This seems like an awfully uncharitable and cherry-picked treatment of a community of well-intentioned and occasionally eccentric disagreeable online nerds. You're effectively just noticing that a community that actively aims to overcome bias is not free from bias itself, but no one within that community would ever deny that.
The original timecube.com died (domain registration expiration) in 2015 (shortly after its creator) and timecube.net is a reboot from 2023 (and I can find nothing tying it to the estate or anything like that).
This kind of furore happens more than you would think amongst nominatively deterministic rationalist groups. Randi broke with people and re-formed, Dawkins has unbelievably heated arguments over frankly nothing.
Maybe some of it is informed by the overlap with academia. Science has the aphorism "physics advances one funeral at a time" and certainly being on the outer has affected careers. Fred Hoyle was too argumentative, many of his ideas like panspermia have turned out to have elements of plausibility in them (like the cometary origins of water)
> I resisted the urge after the arrest of the rationalist-aligned financier, Sam Bankman-Fried. And I bit my tongue real hard in the wake of the early 2025 scandal involving the Zizians, an alleged sex / murder cult that originated from the same community.
I was expecting to hear about some latest 'rationalist' authority. But it's unclear what actually lead to the breaking point. I'd actually wonder if they hit publish too early.
Rationalism is just a secular religion, complete with all the usual arguments and schisms over minor points of dogma. These are not people worth taking seriously.
I struggle to suspend disbelief that this is not just some ill-faith mockery.
The guy really quite explicitly spells out a journey of growing in intellectual humility. The writing is very, very blatantly in the genre of self-growth, which is why you see this structure so often. That he wanted to gravitate towards those whom he found smart (implying he did not consider himself that smart at the start, very directly contradicting what you say), participated, eventually discovered that there's smoke to the fire, then stopped participating, learning lessons along the way and now passing them on to the dear reader that much wiser.
How you walked away from this with the conclusions you did genuinely escapes me, and apparently this is not even your first time either then. Never stopped to reconsider? Is any expression of appreciating reason egotistical to you? Do you maybe instinctively read it as a comparison, as if it was meant to suggest that other people (i.e. you) thus somehow do not appreciate reason? I have a meme for you if so: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/659/979/108...
Or are you at one of these stages yourself, and we can expect a blogpost from you in the future too?
> Is any expression of appreciating reason egotistical to you?
I'm going to respond to just this bit of your comment, if you don't mind, because I think this is the core of both your and the author's misconception, with everything else flowing from that.
The author didn't, and still doesn't 'appreciate reason'.
They joined a cult of superiority and in-fighting that labelled itself as appreciating reason. Now they're out of the cult, but they think the issue is not with themselves, but with the others who did appreciating reason wrong. The fundamental flaw that they still haven't examined is that they still view themselves as a truth-seeker who was misled, not someone who made the wrong choices.
I've been wrong a lot, about many things, and there's always the easy temptation of reacting to that by treating it as just bad luck, believing that I did everything right but circumstances conspired against me. It's an easy option, but it's false, and it means you get stuck in the same pattern again.
Humility comes from recognising the ultimate, rather than proximal issue. Not 'I am still smart but the others were wrong and I got muddled' but 'maybe I am not as smart as I thought I was'. The article focuses on the movement as having the same flaws as everything else--it wasn't the superior home they were seeking--but doesn't consider the two most important elements required for growth here:
- Their own flaws and culpability
- The flaws inherent to the movement that aren't shared by society
The take away is 'the rationalist movement is no better than other groups, but I am' rather than 'both I and the rationalist movement have significant flaws that are not shared by everyone'.
Every community has its biases, and everywhere there's a tendency for complex factors to combine and simplify into attractive patterns.
In the end, even I can't escape bias. And when I realize how ignorant I am, I feel like I have no choice but to live face to face with how pathetic I am.
Even if I'm aware of my bounded rationality and ignorance, there are still moments when I fail to recognize even that ignorance. I feel like I just have to live with the awareness of how contradictory a being I am
This is a pretty low-quality article that didn't give me the impression the author spent any time in the "rationalist community." It's just a list of the few mainstream controversies.
> For one, their analyses almost always amounted to post hoc justifications of the things they liked.
"Almost always" is carrying a lot of weight here. Rationalists are ideologically diverse [1] when it comes to things like monogamy vs polyamory, left vs right, pro-AI vs anti-AI, nature vs nurture, racism vs anti-racism. The distribution is different from the general population, but many people have changed their minds about various aspects of their life after discussions and debates with rationalists.
