Ugh, apparently. I just used that word earlier today. Time to drop it for good.
Scientific Skepticism (of the Skeptics Guide To The Universe variety) has a branding problem. The word “skeptic” has traditionally been used for this community and movement, but that word has completely different meaning to most people, so I tend to avoid it. I liked “rationalist” until now. Clearly that word is ruined.
Absolutely not. The rationalist community is way more complicated than that. Also, way more altruistic than randians. There are definitely libertarians in the mix, as well as some reactionary fringes, but Scott Siskind himself is libdem, a big part of the community are part of the effective altruist movement, there’s a large (and very accepted) trans/non-binary contingent, climate activists and even sjw and leftist wings.
They’re human, and trying to be better humans. A lot of them have dogmatic blindspots, particularly around free speech (because I don’t think it has been properly teased out from free thought), and some apocalyptic views of AI safety, but on the whole, good people. Some are definitely happy mutant material.
Full disclosure: my social circle in the Bay Area includes Scott Siskind. I’ve met him, but he’s not even really an acquaintance. I don’t consider myself a rationalist, but have been in and around the community for the last decade.
(Srinivasan is no longer at Andreessen-Horowitz)
A real quick check shows that to be “true”, but I’ll put even money that he pops up soon at some other VC/equity outfit.
Oddly, no one is looking at those.
It’s like that for a lot of things. Try to say you’re “libertarian” and it conjures up images of Ayn Rand zealots or Nazis who want weed to be legal. So I go with “anti-authoritarian”. “Liberal” used to mean something all together different than what it means now too.
I am convinced any group identity or innocuous adjective can eventually be ruined by people misusing it as a label. Or trying to brand themselves as something they aren’t. You know, like National Socialist, or German Democratic Republic. 
In particular, I learned never to make an enemy of Balaji Srinivasan.
Damn it, now I have to make an enemy out of Balaji Srinivasan, and I even took Scott’s side on the whole doxing fiasco. What’s the fastest way to get a douchebag VC to arch you if you aren’t a journalist and don’t have fuck you money?
Organize a union at one of of his investments.
So actual Nazis then. 
The greatest trick Silicon Valley ever pulled was convincing everyone that they’re all a bunch of leftists.
Apologies. The Satanic Temple has been nothing but awesome in its defense of the Establishment Clause (the same one that the Xtianists in the 6 Jan mob are always trying to undermine. But perhaps we need a “rational debate” on the benefits of theocracy in America).
Per the Julius Goat quote, I suppose so.
It’s worth keeping an eye on who’s slipping into the tent.
Racist, crypto-fascist Birchers don’t like to admit who they are, so they’re always grabbing new labels and trying to walk off with them, like the Koch libertarians.
When TechBroLords call themselves Rationalists, it’s worth a squint.
The unifying goal of the community is self-improvement through the study of psychology, game theory and related topics with an eye towards avoiding cognitive traps and biases to be able to think clearer and make better decisions both big and small.
It shouldn’t be too hard to see that randians are going to see a lot of appeal there, in the name of creating more super engineers to… well, you’ve probably read the cliff notes of Atlas Shrugged. And of course, the main fascist elements slipping in are the ex-libertarian crypto-nazis (whether the likes of Balaji or Moldbug).
There’s a lot to like as a leftist. One of my favorite short takes on what it means to be a leftist is this: Politics
The TL;DR is that one way to view the goal of leftism is clear evaluation of real problems and trying to come up with better solutions. In that framework, better thinking and reasoning skills allow better views of the world.
Where the whole thing seems to fall apart is even with the recognition of motivated reasoning and dogma, the greater social context of the movement is Bay Area tech, and the funding for the orgs at the center of the community comes from VCs. So, it’s frustrating to see Von Mises defended and freeze peach absolutism defended in ways that make sure no one turns on the corporations. There’s also the whole millennial cult AI singularity apocalypse rabbit hole, which, at this point, feels like a way to keep the community away from the anti-corporate third rail.
Indeed, the GOP (even the party mainstream at this point) is one of the farthest to the right parties in the world. (I mean, are fringe parties like UKIP, National Front and ADF even as far to the right as the GOP? They sure do hate immigrants, but are they opposed to the very idea of socialized medicine, for example?)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party would be considered right of center in Europe, while the so-called “far left” (Democratic Socialists) get labeled as extremists within their own party in America, in spite of being just a bit left of center in international terms. Now that’s what I call…
Thanks for providing more background here. Let me preface the following by saying I understand where you’re coming from and agree with your comment.
The unifying goal you mention sounds laudable on its face, but the mention of game theory throws up a red flag for me. While game theory is a very useful tool – one I often use in my own decision-making processes – there is also a history (succinctly explicated by documentarian Adam Curtis) of its being abused by the kind of malicious actors you mention. Not only do these types use game theory mainly to gain unfair or unethical advantage over rivals and opponents, but they also cite it as “proof” that all humans are at their base selfish individuals constantly looking to outwit their opponents. This view of humanity is, of course, the base assumption of neoliberalism and right Libertarianism, which eases the pathway for some to the crypto- or outright fascism you describe.
