healthiest way to handle basic claims is community-written FAQ's. Then when someone asks a basic question that's been asked many times then you can link to the FAQ. Ideally they would read the FAQ before posting, but when it doesn't happen you can redirect them there.

                      But that requires someone to do the work. In r/accordion, we don't have a FAQ maintainer, but I sometimes handle questions that are frequently asked by posting the same link to a web page that I found before that I thought was good. (If nobody's written about it on the web, how basic can it be?)

                      2 votes
                      1. [2]
                        mftrhu
                        Link Parent
                        And that's what 99% of "educate yourself" boils down to, and why I mock the people who rail against that strawman. It doesn't help that it's aimed at outsiders to communities where that...

                        Ideally they would read the FAQ before posting, but when it doesn't happen you can redirect them there.

                        And that's what 99% of "educate yourself" boils down to, and why I mock the people who rail against that strawman. It doesn't help that it's aimed at outsiders to communities where that expectation to be able to shitpost willy-nilly never existed, and communities that are mostly intended to be safe spaces (or as safe as they can be).

                        Education requires someone to do the work, that's true, and that's why I believe this work - at least for the bare basics - should not fall upon the shoulders of minorities. Filtering for people willing to do some of that, also, helps making this job easier. They must be willing to listen to learn, and I find that those who are not curious enough to do some cursory searching beforehand are just not very interested in any of that (when they are not bad-faith actors, that is).

                        (If nobody's written about it on the web, how basic can it be?)

                        Trivial, in my experience, because somebody has written about it - on the web, on your specific forum, on your specific subforum, within the last week, within the last three days, yesterday.

                        2 votes
                        1. skybrian
                          Link Parent
                          I'll take your word for it that there are forums where this is a problem. I think this is going to depend on the forum, though? I was thinking more in terms of good norms of conversation for an...

                          I'll take your word for it that there are forums where this is a problem. I think this is going to depend on the forum, though? I was thinking more in terms of good norms of conversation for an online forum to have. (For example, on Tildes.)

                          I don't think "minorities aren't required to back up their claims" is a workable rule in forums where we just know each other by usernames. But "nobody is required to back up their claims" falls out of the general rule that nobody is required to participate in a conversation any longer than they want.

                          1 vote
            2. [6]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. [3]
                TheRtRevKaiser
                Link Parent
                I've seen it called "Engineer Syndrome" (sorry STEM folks) and I've known so many people in STEM who were convinced that they could come up with all the answers to problems outside their field, as...

                I've seen it called "Engineer Syndrome" (sorry STEM folks) and I've known so many people in STEM who were convinced that they could come up with all the answers to problems outside their field, as if nobody had ever thought about those things before they gave it a few minutes thought.

                7 votes
                1. [2]
                  skybrian
                  Link Parent
                  A better name for this is "instant expert syndrome." It's not at all limited to engineers and I'd rather they weren't singled out.

                  A better name for this is "instant expert syndrome." It's not at all limited to engineers and I'd rather they weren't singled out.

                  5 votes
                  1. TheRtRevKaiser
                    Link Parent
                    I'm sure it's not limited to engineers, and I'm certainly not trying to offend. I suspect most people with any significant amount of expertise or education are vulnerable. In my personal...

                    I'm sure it's not limited to engineers, and I'm certainly not trying to offend. I suspect most people with any significant amount of expertise or education are vulnerable. In my personal experience the worst cases of the problem among people I personally know work in STEM fields, but after taking a minute I can think of others, in particular a humanities PhD I know.

                    2 votes
              2. NaraVara
                Link Parent
                I just reread the Bhagavad Gita and it's interesting how much the ancient Hindu scholars thought about this. All the practices of yoga, the dietary restrictions, the meditation, the chanting and...

                The problem I see with "hard rationalism" is that humans are fundamentally not rational beings, and simply identifying yourself as a "rational being" does not make you in to a rational being. It tends to induce a "I am rational, and therefore always right" kind of thinking which – ironically – makes people more susceptible to all sorts of "wrong" thinking, rather than less.

