The headline talks about rationalists, but the article actually talks a lot about people who aren't rationalists at all. Like journalists. Or Krugman. Which are very easy to dupe, because they want to be duped. They actively go out and look for people who can be used as props to launder their agenda through them, and in some cases if they fail, they manufacture it (somehow this is considered to be much worse behavior than cherry-picking props, while being essentially the same). This is an easy trap to fall into - and I am sure many people declaring themselves rationalist fell in it too, because they are human. If you build a trap skillfully and put tasty enough cheese inside (different cheese for different people), a lot of people will get caught. Some of them may be calling themselves "rationalists", some of them may even try and become less easy to get caught - but they are imperfect humans, so they'll get caught anyway. That is to be expected. Doubly so if they actually profit in one way or another from getting caught (like journalists or political activists - which are pretty much one and the same nowdays). For those, passing a good "boo outgroup" story is almost inhumanly hard, so here are most of your examples.
To add to this, there's also the element of betting.
Humans, even rationalists, have to make decisions without the time to obtain perfect knowledge. It's only prudent to place bets if you think the upside might be big and the downside small. In other words, there were probably rationalists in the OP's sample that donated/took money from SBF while thinking this is all likely going to blow up in their face. This isn't the case of conflicting beliefs--it's playing the odds.
Plus, the characterization of "rationalists" seems to me a faulty generalization. There are probably very few people who make their life revolve around rationalism. But rationalism isn't some monastic order that stamps out mentat-like Rationalists, so in the real world, "rationalist" describes everyone from hyperlogical baysian wizards to folks who like a good argument and enjoy eating popcorn while watching the Culture War eat itself.
Humans, even rationalists, have to make decisions without the time to obtain perfect knowledge.
Yes, sometimes, but a lot of times they don't have to make a decision, and they do anyway. For example if I enter a meeting I will want to sit down, I don't know if the chair isn't broken, but I sit down anyway. Is not checking the chair a mistake? No, I can make a decision without perfect knowledge. But what about a raffle? I also don't know that I'm going to lose, so it might make sense to buy a ticket, but I don't have to. You'll say that I made a decision anyway, but not necessarily, a lot of times the result is "I don't know", and that's not really a decision.
It's only prudent to place bets if you think the upside might be big and the downside small.
That depends on the odds. A small upside and big downside might make sense if the odds of losing are sufficiently small.
In other words, there were probably rationalists in the OP's sample that donated/took money from SBF while thinking this is all likely going to blow up in their face.
But those are two different things. Taking money from a person is one decision, trusting that person is a completely different one. You can take money from a person without trusting them.
The difference between skeptics and normal people is not readily apparent. We both sit on a chair without checking if it's broken, but I as a rational skeptic do not assume it is unbroken. The end result looks the same, but the mental model is different: I do not have a belief.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The headline talks about rationalists, but the article actually talks a lot about people who aren't rationalists at all. Like journalists. Or Krugman. Which are very easy to dupe, because they want to be duped. They actively go out and look for people who can be used as props to launder their agenda through them, and in some cases if they fail, they manufacture it (somehow this is considered to be much worse behavior than cherry-picking props, while being essentially the same). This is an easy trap to fall into - and I am sure many people declaring themselves rationalist fell in it too, because they are human. If you build a trap skillfully and put tasty enough cheese inside (different cheese for different people), a lot of people will get caught. Some of them may be calling themselves "rationalists", some of them may even try and become less easy to get caught - but they are imperfect humans, so they'll get caught anyway. That is to be expected. Doubly so if they actually profit in one way or another from getting caught (like journalists or political activists - which are pretty much one and the same nowdays). For those, passing a good "boo outgroup" story is almost inhumanly hard, so here are most of your examples.
To add to this, there's also the element of betting.
Humans, even rationalists, have to make decisions without the time to obtain perfect knowledge. It's only prudent to place bets if you think the upside might be big and the downside small. In other words, there were probably rationalists in the OP's sample that donated/took money from SBF while thinking this is all likely going to blow up in their face. This isn't the case of conflicting beliefs--it's playing the odds.
Plus, the characterization of "rationalists" seems to me a faulty generalization. There are probably very few people who make their life revolve around rationalism. But rationalism isn't some monastic order that stamps out mentat-like Rationalists, so in the real world, "rationalist" describes everyone from hyperlogical baysian wizards to folks who like a good argument and enjoy eating popcorn while watching the Culture War eat itself.
Yes, sometimes, but a lot of times they don't have to make a decision, and they do anyway. For example if I enter a meeting I will want to sit down, I don't know if the chair isn't broken, but I sit down anyway. Is not checking the chair a mistake? No, I can make a decision without perfect knowledge. But what about a raffle? I also don't know that I'm going to lose, so it might make sense to buy a ticket, but I don't have to. You'll say that I made a decision anyway, but not necessarily, a lot of times the result is "I don't know", and that's not really a decision.
That depends on the odds. A small upside and big downside might make sense if the odds of losing are sufficiently small.
But those are two different things. Taking money from a person is one decision, trusting that person is a completely different one. You can take money from a person without trusting them.
The difference between skeptics and normal people is not readily apparent. We both sit on a chair without checking if it's broken, but I as a rational skeptic do not assume it is unbroken. The end result looks the same, but the mental model is different: I do not have a belief.
And yet you assume you have access to other people's mental models.
No, I ask them what they believe, and they tell me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link