There’s a lot to like about the Rationalist community, but they do have a certain tendency to spawn — shall we say — high demand groups. We sent a card-carrying Rat to investigate what’s going on.
The extensive weaponizing of therapy by who I assume are not mental health professionals and/or not in the context of a structured professional mental health setting is always a huge red flag. And people who are young, isolated, and/or mentally ill or neurodivergent are especially vulnerable to this. Reminds me of the Sarah Lawrence cult dad, who took advantage of young, impressionable, vulnerable teenagers by first positioning himself as a sort of therapist/leader/coach when in reality he was fishing for buttons to press to manipulate them. Predatory people can sniff out vulnerability and emotional needs from a mile away.
It would be interesting to compare and contrast EA with the Rationalists. Does EA have a tendency to develop sub-cults? If so, what are they like? If not, how is EA different, so that it doesn't produce them?
Perhaps having the acronyms “BDSM” and “CBT” a mere paragraph apart is not optimal? I suggest expanding the latter (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy I guess?)
I have experienced some of these multi-hour conversations where participants believe themselves to be wielding emotional intelligence, when all they’re really doing is throwing logic at the external-most emotional layer, and then cognitively wanking from there. No emotional depth is explored, because then they have to leave the mode of feeling secure/superior by actually feeling/experiencing vulnerable emotional states. I have never seen more spectacular logic/cunning-filled avoidances of emotion than in these conversations. And they last so long precisely because none of the emotions are getting satisfied and therefore resolved. Instead they get trapped and the pressure builds, and the conversationalists think if they just keep processing in this same way just a little longer, they’ll find resolution. And they never do.
Interesting. For me (a 70 year old Australia) "rationalist" evokes images of earnest groups of atheists, founded in the 19th century, which were still lingering on late into the 20th. The default culture here is "not religious", so there is no entry point for the kinds of groups you describe. We have some Effective Atheists, but as far as I can see they are straightforward consequentialists - give money where it is most effective. OTOH we have plenty of nutty religious groups.
Following up a bit, WIkipedia tells me that there was to be an atheist convention in Australia in 2018, but it was cancelled due to lack of interest (link below is a response from an Anglican prelate). The main Rationalist association rebranded itself as atheist in 1970, but appears to be moribund.
Yes I know what you speak of. This is wholly different. As a young religious professional I had many interesting encounters with testy atheists from the 70’s to 90’s. Then I evolved out of religion and by the time I joined EA circles in 2021 I was a little careful to not mention my religious past…and then I discovered it wasn’t necessary at all, EA’s are always very interested in religion. These new rationalists and EA’s don’t stand in opposition to religion. They may not be prone to join it, but they seem to find it a curious foreign culture, like the impulse we have for travel. And actually are maybe interested in mining some of its ancient wisdom towards doing good in the world. Nobody has been more effective at altruism than religion (to make up for some of the bad imbalance).
Really interesting you called out the career thesis problem. You'd think rationalism would first be about proper analysis not proper action. Proper analysis might as well lead to the conclusion "oh my actions don't matter that much." Or maybe some do but not something at the career level. Maybe go vegan, vote, be kind, donate is pretty much where it's at. But this bias, when not properly called out, can lead to the small-grant-hopping problem.
The whole thing is fascinating, since you'd think the "rationalist" framing would be opposed to cults, with the "rationalist" ethos of questioning stuff and subjecting everything to dispassionate reasoning. Ironic that “I have updated Bayesianly” functions the way “God told me” does in other milieus. The very tools meant to guard against bias get weaponized to defend predetermined conclusions. It seems that some people immune to "classic" religious cult techniques of god-told-me-so, mystical-revelations-from-aliens, etc. are susceptible to it once the cultic thesis gets reframed as the "rational" thing to do, as simply following the logic - even when that logic rests on highly questionable assumptions that the group has collectively decided not to examine too closely.
The extensive weaponizing of therapy by who I assume are not mental health professionals and/or not in the context of a structured professional mental health setting is always a huge red flag. And people who are young, isolated, and/or mentally ill or neurodivergent are especially vulnerable to this. Reminds me of the Sarah Lawrence cult dad, who took advantage of young, impressionable, vulnerable teenagers by first positioning himself as a sort of therapist/leader/coach when in reality he was fishing for buttons to press to manipulate them. Predatory people can sniff out vulnerability and emotional needs from a mile away.