                I just reread the Bhagavad Gita and it's interesting how much the ancient Hindu scholars thought about this. All the practices of yoga, the dietary restrictions, the meditation, the chanting and prayers, etc. are designed as ways to tame and calm the biases that distract us so we can actually think clearly and with non-attachment about these subjects.

                It's not something you can just do because you want it. There's an acknowledgement that even if we're a pure consciousness, our ability to think and perceive is still bounded by the limitations of our physical bodies and our karma (the accrual of desires, biases, tendencies, etc. from our past actions and the actions of others that impacted us). We can't understand things clearly until we undertake some discipline to stabilize the body, calm the mind, quell various distracting impulses like hunger or lust or anxiety, and so on. They even have instructions in some of the Upanishads about correct posture so you don't get distracted by sore muscles or limbs falling asleep during extended periods of sitting to think really hard!

                They even say that you will have a hard time truly getting it if you're a family man, and you're better off focusing on making sure your family is provided for and your kids are able to take care of themselves before settling on spiritual/intellectual pursuits.

                5 votes
              3. Macil
                Link Parent
                It's super frustrating because exactly this was a huge part of the message that LessWrong (and its precursor OvercomingBias) focused on especially in the 2005-2010 period. But then post-2010, the...

                It's super frustrating because exactly this was a huge part of the message that LessWrong (and its precursor OvercomingBias) focused on especially in the 2005-2010 period. But then post-2010, the "rationalist sphere" outgrew LessWrong, and the ideas didn't take hold so much in the newer communities of later places like Slate Star Codex.

                3 votes
            3. skybrian
              Link Parent
              It seems like this has gotten off track by focusing on the flaws of the fan club. Yes, LessWrong often has a problem with what they jokingly call "insight porn," but meanwhile Scott Alexander...

              It seems like this has gotten off track by focusing on the flaws of the fan club. Yes, LessWrong often has a problem with what they jokingly call "insight porn," but meanwhile Scott Alexander wrote a great book review about Herbert Hoover. The focus on object-level knowledge is why I've been reading Slate Star Codex but only occasionally glance at LessWrong.

              It's unfortunate that there is a lot of writing that isn't very good, but that's how the Internet works sometimes. I feel like the way around that is to post links to stuff that is good. Most of us don't have much of a work ethic as writers and that's fine, we can still post links and chat. I think the structure of Tildes plays to our strengths.

              Scott Alexander has been trying to encourage better writing. Last year's adversarial collaboration contest had mixed results - it encouraged an impressive amount of research but seemed exhausting. But this year's book review contest seemed promising. Unfortunately that's on hold now.

              4 votes
            4. [3]
              moocow1452
              Link Parent
              I always thought that pop-rationalism was far more interested in the narrative of being a forbidden science hero as opposed to actually learning things from an established institution of higher...

              I always thought that pop-rationalism was far more interested in the narrative of being a forbidden science hero as opposed to actually learning things from an established institution of higher learning. Their greatest contribution to philosophy being "the old testament God, but cyber" always struck me as kind of counter to the whole facts and logic thing.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                mftrhu
                Link Parent
                Oh, definitely. I often describe it as "wanting to appear right", as opposed to "wanting to be right", thus their obsession with logical fallacies (which they treat as debate cheat codes), and...

                Oh, definitely. I often describe it as "wanting to appear right", as opposed to "wanting to be right", thus their obsession with logical fallacies (which they treat as debate cheat codes), and with their nitpicking everything (they disagree with) to hell and back.

                Not completely relevant aside, but I liked how su3su2su1 described it in their review of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality:

                I think perhaps this is a common dream of the science fetishist- if only I knew ALL OF THE SCIENCE I would be unstoppable at everything. Hariezer Yudotter is a sort of wish fulfillment character of that dream. Hariezer isn’t motivated by curiosity at all really, he wants to grow his super-powers by learning more science. Its why we can go 10 fucking chapters without Yudotter really exploring much in the way of the science of magic (so far I count one lazy paragraph exploring what his pouch can do, in 10 chapters). Its why he constantly describes his project as “taking over the world.” And its frustrating, because this obviously isn’t a flaw to be overcome its part of Yudotter’s “awesomeness.”

