site banner
gog  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   6411 thread views

Where are the people smarter than us hanging out?

In Paul Fussell’s book on class (I think), he says that people are really worried about differentiating themselves from the class immediately below them, but largely ignorant of the customs and sometimes even existence of the classes above them. When I found SSC, and then The Motte, and stuff like TLP, I was astonished to find a tier of the internet I had had no idea even existed. The quality of discourse here is . . . usually . . . of the kind that “high brow” (by internet standards) websites THINK they are having, but when you see the best stuff here you realize that those clowns are just flattering themselves. My question is, who is rightly saying the same thing about us? Of what intellectual internet class am I ignorant now? Or does onlineness impose some kind of ceiling on things, and the real galaxy brains are at the equivalent of Davos somewhere?

39
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In terms of generalists intelligently discussing general topics, I think there's a visible quality gap between the discourse here and the ACX commentary section, and, since in my three or so attempts to comment on the blog many years ago I never got anyone to respond to me whereas baiting some people into engagement on the Motte is trivial, that gap has probably been around for a while. I'm not aware of anything significantly above that on the internet for general discourse, but if you simply want raw displays of computational power and well-trained neural nets no matter the topic, it is hard to compete with Math Overflow comment sections (or, if you find the leveraging of domain knowledge to be "cheating", the same demographic could be found in a more immature stage over at AoPS back in the days; no idea how it looks nowadays).

I've always been pretty unimpressed with the blog commentariat. Getting engaged with there, as far as I can tell, is mostly a function of posting quickly enough because Scott often engages with comments for a few hours after posts which draw more interests to comments he touches and being a known entity there. Whatever quality that causes people here to care what aella has to say seems greatly amplified there and perhaps that is contributing to my, relative to this place, low opinion of them.

That quality you are referring to is the propensity of interest in things vs people axis. A lot of people seek out online spaces for community and socializing, the objective of the place is secondary to them. Of course those people are more interested in Aella than Aellas ideas. When people who are there for the objective see the former, its a disconcerting experience. Tldr; Normies gtfo.

I seem to recall that history's greatest minds in science, math, and philosophy generally were friends with each other, rather than having 'work only' relationships. There's a reason businesses and the military are so intent on team building and getting their people to share pleasures: it likely increases comfort and enjoyment of working together. It would seem to me that the best way would be to combine the socializing and the work groups, and enjoy pleasures together after completing hard parts of the objective together. This creates a barrier of the work to those who only want to share pleasures, but increases motivation and increases confidence in each other in the workgroup.

It sounds like this problem was inevitable since slatestarcodex comments are made for personal ego reasons, and not to build an actual work or project. That being the case, some Lady going 'ooooh how interesting' is going to make the experience even better for nerds wanting an ego boost. Solution: write a psych paper or book together and gangbang aella after you finish each chapter. Tldr;get into normies : D

What exactly is the problem with caring what aella has to say, though? I know there's a lot of people especially around here who find her morally/ideologically unpalatable, but I haven't seen it argued much that what she says is wrong or uninteresting.

Whenever she actually tries to form arguments I find them pretty low quality, which is fine in itself, a lot of my output is probably properly categorized as low quality. I don't have that much of a problem with her herself and she's probably quite pleasant to talk to. But one cannot escape what seems quite clear, she is widely discussed not because of the quality of her ideas but because of her identity as a female in rationalist adjacent circles and more even than that, a female who talks about sex. It is painfully obvious to me that whenever I see her propelled into a discussion it's by the motive force of sexually frustrated nerds incapable of looking away.

It all violates a kind of value that I'm not sure people get instilled with on the modern internet anymore, no one is supposed to know we're all dogs. Be honest with me right now, if it was found out that some nobody unattractive or male rationalist showered a shockingly low number of times a year do you think it would be cross posted to half a dozen platforms with hundreds of comments each?

I do want to make it clear what I'm not saying, I'm not saying that women rationalists should not be sharing their perspective and even including the fact that they are a women where relevant, some of the posts I most look forward to reading are from our few female posters. It's not even her behavior itself I'm against, although to the degree that she's manipulating the male rationalists it is. It's that we're all supposed to be better than this and yet so many of us can't even treat our fellows with big boobies as equals. The places that are less able to do so I think less of.

But I don't follow her myself, perhaps there is some deep well of Aella insights and I'm missing out, if you can find some interesting point she's made I'd be happy to read it, but I've yet to come across one.

Amen. The amount of male rationalists/EAs that chase women in the space, often without even realizing it themselves, is one of the cringiest things I've seen. I'm also convinced that it's a big reason EA is having trouble spreading to normies - attractive women that come in get pounced upon and actively pushed out.

It all violates a kind of value that I'm not sure people get instilled with on the modern internet anymore, no one is supposed to know we're all dogs.

Indeed, which is why I trained myself to completely disregard anything that aella says. I see her name, I scroll away. In general, if a poster is bringing up being a woman on a regular basis, I care very little about their output.

Basically, your words and ideas should stand on their own merits, instead of leaning on your personal status. This should really be a completely basic rule of online discourse. Worth comparing eg. /u/2rafa to the guy playacting the persona of a millionaire Irish VC in Bay Area (forgot which account he has now, he went through many over the years). I didn’t know that cimarafa was a woman for months, and when she brings up her wealth or status, it typically is rather loathsome instead of impressive. This is why I respect her. For comparison, the Irish millionaire persona would create a new account every few months, and very quickly start mentioning who he knows, with whom he hangs out, his literal hobby horses, his high status pastimes, size of his properties etc. Utterly disgusting.

In short, if I saw a photo of you on the internet (and I don’t go out and seek them), and you’re not ugly, I don’t care what you have to say, simple as that.

Many years ago, I hang out on an IRC channel, another member of which was a gay guy in his early thirties. He was pretty cool, one of my friends from that channel became close friends with him. He had a Facebook page, instagram, posted frequently, people I did not know would comment to his photos referring to some shared experiences etc (this was during the time when using Facebook was still cool).

Then, after a slip in opsec, it turned out that the whole guy was completely made up by another channel member, a 19-year old girl who spent 3 years creating and maintaining his persona close to every single day, alongside with a dozens of other accounts dedicated to make him more real, and of course her own actual persona.

What was her motive?

She disappeared as soon as she was discovered, and then reappeared a couple of years later, said she is sorry about the whole thing, but refused to discuss it any more. Others didn’t pry, because after a few years has passed, people didn’t care so much.

the old blog had good comments, substack comments seem to be a notch down

The current blog still has some good comments. I think a couple of Scott's "Highlights From the Comments ..." collection posts have recently highlighted higher quality than the latest AAQC threads on the Motte. As an additional plus, the range of topics covered is more versatile than the Motte, which is mostly just CW politics.

However, there are more low-effort posters that makes signal-to-noise ratio worse, especially in Open Threads, and Substack comment UI is actively hostile.

2 factors I think explain this: lower readership, and failure to improve users lives. Smart people are going to learn more quickly where their efforts are wasted, and they probably moved on, since I haven't heard of anyone or any movements becoming successful out of his teachings.

I enjoyed what I read, and I think they made me a more rounded out person, but they clarify high level trivia like 'why is advertising that way' rather than building a fundamental skillset (eg. A class on marketing) or worldview (eg. Economics or communist texts), which let's people actually get things done IMO.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats