"Why I'm Not A Rationalist" is a Bad Article
I guess I think arguments are more persuasive than vibes
I’m on the side of truth. If someone posts an essay titled “Why I’m not a socialist,” and spends the whole article talking about how socialists annoy them, with literally no answers to any of the substance of what they believe, then they’re conceding the truth to people who care enough to argue for substance.
I will now list all of the points made in the popular
article “Why I’m Not A Rationalist”:Rationalists make knowledge a personality trait, like foodies make food a personality trait
Rationalists are fat
Rationalists don’t know how to date
Rationalists have spreadsheet brain; they think things can be solved through models and data
Rationalists are utilitarians, who try to make people better on average through measurable statistics. He then mentions Auschwitz, and how they wouldn’t be comforted if the world was made a better place elsewhere
Rationalists use hypotheticals to measure why people do things
Rationalists use unnecessarily sophisticated language
Rationalists try to invent stuff from the ground up, instead of using established sophisticated language
Rationalists are doomers when it comes to AI, but they admit AI can be wrong, which is ironic because they don’t admit that they can be wrong (what?)
Have you noticed what’s missing from this article? Arguments! There are no frickin arguments anywhere! If anyone can find any arguments, please tell me in the comments, because now I have to rebut an article that doesn’t have any arguments.
Half of the points are just calling rationalists pretentious, know-it-all, fat losers, and the other half is just arguments from “my opponent believes something”.
“My opponent believes in utilitarianism, which is kinda like believing in all of the implications of utilitarianism blindly, like The Repugnant Conclusion”. Yeah, no utilitarians have ever tried to grapple with the problems with utilitarianism. He doesn’t offer any alternatives! He doesn’t say, “and that’s why I’m a robust deontologist, for reasons X, Y, and Z”. He just points and says, “Utilitarianism can mean X, so all rationalists believe X.”
“My opponent believes in using hypotheticals, instead of not ever trying to grapple with hypotheticals”, I guess? This critique has always been bad. Hypotheticals are just ways to ask how you compare the values of things. If you don’t have an instinctive answer to the question “would you rather stub your toe or be stabbed in the thigh with a knife five times”, and instead prefer to push up your glasses and state “Umm, well actually, I can choose neither. I will never have to consider any moral questions about things that aren’t happening right in front of me” then what are we doing? Questions like “how much do you value a human life vs animals’ lives” are vitally important for law, right now! Refusing to engage in the idea of tradeoffs is ridiculous, and just because they’re abstract (I will not stab you in the thigh, don’t worry) doesn’t mean you can’t learn about your own priorities by answering. Why is factory farming not bad? Why is torturing animals, cutting off chickens’ beaks, tearing out shrimp’s eyes, not something we should compare to anything, or compare the pros and cons of? These are the questions we have to grapple with when trying to make the world a better place, and there are smart people who are on every side, but the first step is grappling with the question.
I just wish alternatives were in the article, anywhere. He doesn’t say what his moral beliefs are, he doesn’t say what he uses to prioritize instead of using hypotheticals, he just points.
The “rationalists use too sophisticated language” point would be a real point, I just completely disagree. When I read Eliezer’s stuff from 2008-2009, I was shocked at how easy and intuitive the points were to understand, and even more shocked by the fact that nobody I knew used any of it, including me. When I read a dense philosophy paper, there’s tons of complicated, referential language that requires me to read other papers. When I read Scott Alexander and, indeed, Eliezer Yudkowsky, they build up concepts that seemingly no one uses in an intuitive way so I can understand it. He calls this reinventing the wheel in the next point. I counter that making complicated topics in philosophy, math, and other subjects simpler and presenting them in an understandable way is Good, Actually. I don’t think you need to have a high IQ to understand what they say at all.