                I'm not sure I fully agree with "as opposed to actually learning things from an established institution", though. I am aware of things like Yudkowsky's... mistrust for that, but when taken as a whole they do like their appeals to authority, and one of their most common refrains is "SJWs are invading our colleges" - I'd say that they are not opposed to higher learning or credentials per se, but just when it disagrees with what they already believe. It's just another tool.

                "the old testament God, but cyber"

                I still have no idea how they could come up with Roko's basilisk and not see it as just a re-interpretation of Pascal's wager.

                7 votes
                1. Macil
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Honestly I found those specific qualities about the protagonist in HPMOR inspiring. I've seen plenty of token "smart" characters in fiction that were just endlessly curious about everything to a...

                  Honestly I found those specific qualities about the protagonist in HPMOR inspiring. I've seen plenty of token "smart" characters in fiction that were just endlessly curious about everything to a complete fault, that don't seem to have any end-goals besides reading, that don't have any revealing interactions with other characters about this, and have their main function be to deliver timely bits of conveniently relevant exposition through story contrivance. Most stories portray learning as something you're born interested in or not, and the interest in it is fundamentally mysterious and non-communicable to others. I loved the concept of a character flipping that stereotype and emphasizing learning as a pragmatic tool toward solving the world's problems, and seeing the decision process and discussions as they try to get there.

                  Part of it is a similar sort of draw as hacker characters in media. They aren't just random information sponges, but they're doing very directed learning about systems so they can use those systems for their goals. It's not a plot hole if the story doesn't explain how exactly computers and hacking work; it's a plot hole if the character accomplishes things without the story emphasizing or explaining that they've put work into learning the skills.

                  ... I don't mean for this to be a fully-general argument about the goodness of HPMOR. I loved it, but it's a real particular kind of story, and the protagonist starts out as a specific kind of smart-aleck brat that I think you need to have memories of being like as a kid to completely sympathize with. I think the worst quality of the story is that it waits so long before it starts showing bad consequences from some of his attitudes toward other people, but it does try to course-correct for that later on.

                  I still have no idea how they could come up with Roko's basilisk and not see it as just a re-interpretation of Pascal's wager.

                  I think that was eventually the popular opinion on it. I think the initial discussions of it were predictable if you viewed it through the lens of a community that was spending a ton of time dedicated to thinking about Newcomb-like problems, which are an interesting test case for possible decision theories.


                  This is zooming in on a lot of old LessWrong stuff, but I wonder how much overlap there even is today between that and the modern SSC culture. I used to think SSC picked up most of its userbase from LW, but then I was surprised later on when I saw that a lot of people in SSC communities came from elsewhere. I think it might be reading too much into LW's flaws to blame them all for the current state of SSC's communities.

                  4 votes
          2. [4]
            Macil
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            I think there's a lot of content from the rationalist sphere that was great and worth holding onto (I've got some favorite SSC stuff, though I was more into the pre-SSC LessWrong; I'm a sucker for...

            I think there's a lot of content from the rationalist sphere that was great and worth holding onto (I've got some favorite SSC stuff, though I was more into the pre-SSC LessWrong; I'm a sucker for the old LessWrong sequences and still really recommend them, though it's probably only going to hook someone who is already really into thinking about AI). I think the sphere as a social sphere was poisoned in a way not too specific to it by people and some big figures following the anti-SJW spiral.

            I think I see the shift as similar to what the atheism/skeptic communities and a lot of gaming communities went through. Maybe the common feature between the groups was that they were all focused on some subject and generally learned the most from in-group people. Any random member probably knows more about the subject than any outsider, so an outsider that thinks they have something to teach you is seen as a delusional attacker. So when the internet increasingly went through a "we should pay attention to social justice issues because they exist online too" revolution, these groups treated it as attacks and doubled-down on whatever people in their in-group countered with. I imagine this could be prevented in a community that still focuses on the same subject by encouraging general political awareness at the same time instead of making the community be exclusively about the subject. I'm optimistic about the number of programming communities that decided to raise attention for BLM; I think establishing that groups can and should involve themselves with outside topics like that too may be an antidote for subject-focused groups' natural tendency of treating outside interference just as attacks.


            I've previously peeked at /r/SneerClub a couple times when I was seeking out the solace of knowing there were other people with criticisms like mine, and I did find a couple people making good criticisms along the same lines of my post... but wow a lot of the rest of that subreddit skips past that and goes into bullying like each public figure of the rationalist sphere over about every post they make including just random ones. I really worry that the volume of bad-faith attacks from that place trains people in the SSC sphere to expect that all criticism is similarly in bad-faith. I can't say I'm a fan. (EDIT: I've checked it out again, and honestly I am finding some really good stuff too. ... I dunno, there's a lot of old LW stuff that was fine and interesting, and I guess my criticism of RW goes for SneerClub too. There's a lot of strong criticism along the way, mixed with people just trying to spin anything related to it as uncool.)

            I do spend some time on /r/SubredditDrama, which is unrelated to the rationalist sphere, but I think it shares some common qualities with the few good parts of SneerClub: there's a lot of progressive arguments about the bad politics and atmospheres of various internet communities, but it mostly does it without persistently singling out specific people. It's got a few contrarian hivemind takes on a few subjects that drive me a little crazy, but it's generally on stuff of little consequence and doesn't devolve into person-obsessed bullying so it's not too bad.

            5 votes
            1. [3]
              skybrian
              Link Parent
              I'm wondering how anyone can keep up all that? I've only skimmed the comments on the Slate Star Codex blog itself (the WordPress UI is horrible) and I don't know what the critics are saying unless...

              I'm wondering how anyone can keep up all that? I've only skimmed the comments on the Slate Star Codex blog itself (the WordPress UI is horrible) and I don't know what the critics are saying unless Scott Alexander links to them.

              I assume there are terrible people out there somewhere because there always are and because the terrible stuff gets criticized and sometimes it goes viral, but that's a filter that tends to surface controversy and outrage.

              1. [2]
                Macil
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Are you talking about people using SneerClub? I imagine there's a couple main drives: people who were already obsessed with SSC content and had been posting on the main subreddit, but eventually...

                I'm wondering how anyone can keep up all that?

                Are you talking about people using SneerClub? I imagine there's a couple main drives: people who were already obsessed with SSC content and had been posting on the main subreddit, but eventually felt it was too hostile to left/progressive-leaning arguments and instead of entirely leaving just moved over to one that was more receptive to that. And then people like that, but who are burned out on the SSC sphere and are venting about that. And people who just love the idea of having agreed fair-game designated targets, not unlike cringe subreddits. I'm not confident what to make of it all.

                1 vote
                1. NaraVara
                  Link Parent
                  SneerClub is increasingly becoming a tankie sub. A few weeks ago someone asked for reading recommendations from a SSC reader to be more literate and better understand the criticisms and almost...

                  SneerClub is increasingly becoming a tankie sub. A few weeks ago someone asked for reading recommendations from a SSC reader to be more literate and better understand the criticisms and almost everyone was only recommending a bunch of dry Marxist theory. Anyone who wasn't on the Marx train was being downvoted. It was weird to see. I can't imagine anyone thinking jumping straight into Marx is edifying or interesting for someone who is just intellectually curious. Especially since the guy in question was an economics major in college, so would have already been familiar with most of Marx's arguments and the developments in economics that address them.

                  2 votes
    3. [7]
      Cycloneblaze
      Link Parent
      r/themotte is mentioned on that entry. I ended up there the last day on reddit and was wondering where exactly it came from; the sidebar left me a little leery, but I didn't look into it further....

      r/themotte is mentioned on that entry. I ended up there the last day on reddit and was wondering where exactly it came from; the sidebar left me a little leery, but I didn't look into it further. Now I see why that was!

      4 votes
      1. [6]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        Here's a brief history: Slate Star Codex attracts people of all political persuasions due to apparent open-mindedness about unusual ideas. Seriously! Commenters are everything from far-left to...

        Here's a brief history:

        Slate Star Codex attracts people of all political persuasions due to apparent open-mindedness about unusual ideas. Seriously! Commenters are everything from far-left to reactionary, though the average is probably liberal. These discussions often go places that Scott Alexander doesn't endorse. He moderates his blog's comments fairly heavily and bans people if they go too far.