That path is already laid out for a certain type of highly intelligent person who already believes that inequality is the natural and proper result of meritocracy (viewed in the later, non-pejorative sense) because the the rising tide of winners – intellectually superior people – supposedly lifts all boats (see the now- de-bunked concept of “trickle-down” economics). Which is why something else here raises a red flag:
In the context described above, an already privileged person calling himself a “Rationalist” as part of an exclusive club implies that he thinks other people – perhaps the majority of them – are not consciously* rational. There’s a level of contempt inherent there, one that’s often accompanied by sexist and bigoted assumptions about who has the capability for rational discussions and who doesn’t.
Really, if one is trying to improve one’s thinking processes by using these tools, go for it. If one wants to discuss them with others who share that goal, more power to you. But there was clearly something else going on at SSC, a perhaps unconscious attempt to meld together an ideologically disparate group of mostly privileged individuals under a banner that’s traditionally ended up serving the interests of toxic political-economic philosophies like fascism, white/male supremacy, and Objectivism. And thus we end up with a “Rationalist” Silicon Valley VC in that community making an alliance with right-wing extremists. If that’s where Rationalism leads – thanks to its tolerating fascists in its community in the name of “free speech” – no thanks.
[* I add this qualifier because, the neoliberal default assumes that all humans are – knowingly or not – rational actors in the marketplace.]
I am not at all familiar with Burton’s work (you are talking about a book that, as far as I can tell, was published less than a year ago), so I am going to assume that you are referring mainly to New Age spiritualism and (from what I can gather from a quick search) renewed interest in the occult…? Neither of which are new phenomena and neither of which are necessarily mutually exclusive with traditional religious or power structures.
If that is the case, I think that we are talking about very different things here. Are we talking about political hyperpolarization in general or are we talking about quasi-cults springing up all over the place? If it is the latter, I do not see any links between quasi-cults and the assumed political leanings of cult members unless the cult is of a political nature.
For example, while it is true that there are anti-vaxxers on the left, the anti-vaccine movement has only really been embraced and politicized by the right. As such, it has become a part of the right wing movement even if some of the left had embraced it individually.
As for…
I am sorry, but what are you even talking about? Who is worried about helping “the wrong people?” Who has developed ideas about what kinds of violence “count?” I am wholly unaware of the phenomena of which you speak. Who is this “left” that you are referring to, specifically? Who and where are these “big picture extremists?” Why do you want Trotskyists in the mix? Are you arguing that the modern left effectively cuts out old-school communists? Or are you arguing the opposite? Are you arguing that the people who call themselves leftists are not real leftists from a workers’ rights perspective? But if so, which self-proclaimed leftists are you talking about?
Your lack of specificity and sweeping generalizations are problematic. I am not trying to censor you by saying this. I am saying that you need to narrow down and clarify what you are saying to even give us something meaningful to respond to here.
If you are talking specifically about Hollywood celebrities putting on a leftist façade while not actually doing anything, or about journalists looking to score points by catching the other side of the aisle in a faux pas, please just say so from the beginning. That is not “the left.”
It’s NewSpeak. Up is down, black is white, war is peace. Meanings have entirely reversed, and then the fact that some of us once self-identified as “skeptics” gets weaponized against us. No different than the “Democrats started the KKK” argument. Infuriating.
I always shake my head at this thought process. There are so many theories in economics and other fields that start from the “rational actor” stance, despite overwhelming evidence reproduced repeatedly that humans are many things, but rational very rarely fits the bill. We need to come to grips with the fact that we are by nature chaotic, short-sighted, prone to pareiodolia, not very far removed from our hairier ancestors, creatures. Assuming anything else fails. If we accept that and start trying to figure out how to deal with it, instead of just denying it, we might just stand a chance.
At the risk of making your head shake off, a lot of doctrinaire Marxists also believe the same thing. Behavioural economics is a relatively new field, so a lot of amateurs on the right and left are still locked into the old “rational actor” model. I strongly suspect that the Rationalists who congregated on SSC held this view regardless of where on the political compass any of them landed as individuals.
Which (because some “Rationalists” need it made clear) does not mean that we or our hairier ancestors are inherently violent and selfish animals, always “rationally” looking to survive as the fittest by screwing over our fellows. More and more, the evidence shows that we’ve survived and evolved because we co-operate and find ways for diverse groups to work together.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Gawker journalism
I want to blame Objectivism, and embracing neo-liberal economics. A central tenet of both is social hierarchies are a inevitable phenomenon. Neo-liberal economics has never solidified a theory of anti-trust action, thus enabling poor corporate behavior.
What I’m seeing is that these Reactionary Digirat have occupied a privileged position for long enough to become The Establishment they so feared. They are now playing The Establishment game of paranoia, and oppression.
Fascists are attracted to paranoid, authoritarian leaders with a victimhood complex. Which describes wealthy privileged Objectivist’s after their idea’s are rejected a few times as nonsensical and unworkable.
Another thing that is interesting to me, Is just as the " The Californian Ideology " is taking off. Research comes in showing that the Alpha Wolf hypothesis is invalid. It was always just humans seeing a phenomenon that they want to see. Snopes goes into this a little deeper. The Alpha Wolf hypothesis is really just pseudo scientific justification for past social hierarchies. It feels like this should have been a bigger deal but too many people don’t want to think about what this means. That our own social hierarchies are at best fictional, or a tool of convenience. At there worst tools of oppression.
I feel guilty for younger selves embrace of the Californian Ideology, seeing it transform into a reactionary movement is disheartening. I want Technological utopia, but I now see that it was naive to think that progress is inevitable.