It's the autism, and autistic people commit to the bit.
Rationalists are definitely more autism coded than other groups.
The last two sections “Beware isolation” and “Conclusion” seem to have the same text (at least for me)
thank you, fixed!
another typo: in charge of build
Running a cult has literally always been Yudkowsky's game. This is one of the silliest posts I've ever seen
It would be interesting to compare and contrast EA with the Rationalists. Does EA have a tendency to develop sub-cults? If so, what are they like? If not, how is EA different, so that it doesn't produce them?
EA has less of a tendency to generate interesting cults because it generally is very concerned with being connected to measurable results in reality.
Sometimes groupthink and grandiosity problems occur but with no greater frequency than in other third sector work.
I would imagine it has all the same “dead baby” problems + all the SBF nonsense.
Perhaps having the acronyms “BDSM” and “CBT” a mere paragraph apart is not optimal? I suggest expanding the latter (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy I guess?)
I have experienced some of these multi-hour conversations where participants believe themselves to be wielding emotional intelligence, when all they’re really doing is throwing logic at the external-most emotional layer, and then cognitively wanking from there. No emotional depth is explored, because then they have to leave the mode of feeling secure/superior by actually feeling/experiencing vulnerable emotional states. I have never seen more spectacular logic/cunning-filled avoidances of emotion than in these conversations. And they last so long precisely because none of the emotions are getting satisfied and therefore resolved. Instead they get trapped and the pressure builds, and the conversationalists think if they just keep processing in this same way just a little longer, they’ll find resolution. And they never do.
Thanks for the measured piece. I had no idea this had all become so disturbing.
Does anyone have like, a source I can turn to to learn more about Leverage Research’s demonology?
Interesting. For me (a 70 year old Australia) "rationalist" evokes images of earnest groups of atheists, founded in the 19th century, which were still lingering on late into the 20th. The default culture here is "not religious", so there is no entry point for the kinds of groups you describe. We have some Effective Atheists, but as far as I can see they are straightforward consequentialists - give money where it is most effective. OTOH we have plenty of nutty religious groups.
Following up a bit, WIkipedia tells me that there was to be an atheist convention in Australia in 2018, but it was cancelled due to lack of interest (link below is a response from an Anglican prelate). The main Rationalist association rebranded itself as atheist in 1970, but appears to be moribund.
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/cancellation-of-atheist-shindig-is-a-disappointment-to-me--seriously-20171108-gzh3vh.html
Yes I know what you speak of. This is wholly different. As a young religious professional I had many interesting encounters with testy atheists from the 70’s to 90’s. Then I evolved out of religion and by the time I joined EA circles in 2021 I was a little careful to not mention my religious past…and then I discovered it wasn’t necessary at all, EA’s are always very interested in religion. These new rationalists and EA’s don’t stand in opposition to religion. They may not be prone to join it, but they seem to find it a curious foreign culture, like the impulse we have for travel. And actually are maybe interested in mining some of its ancient wisdom towards doing good in the world. Nobody has been more effective at altruism than religion (to make up for some of the bad imbalance).
Really interesting you called out the career thesis problem. You'd think rationalism would first be about proper analysis not proper action. Proper analysis might as well lead to the conclusion "oh my actions don't matter that much." Or maybe some do but not something at the career level. Maybe go vegan, vote, be kind, donate is pretty much where it's at. But this bias, when not properly called out, can lead to the small-grant-hopping problem.
“ The trainer who broke you down in a marathon six-hour debugging session was unable to sleep because of the panic attacks caused by her own”
seems like this sentence is missing an end?
The whole thing is fascinating, since you'd think the "rationalist" framing would be opposed to cults, with the "rationalist" ethos of questioning stuff and subjecting everything to dispassionate reasoning. Ironic that “I have updated Bayesianly” functions the way “God told me” does in other milieus. The very tools meant to guard against bias get weaponized to defend predetermined conclusions. It seems that some people immune to "classic" religious cult techniques of god-told-me-so, mystical-revelations-from-aliens, etc. are susceptible to it once the cultic thesis gets reframed as the "rational" thing to do, as simply following the logic - even when that logic rests on highly questionable assumptions that the group has collectively decided not to examine too closely.
Wait, "Black Lotus" is based on Mage: the Ascension and not Magic: the Gathering?
I thought it referred to Computer Based Training, which I don't think changes the meaning of the overall sentence