        On Reddit in r/slatestarcodex, there were similar problems, so the moderators started a periodic "culture war" topic and asked everyone who wants to talk about politics to post there instead. This attracted a lot of controversial posts, but it was better than having the main subreddit taken over by politics.

        After a while, Scott Alexander got nervous about that stuff being posted in a subreddit that has the same name as his blog. He asked them to move the discussion to a separate subreddit with a different name and its own moderators.

        The name is a reference to the motte-and-bailey fallacy. But I don't read it (and didn't read the culture war topics much before) so I don't really know how bad it is.

        So the summary might be that the blog attracted some people with unusual opinions and Scott Alexander tried to get them to go away, while being nice about it.

        5 votes
        1. [5]
          spit-evil-olive-tips
          Link Parent
          I'm coming to this with fresh eyes, hadn't really heard of SSC or this author before. From that rational wiki article linked above: If that's correct (I can't view the sources it links to because...

          I'm coming to this with fresh eyes, hadn't really heard of SSC or this author before. From that rational wiki article linked above:

          Alexander identifies with the 'hereditarian left', and considers The Bell Curve co-author Charles Murray to be a close ideological ally.

          If that's correct (I can't view the sources it links to because they're now deleted) then I don't think it's accurate to portray Alexander as some sort of neutral, dispassionate moderator of a politically diverse forum.

          Charles Murray is most famous for peddling racist pseudoscience.

          Alexander is a psychiatrist, and he says part of the backlash he's afraid of is consequences to that medical practice. Which...um...yeah. If he believes discredited science about human brain development, his work as a psychiatrist should be questioned.

          It's like if we found out a web forum for Holocaust denial was moderated by someone whose day job was a professor of history at a mainstream, accredited university. You can't separate those two with a pseudonym and pretend they're unrelated and separate personas.

          13 votes
          1. [3]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            I can't follow the footnotes right now, but I don't think that's an accurate summary. Scott Alexander is definitely interested in defending actual scientists who want to study genetics and IQ (as...

            I can't follow the footnotes right now, but I don't think that's an accurate summary. Scott Alexander is definitely interested in defending actual scientists who want to study genetics and IQ (as am I). I think it's safe to say that he's worried about entire scientific fields becoming difficult to study due to politics. I don't think he's written anything about human genetics in Africa.

            Please be careful with your analogies. This sort of guilt by association is dangerous to free inquiry.

            10 votes
            1. [2]
              spit-evil-olive-tips
              Link Parent
              One of the first results I found from Google: Yeah, no. This is standard-issue "I'm just saying we should be able to have an open discussion about whether black people are genetically inferior..."...

              One of the first results I found from Google:

              Definition By Motive can even trump Definition By Belief when we’re talking about innate/genetic difference. Consider Charles Murray saying that he believes black people are genetically less intelligent than white people. Some of Murray’s critics object that this should be suppressed, even if true, because it could be used to justify racism.

              Under Definition By Belief, this makes no sense. Imagine Murray was a geologist, pointing out that Antarctica contained mostly sedimentary rock. His critics object “This should be suppressed, even if true, because it could be used to justify believing that Antarctica contains mostly sedimentary rock!” Huh?

              Yeah, no. This is standard-issue "I'm just saying we should be able to have an open discussion about whether black people are genetically inferior..." sealioning / JAQing off. I have zero tolerance for defenders of scientific racism.

              I stand by that analogy (and I don't appreciate "please be careful with your analogies" as if me saying something you disagree with is a sign that I'm careless with my words). But, if you'd like a different analogy, how about someone who works as at an in vitro fertilization clinic and also as a hobby runs a messageboard about eugenics? Or a NASA engineer who has a YouTube channel about how the moon landings were faked and jet fuel can't melt steel beams? Or a paleontologist working dinosaur digs in Montana, but who doesn't believe in evolution and runs a young-earth creationist website about how dinosaur bones are leftovers from Noah's flood?

              Freedom of speech also means freedom for other people to shun you if they find your speech sufficiently distasteful. If this guy ends up losing his job as a medical doctor (who took an oath to "do no harm") because of his belief that there's an important and earnest debate to be had about race science - good riddance.

