fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2952 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2952 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Tales of Zestiria]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Strange Magic]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Sleepy Hollow]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Star Trek: TNG]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Person of Interest]

__________________________________________________

07.

(Dangan Ronpa)

__________________________________________________

08.

(Splash, Daryl Hannah)

__________________________________________________

09.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

10.

[VH1's Hindsight]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #422.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This surprised someone the other day who assumed I was a member of a rationalist community. In all honesty, I have a lot in common with rationalists, and I'd like to get along with them, but the organized groups often rub me the wrong way. I felt like it might be worthwhile to explain where I'm coming from.

Important disclaimer: I have no grudge against any rationalists in this community, and I have had pleasant conversations with an individual rationalist in the past.

1): I don't hold much truck with religion, but I don't take a giant steaming dump on it, either. Most of the people I know are religious, and I think religion does a lot of good in the world. Rationalist communities tend to really get their hate on for anyone who isn't a confirmed atheist, and I just don't feel like I can go along with that.

2): In theory, rationalists advocate for logical methods, and I can respect that. But in practice, it seems to turn into a belief that you are a logical person. It becomes circular--you believe in X because it's logical, and it's logical because you believe in it. If someone disagrees with you, they must be illogical, and you can safely ignore anything they say. I've wasted a lot of time trying to argue with people who were convinced my arguments must be unsound for not being the same as theirs.

3): Rationalism lends itself very well to arguing through shock value. For instance, in an argument where everyone else is discussing peaceful methods, you propose that ruthless violence would solve the problem permanently. Appalled, they respond emotionally, and your argument is buttressed because they didn't use logic. And if someone does try to come up with a logical solution that's less shocking, well, they must be too emotional to admir that yours is the only one that will work.

Does that make more sense? I'm still getting some of my thoughts in order--I've never put it all together like this before.

(the anon in question here)

FWIW, I wasn't really trying to assume, I was more asking out of curiosity. And it's not a community that I have any special affinity for and I didn't want it to come off as an accusation, on either side - I was just curious about where you're coming from because, again, you seem like a very smart, reasonable person. And just some of your language, and also your commitment to utilitarianism, seemed to have some crossover with that community.

I think your claims are more or less fair from my experience with the community from the outside. Especially the second. Which is really frustrating when it aligns itself with certain political views.

No, I hear ya. I've had some downright UNPLEASANT conversations with people who are utterly assured I don't exist, because LOGIC, and believed that treating me as a human being was DISRESPECTFUL.

And of course, there was no arguing with them, because I was a complex delusion who shouldn't be catered to. And of course, the angrier I got, the more obviously wrong I was.

Even more annoying, they'd never actually state their criteria of personhood, thereby ensuring they could just move the goalposts with whatever evidence I gave. It's not a hypothesis if you can't say what makes it true or false, genius!

--Rogan

I hear ya. It's frustrating that so many people who profess to believe in logic and science, seem to be not only incapable of understanding the difference between dogma and science. But think that their own personal theories count as science. It demeans everything they profess to believe in.

I'm sorry you've had to deal with these douchebags on such a personal level. >>:(

Thankfully, it's only happened a few times, and I've just reached the point that when I see the conversation going that way, I just leave. I'd rather spend my energy on something useful.

But yeah, science and rationality isn't just, "my thinky thoughts which are totally unclouded by emotion or confirmation bias," it's testable, provable, changeable theories based on the evidence given by the world around you. Hell, emotions and reasons are not mutually exclusive; there are plenty of things that I support and believe in both intellectually AND emotionally.

-_Rogan

[ SECRET POST #2952 ]

Why I don't generally get along with rationalists

Re: Why I don't generally get along with rationalists

Re: Why I don't generally get along with rationalists

Re: Why I don't generally get along with rationalists

Re: Why I don't generally get along with rationalists