Some religions put “right belief” as a core principle in their qualifications for belonging, if not for eternal salvation. I have coined this religious phenomena as “Beliefism”. (More) [In contrast to Christianity,] In Rome, individual expression of belief was unimportant, strict adherence to a rigid set of rituals was far more significant, thereby avoiding the hazards of religious zeal. (
I don't think the invention of new vocab is a key sign of righttalkism
"systems which claim that one of if not the most important way to make the world better is to push most everyone to more oft and loudly express good and deny bad beliefs"
How is this supposed to describe the rationalist community? What are concrete examples of rationalists pushing people to express good or deny bad beliefs? The rationalist project is about how one goes about forming beliefs, not the beliefs you end up with
No, you're exactly right. The rationalist community is one of the best examples I've come across of "rightTalkism." Which is precisely why the whole conversation is deeply, perhaps hopelessly confused: the censorious, elitist, authoritarian, etc. tendencies of "rationalists" are completely invisible to them, and my sense at this point is that many are simply incapable of acknowledging their hypocrisy.
As an inexperienced rationalist blogger, I'll defend our rationalist language norms (which RH correctly notes is a nonsequitor).
Rationalists believe that people are systematically biased in how they create and evaluate beliefs about the world. To a less-wrong-style rationalist the problem is that the way people arrive at beliefs is flawed, and those flaws are more important than the wrong beliefs themselves. Therefore we have developed a bunch of language which helps people identify their biases and think with less of them.
For example, talking about piors and (bayesian) evidence helps the speaker avoid selective demands for evidence. It helps prevent people from saying "the probability of your belief is zero until I see a randomized control trial of p value 20".
Most political ideologies are sets of beliefs, they are not techniques for arriving at beliefs (or they are inefficient techniques). As rationalists we try hard not to force belief sets on people, we try to teach belief-making techniques. Both teaching beliefs and belief-making involves promoting some language and discouraging other language, but we hope the effects will be different.
Aren't you a rationalist scion? And isn't that a group that's so deep in "right talk" that it's basically a whole separate language? I mean maybe you eschew the mantle, but you've still got it.Pushing people to avoid ideology is all to the good but it seems like you're deeply tied to one unless I'm crazy
Robin, your point seems evolutionary: what is the most likely explanation for righttalkism being part of a belief system? It's that righttalkism promotes the spread of the belief system. But besides having their own reproductive systems, a lot of beliefs are symbiotes needed by humans. So, other uses of righttalkism:
One is just as a badge. It helps others of the group know who they can depend on to help with policy and how much support they can expect.
...it could be that you are unusual in caring more than most do about good policy outcomes. In that case, you should care less than do most others about righttalk.
One reading of this is that one should be more willing to push things through under the radar. But that has the danger of triggering backlash or long-term resentment (which is bad if you are a repeat player in whatever game this is). In other words, righttalking also amounts to being upfront about your objectives. Which could help policy-like-minded people judge whether they've got long-term support. Like, um, commitment in game theory.
Also prolific vs. economical righttalkism's, what, relative advantages are dependent on the environment. If you're in a situation where everyone is vulnerable to and suspicious of everyone's else's actions, that's different from one where everyone has their separate, safe, free sphere of action. Sandbox so to speak, hm.
“In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Fancies Versus Fads
Right-talkism may be based on right-beliefism, the view that if correct beliefs were very widespread, outcomes would be excellent. The key assumption is that enforcing right talk will promote right belief. Once that is achieved broadly, excellent results will ensue automatically—no need to implement some public policy.
There was an amusing example during Bernie Sanders' run in 2016.
Ta-Nehisi Coates asked him why he didn't support reparations for descendants of American slaves. Bernie said "Because there isn't the slightest chance that that would pass."
Coates said, "True, but there isn't the slightest chance that anything else in your platform would pass," and ended up supporting him anyway.
(The quote from Coates is from memory, so might not be exact.)