              Has Alexander treated any Black patients? Did he treat them differently than white patients because he believes there's an open and honest scientific debate that should be had about whether they're just genetically stupider than he is? These are real-world questions with real-world impacts on real people.

              Alexander might want to pretend that his website is an ivory tower where he can discuss Serious Intellectual Topics in a way that is isolated from the real world (including isolated from any consequences & judgement his colleagues or patients might want to pass on him), but that's simply not the way the world works.

              3 votes
              1. skybrian
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                But I do think you are being careless with words. A simple example is using "sealioning" incorrectly. Scott published an essay on his own blog. This isn't interrupting a conversation, as...

                But I do think you are being careless with words.

                A simple example is using "sealioning" incorrectly. Scott published an essay on his own blog. This isn't interrupting a conversation, as "sealioning" implies. It's not even a reply to anyone specifically.

                JAQ (just asking questions) doesn't apply here either. Although Scott does make his point using rhetorical questions, he doesn't leave it at that. In part (II) of the essay, he goes on to make an argument about how certain definitions of "racism" would lead to counterintuitive results, and to argue that "Definition by Motive" explains better how people use the word, but people use it to mean other things too. Calling something JAQ doesn't invalidate the strategy of using questions to explore how a word is commonly understood.

                Third example: you say he is "an ivory tower where he can discuss Serious Intellectual Topics in a way that is isolated from the real world." But actually it's not isolated, because he writes about his work sometimes. Even in this essay:

                Okay, fine. Harder example. Let’s take, uh, some guy who’s always ranting about how the Jews secretly control the world. They have underground tunnels where they have their secret Zionist meetings and talk about how they’re going to stick it to the Christians. Every major war and economic downturn has been caused by this. Are we allowed to treat this guy‘s racism as being a conceptual primitive that doesn’t need further breaking down?

                I actually knew a guy like this. He was a schizophrenic patient in the mental hospital where I work. Overall I found it a nice break from the tedium of CIA-conspiracy folk, alien-conspiracy folk, and white-people-conspiracy folk (remember, this is Detroit).

                [...]

                “Are you saying that anti-Semitism literally plays no role in their theory about the Elders of Zion”? Again, call it what you want. I’m saying that by totally ignoring the anti-Semitic aspect, I was able to successfully treat this guy with Seroquel, whereas if you tried to read him Elie Wiesel books, he’d still be in that psych ward today.

                So yeah, he's had black patients. But we don't know from this whether he's a good psychiatrist for them or not. (I am not sure he even knows whether he's a good psychiatrist or not; he's expressed doubts, sometimes, and how do you define "good?" It's a misleading binary so let's set it aside.)

                I often talk here about how binary thinking can be misleading, resulting in unhelpful, confusing, divisive conversations. Although Scott doesn't write about it in the same way, this whole essay can be thought of as explaining how the word "racism" is used in a binary way, leading to unhelpful, confusing, divisive conversations. Much like "capitalism", "socialism" "fascism", and so on, you are often better off saying what you mean in a more descriptive way. (So Scott spends some time explaining what he means.)

                He also argues in favor of looking "for the non-racist motives in actually racist things," not as a reason to accept racism, but as a way of understanding what keeps racism going and (maybe) solving some problems. I think that's an important point to be made, particularly in times like this when we see a lot of propaganda that discourages critical thinking in the name of solidarity

                This shows why it's so very important that it can be done anonymously. Because the first thing you do is conclude he's a risk, because he mentioned Charles Murray in passing as part of an example, and then question whether he's a good psychiatrist or not for his black patients.

                Without anonymity, I'm sure he wouldn't have written this essay. I'm not sure everything in it holds up, but it's a pretty good defense of liberalism and open-mindedness, and I recommend it.

                Put it this way, if Scott Alexander had an account on Tildes, would you really want to out him? Doesn't this go against our shared values?

                2 votes
          2. entangledamplitude
            Link Parent
            I think drive-by summaries do a massive disservice to the quality SSC blog, and needlessly politicize the matter. Anyone who wants to form opinions is welcome to go look up blog entries on the...

            I think drive-by summaries do a massive disservice to the quality SSC blog, and needlessly politicize the matter. Anyone who wants to form opinions is welcome to go look up blog entries on the Wayback Machine.