Do I need to say much about the whole “rationalists are fat, undatable, unfulfilled, losers” part? Call me crazy, I think stereotypes of whatever group I don’t like is not a very good point. I live an extremely fulfilled and happy life, with an amazing girlfriend, and lots of friends, in a city that I love. Oh, and I’m also the perfect weight. None of the facts I just said should matter at all to how you consider this article. I’m sure there are many insulting stereotypes I could make about every single political and social group that exists that will sound vaguely true, but I think anyone would want their group to get a little credit.
Actually, I only started working out more consistently recently (instead of just occasionally playing sports with my friends) because of the rationalist community! I was comparing the drawbacks and risk of living a sedentary lifestyle with other risky behaviors in my life while writing this article, and I figured that I should exercise more for my long term health. I always thought that because I was happy with the way I looked and felt great, I could get away with only playing sports. But considering the risk rationally helped me get to the gym.
He ends off the article with another joke mocking how smart rationalists think they are, while promising a part two where he’ll talk about “certain people in the rationalist community”. He then later released this part two (titled “mean version”, I guess all of this is him being nice), where he starts by literally putting famous rationalists’ photos next to each other and making fun of the way they look. I can’t counter the rest of this “mean version” because it’s a paid article, and I ain’t paying. I’d much rather read arguments about what moral philosophy he uses instead of pointing and laughing at people.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of rationalists, and non-rationalists have lots of fantastic points they could make in an article titled “Why I’m not a rationalist” that I would love to read!
talks about how Eliezer is overconfident in some of his important beliefs, like consciousness (I agree!). Daniel Dennett has some thoughts on AI risk that counter the rationalist narratives. And yesterday, put out a great essay with multiple interesting points discussing the famous “paper cuts vs. torture” debate, titled “Total Suffering isn’t real”. I probably disagree (I think the induction argument for the other side is pretty strong) but he actually argues things! Discusses different facets of the problem! What his thoughts are on each side! He also has other good posts discussing the cons of utilitarianism, and what he believes! The only thing I don’t like about it is where he ends the essay quoting this terrible article.Call me crazy, but I’m on the side of people willing to debate utilitarianism vs. deontology, the different philosophical implications of the trolley problem, and the side that’s willing to use English to try to find the truth from first principles.
I’m on the side of truth. Rationalists seem to care about finding the truth. As far as I can tell, they’re pretty good at it. Only enough truly compelling articles—like Bentham’s or Backcountry’s—would convince me to renounce them. If you don’t care about being correct, you can write vibe essays about the people you don’t like. You’re allowed to be wrong! But I’m choosing the side that cares enough to argue for substance.
Subscribe for free! The more people who subscribe, the more time I can spend writing. Doesn’t that button above look fun to press? It’s so easy, just give it a little tap. And then I think you have to click the “no pledge” button to subscribe for free, I don’t know how I can make it just instantly subscribe for free to be honest, whoops.
I think part of the situation here is that you are responding to a bit of a troll. Rohan seems very clever at posting things that are subtle baits for engagement (and some, like part 2, clearly not subtle at all).
It’s possible you noticed this while writing your post, but I suspect he is not arguing in good faith, he is arguing for the sake of arguing - this isn’t wrong or anything.
But I feel… a phrase… rising out of my bones…. Don’t feed the trolls! I’ve wanted to comment on blogs like he posted but delete them every time, usually once I realize they aren’t actually interested in becoming more informed so much as a public spectacle.
I think this sort of demonstrates why people tick differently. Because I thought it was a good article! I don’t think one needs a comprehensive ideology/philosophical framework to say that another one is bad. In fact, I somewhat object to implementing such ideologies and frameworks (yay wuwei and all that). In this regard, pointing out how (prominent) rationalists are kinda weirdos and conduct themselves in ways that may run counter to what they say is an argument against them of sorts.
Take, for instance, thought experiments. I’m not going to argue they aren’t important for public policy makers - especially the mathematical ones. But for most people, including rationalists, they aren’t particularly useful. We shouldn’t be attached to our conclusions there, because doing so could get in the way of us truly treating each other “Good.”