> What’s less known is that the memo was originally sent to the skeptics@google.com mailing list, which I was a member of. It was a personal belief masquerading as a rationalist inquiry that tried to pull everyone into an unwanted workplace argument.
One of Damore's mistakes was opting for a high-decoupling route on a politically charged topic instead of a low decoupling route. That tends to end badly and he learned this the hard way.
> Another source of bias is that rationalists are necessarily selective in the arguments they want to have. In everyday life, they rely on intuition and anecdotes the same as anyone else; but if they want to debate your life choices, they will do so forcibly and under the guise of seeking scientific truth. The behavior is pervasive enough to have its own name: sealioning.
So they are not rationalist then? I would have assume a rationalist would be...well..rational. And that would mean to include emotions into discussion about human and people. This is my problem with the classical Consequentialism or Utilitarianism, they always discount emotions. I'm sorry, does emotion exists or not? Is it real? Then it should be brought into discussion.
If I am in a math conference to discuss the Riemann Hypothesis with my cunt ex-wife in the room, I would get effected. It does not really matter how rational I am, I have to consider that my brain will not be fair towards her ideas.
If my brain is wired to be racist and that I truly have whispers of racism in my head, that should be part of the discussion whether or not I am qualified for this position. You claim to NOT have any such inclination, AT ALL? Okay, how likely is that given the human nature, what percentage should I give that you are lying? That should included in the discussion.
All of this is too much to think about? That is also part of the calculation, perhaps we should utilize some shortcut.
I don't understand why people exclude things from the universe of things to consider.
"Part of the reason why I hesitated for so long is that the rationalist movement has brilliant marketing: if you speak against the ideology, it sounds like you’re siding with irrationality."
So many "things" where its "we're the good guys club and if you're not in our club you're the bad guy".
Damore wasn't a rationalist but his memo was at least somewhat reasonable, and didn't merit him being cancelled.
> From this, you could argue it’s OK to work for an unethical company if it maximizes your earning potential — and thus, saves more lives through the donations you make. And finally, the harms caused today could be offset by the benefits to generations yet unborn
Do people do this in practice? 80K for example (EA not rat, but EA is the policy arm of rationalism after all) expressly warn against this. Feels like a strawman.
Yes, those that work in intelligence, sort of. The depth and character of application of this rule depends on a particular country. For example nearly all of them would justify a few murders to keep trade routes open.
Admittedly I'm quite removed from the Bay Area rationalists, but I get the perception that unlike with many other ideological communities, you could always lay out your countervailing opinion with evidence. You could disagree on many things and still be in conversation with the community. Stuff including early stuff like the Sequences are subject to criticism and reevaluation. If my perception is correct, then imo a community that is (in parts) in critical conversation with itself seems more grounded to me than the usual strongly ideological and religious communities.
The fascinating thing to me about rationalism is that it has its routes in scepticism, and particularly atheistic scepticism, and yet it seems to have evolved into, essentially, the 21st century's first notable religion.
(Though in a way that feels a little derivative; I suspect that many of the principals just took _Hyperion_ _way_ too seriously, tbh...)
25 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 38.9 ms ] threadWas? Timecube.net will outlive any and all faddy Silicon Valley cults.
Maybe some of it is informed by the overlap with academia. Science has the aphorism "physics advances one funeral at a time" and certainly being on the outer has affected careers. Fred Hoyle was too argumentative, many of his ideas like panspermia have turned out to have elements of plausibility in them (like the cometary origins of water)
> I resisted the urge after the arrest of the rationalist-aligned financier, Sam Bankman-Fried. And I bit my tongue real hard in the wake of the early 2025 scandal involving the Zizians, an alleged sex / murder cult that originated from the same community.
I was expecting to hear about some latest 'rationalist' authority. But it's unclear what actually lead to the breaking point. I'd actually wonder if they hit publish too early.
>> I bit my tongue, thought to myself “wow, what a stupid game to play”, and deleted the draft.
That's very much a sign of a realisation that the problem was their "initial flawed belief", as I read it.
The guy really quite explicitly spells out a journey of growing in intellectual humility. The writing is very, very blatantly in the genre of self-growth, which is why you see this structure so often. That he wanted to gravitate towards those whom he found smart (implying he did not consider himself that smart at the start, very directly contradicting what you say), participated, eventually discovered that there's smoke to the fire, then stopped participating, learning lessons along the way and now passing them on to the dear reader that much wiser.