            If I had to find a single tag to describe the SSC posts I’ve read, it would be “thoughtful” to an extent all too rare on the web. For that reason I consider it an institution worthy of respect.

            10 votes
    4. Akir
      Link Parent
      I wouldn't call him the most evil of influential thinkers, but I do find this move to be somewhat sketchy. Deleting the posts from his websites does not delete his posts from the world, and if...

      I wouldn't call him the most evil of influential thinkers, but I do find this move to be somewhat sketchy. Deleting the posts from his websites does not delete his posts from the world, and if anything finding that someone took years of work off the internet for fear of retribution would at least raise a red flag.

      I'll respect his rights to take everything down, but I would much rather the reason be "I don't believe this anymore". The way it comes across right now just seems like pure cowardice. And I say that full aware of how toxic 'internet culture' is. This does nothing to deter the trolls who seek to harass him - they're already angry at him - but it does do damage to the audience who wants to understand his opinions.

      3 votes
  4. viridian
    Link
    Interesting discussions happening on hacker news and Reddit as well, scott takes some questions in the latter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416...

    Interesting discussions happening on hacker news and Reddit as well, scott takes some questions in the latter:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416

    https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog_deleted_due_to_nyt_threatening_doxxing_of/

    Lots of people on Twitter are attempting to cancel their subscriptions with the Times right now, only to be met with 2+ hour wait times before they can talk to a human to cancel, since the NYT won't let you cancel without explaining to another human being why you want to do so.

    12 votes
  5. [2]
    skybrian
    (edited )
    Link
    Pseudonymity as a trivial concession to genius - Scott Aaronson talks about his relationship with Scott Alexander.

    Pseudonymity as a trivial concession to genius - Scott Aaronson talks about his relationship with Scott Alexander.

    6 votes
    1. thundergolfer
      Link Parent
      Wow Aaronson loves SSC. Maybe I should look into the blog more. I was initially turned off by the proliferation of horrible right-wingers in the SSC-related subreddits.

      Pseudonymity as a trivial concession to genius

      Wow Aaronson loves SSC. Maybe I should look into the blog more. I was initially turned off by the proliferation of horrible right-wingers in the SSC-related subreddits.

      1 vote
  6. [3]
    stu2b50
    Link
    Can someone provide some context? I can infer that this was a evidently well loved data oriented blog, but now that it's, uh, taken down I'm curious what made it click, and why the NYT wanted to...

    Can someone provide some context? I can infer that this was a evidently well loved data oriented blog, but now that it's, uh, taken down I'm curious what made it click, and why the NYT wanted to write about them.

    4 votes
    1. viridian
      Link Parent
      The blog is very popular, and well cited in lots of other tech blogs. The fact that Paul Graham and Stephen Pinker immediately admonished the NYT on Twitter today should you you an idea of the...

      The blog is very popular, and well cited in lots of other tech blogs. The fact that Paul Graham and Stephen Pinker immediately admonished the NYT on Twitter today should you you an idea of the sort of influence it has. I only ever read two articles in full, one on the effects of CO2 ppm in the air on sleep and working intelligence, and another on the history and decline of the "new atheism" movement. My overall take away is that Scott is a pretty good writer who knows how to build and also set aside his own narrative, and also he really likes citations and graphs.

      13 votes
    2. skybrian
      Link Parent
      Besides the more scientific stuff, Scott writes about a wide variety of other subjects, including history and occasionally fiction. He's also the best writer to come out of the rationalist...

      Besides the more scientific stuff, Scott writes about a wide variety of other subjects, including history and occasionally fiction.

      He's also the best writer to come out of the rationalist community. (Though it's less a community and more a diaspora these days.)

      5 votes
  7. [5]
    nothis
    (edited )
    Link
    So, I've seen a few posts about Slate Star Codex popping up, recently and it makes me wonder if my view of the blog has been a bit naive? I thought it was just one of those nerdy "understanding...

    So, I've seen a few posts about Slate Star Codex popping up, recently and it makes me wonder if my view of the blog has been a bit naive? I thought it was just one of those nerdy "understanding the world through science and statistics" kinda things, I didn't even know how heavily it was involved in current culture war stuff? Anyone have a summary what could possibly make the upcoming article so damaging?

