Missing Alliances
Eliezer Yudkowsky writes:
It is a non-so-hidden agenda of this site, Less Wrong, that there are many causes which benefit from the spread of rationality – because it takes a little more rationality than usual to see their case, as a supporter, or even just a supportive bystander. Not just the obvious causes like atheism, but things like marijuana legalization … If the supporters of other causes are enlightened enough to think similarly…
Then all the causes which benefit from spreading rationality, can, perhaps, have something in the way of standardized material to which to point their supporters – a common task, centralized to save effort – and think of themselves as spreading a little rationality on the side. … Atheism has very little to do directly with marijuana legalization, but if both atheists and anti-Prohibitionists are willing to step back a bit and say a bit about the general, abstract principle of confronting a discomforting truth that interferes with a fine righteous tirade, then both atheism and marijuana legalization pick up some of the benefit from both efforts.
So is there a workable natural alliance between more-rational-than-average folks? Consider two related but unpopular alliances:
Extremists – People who hold extreme views seem to have a common cause in persuading others that central/conventional views are less reliable than they may seem; they agree outsiders deserve more chances to prove themselves without being dismissed just for holding extreme views.
Folks Who Think They'd Win Bets – People who think their views will eventually be vindicated seem to have a common cause in promoting the creation of, use of, and deference to betting markets; they expect market odds to discount opponents who deep down know their arguments are weak.
My experience is that such alliance members are seen as low status, making others reluctant to join them. Since on average crazy folks tend to be more attracted to extreme views than sane folks, most kinds of extremists try to distance themselves from other kinds. And since on average lowbrow folks find open betting markets and track records more engaging, most elite-aspiring intellectuals avoid open betting markets and forecast track records. I conclude that the proposed alliance of rational folks will only fly if can find a way for its members to be seen as high, not low, status.
I do not think that rationality somehow inherently boosts certain causes, not even its own. You use rationality to optimize the outcome of your chosen cause, but you cannot use it to pick your cause in the first place. The idea that "all rational people ought to agree" on something always implicitly presupposes a shared goal, such as, humanity, less suffering, world peace, increased general wellbeing, etc. I.e., causes that are widely shared, but not necessarily in themselves "rational" in any way.So, unless you are very clear on the goal you are trying to pursue rationally, no amount of rational thought is going to give you any directive on how to act.
I wonder if the most valuable use of betting markets would be pedagogical. If politican X proposes to use huge tariffs to "protect the nations economy", arguments against the plan cannot easily be fitted into a soundbite and will be ignored by a rationally-ignorant voter.
On the other hand, if you could point to the betting markets and say that the smart money thinks that this plan would hurt the nations economy, even the most rationally-ignorant voter might be persuaded.