How you walked away from this with the conclusions you did genuinely escapes me, and apparently this is not even your first time either then. Never stopped to reconsider? Is any expression of appreciating reason egotistical to you? Do you maybe instinctively read it as a comparison, as if it was meant to suggest that other people (i.e. you) thus somehow do not appreciate reason? I have a meme for you if so: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/659/979/108...
Or are you at one of these stages yourself, and we can expect a blogpost from you in the future too?
I'm going to respond to just this bit of your comment, if you don't mind, because I think this is the core of both your and the author's misconception, with everything else flowing from that.
The author didn't, and still doesn't 'appreciate reason'.
They joined a cult of superiority and in-fighting that labelled itself as appreciating reason. Now they're out of the cult, but they think the issue is not with themselves, but with the others who did appreciating reason wrong. The fundamental flaw that they still haven't examined is that they still view themselves as a truth-seeker who was misled, not someone who made the wrong choices.
I've been wrong a lot, about many things, and there's always the easy temptation of reacting to that by treating it as just bad luck, believing that I did everything right but circumstances conspired against me. It's an easy option, but it's false, and it means you get stuck in the same pattern again.
Humility comes from recognising the ultimate, rather than proximal issue. Not 'I am still smart but the others were wrong and I got muddled' but 'maybe I am not as smart as I thought I was'. The article focuses on the movement as having the same flaws as everything else--it wasn't the superior home they were seeking--but doesn't consider the two most important elements required for growth here:
- Their own flaws and culpability
- The flaws inherent to the movement that aren't shared by society
The take away is 'the rationalist movement is no better than other groups, but I am' rather than 'both I and the rationalist movement have significant flaws that are not shared by everyone'.
The rational person does not engage with the argument. Because there is nothing to be gained from the argument.
The winning move is not to play.
In the end, even I can't escape bias. And when I realize how ignorant I am, I feel like I have no choice but to live face to face with how pathetic I am.
Even if I'm aware of my bounded rationality and ignorance, there are still moments when I fail to recognize even that ignorance. I feel like I just have to live with the awareness of how contradictory a being I am
"Almost always" is carrying a lot of weight here. Rationalists are ideologically diverse [1] when it comes to things like monogamy vs polyamory, left vs right, pro-AI vs anti-AI, nature vs nurture, racism vs anti-racism. The distribution is different from the general population, but many people have changed their minds about various aspects of their life after discussions and debates with rationalists.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf5FqX6XBJlfOShMd3U...
> What’s less known is that the memo was originally sent to the skeptics@google.com mailing list, which I was a member of. It was a personal belief masquerading as a rationalist inquiry that tried to pull everyone into an unwanted workplace argument.
One of Damore's mistakes was opting for a high-decoupling route on a politically charged topic instead of a low decoupling route. That tends to end badly and he learned this the hard way.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7cAsBPGh98pGyrhz9/low-decoup...
So they are not rationalist then? I would have assume a rationalist would be...well..rational. And that would mean to include emotions into discussion about human and people. This is my problem with the classical Consequentialism or Utilitarianism, they always discount emotions. I'm sorry, does emotion exists or not? Is it real? Then it should be brought into discussion.
If I am in a math conference to discuss the Riemann Hypothesis with my cunt ex-wife in the room, I would get effected. It does not really matter how rational I am, I have to consider that my brain will not be fair towards her ideas.
If my brain is wired to be racist and that I truly have whispers of racism in my head, that should be part of the discussion whether or not I am qualified for this position. You claim to NOT have any such inclination, AT ALL? Okay, how likely is that given the human nature, what percentage should I give that you are lying? That should included in the discussion.
All of this is too much to think about? That is also part of the calculation, perhaps we should utilize some shortcut.
I don't understand why people exclude things from the universe of things to consider.
"Part of the reason why I hesitated for so long is that the rationalist movement has brilliant marketing: if you speak against the ideology, it sounds like you’re siding with irrationality."
So many "things" where its "we're the good guys club and if you're not in our club you're the bad guy".
> From this, you could argue it’s OK to work for an unethical company if it maximizes your earning potential — and thus, saves more lives through the donations you make. And finally, the harms caused today could be offset by the benefits to generations yet unborn
Do people do this in practice? 80K for example (EA not rat, but EA is the policy arm of rationalism after all) expressly warn against this. Feels like a strawman.
(Though in a way that feels a little derivative; I suspect that many of the principals just took _Hyperion_ _way_ too seriously, tbh...)