    2 votes
    1. rkcr
      Link Parent
      Tim Ferriss' post 11 Reasons Not to Become Famous is what I'm thinking about right now. Specifically the parts about how even the semi-famous has to deal with stalking, death threats, harassment,...

      Tim Ferriss' post 11 Reasons Not to Become Famous is what I'm thinking about right now. Specifically the parts about how even the semi-famous has to deal with stalking, death threats, harassment, etc. It's just a numbers game; some percent of humans aren't entirely stable, and if you have enough followers, you've practically guaranteed you're going to run into them.

      12 votes
    2. skybrian
      Link Parent
      He tries usually tries to avoid blogging directly about culture war stuff and asks people to avoid it in the comments, with heavy moderation. There are exceptions, though. Nobody knows for sure...

      He tries usually tries to avoid blogging directly about culture war stuff and asks people to avoid it in the comments, with heavy moderation. There are exceptions, though.

      Nobody knows for sure what will be in the article, but it's not thought to be a hit piece.

      3 votes
    3. [2]
      Death
      Link Parent
      The issue isn't with the article potentially being damaging, as explained on the post and in SA's comments on the SSC subreddit.

      The issue isn't with the article potentially being damaging, as explained on the post and in SA's comments on the SSC subreddit.

      1 vote
      1. nothis
        Link Parent
        I heard of this before the doxxing threats, so I don't think it's related?

        I heard of this before the doxxing threats, so I don't think it's related?

        1 vote
  8. [7]
    thundergolfer
    Link
    Wait, this guy lives with 10 roommates, and is a Psychiatrist? What the story there? Is he extremely frugal with his housing expenses or is it some kind of mega-mansion?

    Wait, this guy lives with 10 roommates, and is a Psychiatrist? What the story there?

    Is he extremely frugal with his housing expenses or is it some kind of mega-mansion?

    2 votes
    1. Death
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I live with 9 housemates. Our building is an old renovated office complex, so the floors have long hallways with individual rooms and some common spaces. If you're okay with sharing some amenities...

      I live with 9 housemates. Our building is an old renovated office complex, so the floors have long hallways with individual rooms and some common spaces. If you're okay with sharing some amenities it's perfectly feasible to live with many people in a big but not huge house.

      11 votes
    2. [5]
      rkcr
      Link Parent
      He lives in the bay area and has written about polyamory before; between those two facts, stuffing 10 people into one house doesn't sound totally unreasonable.

      He lives in the bay area and has written about polyamory before; between those two facts, stuffing 10 people into one house doesn't sound totally unreasonable.

      11 votes
      1. [4]
        thundergolfer
        Link Parent
        Ahh yeah, Bay Area property market is painful. In my understanding Psychiatrists are very highly paid though, so he could afford to live by himself or with fewer roommates, so it does seem like...

        Ahh yeah, Bay Area property market is painful.

        In my understanding Psychiatrists are very highly paid though, so he could afford to live by himself or with fewer roommates, so it does seem like he's choosing to live closely with a lot of people. What motivates that choice is interesting to me. Polyamory being the motivator would be pretty interesting.

        3 votes
        1. [3]
          stu2b50
          Link Parent
          ...as someone who lives in the bay area, he should have no problem getting his own place. It's expensive, it's not that expensive.

          ...as someone who lives in the bay area, he should have no problem getting his own place. It's expensive, it's not that expensive.

          3 votes
          1. [2]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            I would guess that saving money is one reason but it's at least partly by choice. I have no idea how many people do this, but group houses seem to be a thing with some rationalist bay area folks...

            I would guess that saving money is one reason but it's at least partly by choice. I have no idea how many people do this, but group houses seem to be a thing with some rationalist bay area folks who like the community aspect of it. They aren't shy about doing things a little differently when it makes sense to them.

            8 votes
            1. thundergolfer
              Link Parent
              Given the right mix of roommates, I think it would be fantastic. I'd be interested in doing it if the opportunity arose, so would be interested in learning about his setup.

              Given the right mix of roommates, I think it would be fantastic. I'd be interested in doing it if the opportunity arose, so would be interested in learning about his setup.

              4 votes