I don't think the invention of new vocab is a key sign of righttalkism
"systems which claim that one of if not the most important way to make the world better is to push most everyone to more oft and loudly express good and deny bad beliefs"
How is this supposed to describe the rationalist community? What are concrete examples of rationalists pushing people to express good or deny bad beliefs? The rationalist project is about how one goes about forming beliefs, not the beliefs you end up with
No, you're exactly right. The rationalist community is one of the best examples I've come across of "rightTalkism." Which is precisely why the whole conversation is deeply, perhaps hopelessly confused: the censorious, elitist, authoritarian, etc. tendencies of "rationalists" are completely invisible to them, and my sense at this point is that many are simply incapable of acknowledging their hypocrisy.
As an inexperienced rationalist blogger, I'll defend our rationalist language norms (which RH correctly notes is a nonsequitor).
Rationalists believe that people are systematically biased in how they create and evaluate beliefs about the world. To a less-wrong-style rationalist the problem is that the way people arrive at beliefs is flawed, and those flaws are more important than the wrong beliefs themselves. Therefore we have developed a bunch of language which helps people identify their biases and think with less of them.
For example, talking about piors and (bayesian) evidence helps the speaker avoid selective demands for evidence. It helps prevent people from saying "the probability of your belief is zero until I see a randomized control trial of p value 20".
Most political ideologies are sets of beliefs, they are not techniques for arriving at beliefs (or they are inefficient techniques). As rationalists we try hard not to force belief sets on people, we try to teach belief-making techniques. Both teaching beliefs and belief-making involves promoting some language and discouraging other language, but we hope the effects will be different.
I really only need to defend the claims that I personally make, not claims made by people who are socially associated with me in various ways.
Aren't you a rationalist scion? And isn't that a group that's so deep in "right talk" that it's basically a whole separate language? I mean maybe you eschew the mantle, but you've still got it.Pushing people to avoid ideology is all to the good but it seems like you're deeply tied to one unless I'm crazy
I didn't say there is no value in righttalk, I said it is far overrated.
Robin, your point seems evolutionary: what is the most likely explanation for righttalkism being part of a belief system? It's that righttalkism promotes the spread of the belief system. But besides having their own reproductive systems, a lot of beliefs are symbiotes needed by humans. So, other uses of righttalkism:
One is just as a badge. It helps others of the group know who they can depend on to help with policy and how much support they can expect.
...it could be that you are unusual in caring more than most do about good policy outcomes. In that case, you should care less than do most others about righttalk.
One reading of this is that one should be more willing to push things through under the radar. But that has the danger of triggering backlash or long-term resentment (which is bad if you are a repeat player in whatever game this is). In other words, righttalking also amounts to being upfront about your objectives. Which could help policy-like-minded people judge whether they've got long-term support. Like, um, commitment in game theory.
Also prolific vs. economical righttalkism's, what, relative advantages are dependent on the environment. If you're in a situation where everyone is vulnerable to and suspicious of everyone's else's actions, that's different from one where everyone has their separate, safe, free sphere of action. Sandbox so to speak, hm.
“In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Fancies Versus Fads
What, God declared that religion must have dogma?
If you mean that a religion has dogmas, well, it's supposed to have dogmas. And the right religion has the right dogmas.
As for police not having four-year degrees, the notion that more time spent in a leftist propaganda mill would be beneficial is quite laughable.
Thats not only or even main assumption needed.
Quotes are all related.
Right-talkism may be based on right-beliefism, the view that if correct beliefs were very widespread, outcomes would be excellent. The key assumption is that enforcing right talk will promote right belief. Once that is achieved broadly, excellent results will ensue automatically—no need to implement some public policy.
There was an amusing example during Bernie Sanders' run in 2016.
Ta-Nehisi Coates asked him why he didn't support reparations for descendants of American slaves. Bernie said "Because there isn't the slightest chance that that would pass."
Coates said, "True, but there isn't the slightest chance that anything else in your platform would pass," and ended up supporting him anyway.
(The quote from Coates is from memory, so might not be exact.)
Yes, there are difficulties in converting positions into policies. But people are way too forgiving of failures there.
I'm confused by all the snippets in the quote enviornment up above. How are they supposed to be related to the content?
But the content is clearly correct. I just wish people would feel more pressure to signal they aren't just signaling membership.