That’s kind of like how I want to learn to want unbounded criticism. Maybe I could take more criticism than I thought, probably not unbounded though. I want to be honest about it least. And not irreversibly mess up.
What could improve wanting things in general? Maybe:
believing in benevolent universe premise
believing in the efficacy of reason
believing in the practicality of morality
believing in unbounded progress
believing all problems are soluble
thinking life can be great
believing you could become great
believing that you’re a universal knowledge creator
thinking life is important
thinking there’s purpose in life
believing that you can live purposefully
believing you have free will and a responsibility to find purpose
realizing you’re the one who has to take initiative in your life
I think I could work on wanting things as well. I think these are important issues to the matter.
Maybe you have to primarily want to use philosophy in your own life before being motivated to spread it.
While I see various advantages to that approach, I don’t think you have to do it that way. I don’t think I did. If I could like chess and other games and puzzles, without really trying to use them in my life much, it makes sense to me that I could also initially take interest in philosophy primarily as an abstract intellectual curiosity or puzzle. One can also take interest in philosophy as something that could change society or help one comment on society, which is also mostly different than using it in one’s own life.
Sabine Hossenfelder shares an email from a prestigious academic that she received 7 years ago. The academic didn’t want the email shared and in it openly admits academia is broken and that a lot of the work (including some of his or her own) is crap, but nevertheless s/he’s asking Hossenfelder to stop causing trouble. Here’s a pic with part of the shared email from 3:33:
I liked the whole video. This part about academia being full of obedient idiots particularly struck me as related to this forum topic. To answer part of @ActiveMind’s question, the better thinkers are being kicked out of academia or leaving it.
The stuff in the video about manipulating tax payers to get funding for science also reminds me of the Atlas Shrugged plot line involving Dr. Stadler.
I have been thinking about that issue with regard to you since:
I have the perspective that I’m a universal knowledge creator and all problems are soluble. So I have profound optimism that I can learn and solve anything, with enough time. I can certainly learn way more about universality, knowledge creation and the nature of problems. But I like what I have read about it so far and I think it’s a positive mindset to have.
You describe it as stressful, and problems can be stressful when there’s a time limit. But for most things there isn’t that hard of a time limit. So maybe take your time and be calm and confident that you can solve it eventually. You might want to set off the problem to later and power-up first, so related to time again. So no need to be stressed.
It’s important to genuinely be convinced that the ideas are true (or not true.) Like not have too much bias about wanting them to be correct.
I just thought my comment could come off as advocating being biased in favor of my bullet points and being infallibilist about them. They’re all issues which should be considered rationally like always.
Sure. I just vaguely said because I knew I had spare money a while back, but I’ll take a look and if there’s a good amount I can actually spare I’ll reach out.
To much work to deal with people like me who don’t see the point in donating? Hmm. I think I don’t donate because I’m used to stuff being there. I guess this is bad, but its not something I’ve ever thought about. I like McDonalds (though it has its issues). I never really thought about it. Its just there. Its a fact of reality to me almost. Now thinking about it this kind of mindset is probably bad, I don’t think I’m trying to be a leech or anything. I’ve just never really thought of it.
Thats fair. It doesn’t really enter my conception that you would shrug. It doesn’t really enter my conception anyone would shrug. Not saying you wouldn’t (or anyone else wouldn’t) have good reasons to shrug. It just hasn’t entered my head. I just haven’t seen many examples personally of people shrugging. The closest I can think of is stuff like hearing doctors and other professionals “shrug”/burnout and quit. But even then it doesn’t feel as real to me. I do think if you were to shrug it would be real to me. You mentioning you could shrug makes it more real to me.
Something that comes to mind from Atlas Shrugged that may be relevant:
Then Lawson said softly, half in reproach, half in scorn, “Well, after all, you businessmen have kept predicting disasters for years, you’ve cried catastrophe at every progressive measure and told us that we’ll perish—but we haven’t.” He started a smile, but drew back from the sudden intensity of Rearden’s eyes.
I guess in my head when I hear creators talking about how they need support I don’t really take it seriously in my head. I mean for the longest time I literally couldn’t support due to no income and the people I watched talking about the stuff seemed, to me, to be doing fine. I am not trying to justify myself here, just explain myself.
Yeah, that’s true you’ve mentioned that before.
Thats true. I read high value fan as large fan of a work. Not a fan that is of high value to the creator.
What makes you say that? I think a lot of people think the world is unfair and irrational. They’re probably wrong about what is fair and what is rational, but their are also things that people are probably right about things being irrational and unfair.
I got used to quoting being correct when I highlighted here. I used to check more that my quoting was correct, but now I’ve been moving faster. Correct quoting is important so I should do more of a check than I did with this case.
, they should also have have unusually low rates of negative behaviors. Negative behaviors include saying things that make the creator or his fans lose social status, […] pushing discussion topics away from the creator’s niche,
How should we think about how criticism is usually thought of as negative behavior. Some criticism can certainly make you lose social status. You’re maybe talking about small, early audiences in general and not so much about your community. I guess you want criticism that the general population would view as lowering your social status.
One thing we could do is bring up the criticism here instead of on YouTube comments. But it could be necessary to bring up criticism on Reddit or Twitter, which are thought of as more discussion based whereas yt comments is more for reactions. So if you’re a super fan you should mostly only do praise on yt comments?
And I guess pushing discussion topics away from niche doesn’t apply as much to CF since you want unbounded discussion. I guess we shouldn’t systematically try to push topics away from rationality and philosophy, but there’s more range here than other places.
Do you know why I don’t work at Apple, Google, or somewhere like that? Because I don’t want to. Because I’m opting out of society. I, like John Galt, am earning a living with work that isn’t terribly important or impactful instead of getting involved with any of society’s major software projects. I’m intentionally not selling my mind to the elites.
Meanwhile, I’ve been accumulating unpublished essays for years. The total length is multiple books worth. That’s significant shrugging and opting out of the world. I didn’t used to do that. Very loosely, I shared my ideas for 15 years, then started sharing less and less during the last 10 years, getting to the point now where I share well under half.
I also share under 10% of the good links I find.
You just don’t see what I’m not sharing and don’t know what you’re missing.
I would behave differently and shrug less if the world and my audience treated me differently.
Do you have an example of a criticism that you don’t know how to phrase in a friendly, neutral or constructive way?
Receiving respectful criticism, and dealing with it calmly with low effort, can come off as high status. Not being threatened by criticism is impressive.
(There are also high status options for dealing with disrespectful criticism. Sam Harris doesn’t lose status every time some idiot flames him in YouTube comments. The main option is just ignoring people but there are other options too.)
I agree. Though I do think a high value fan would have to be a high valuing fan too. Maybe thats why I just focused on them being a high valuing fan and didn’t think of the part of them being high value to the creator.
My comment said “how the world is unfair and irrational” (bold added), so it’s not saying it’s hard to see that world is unfair and irrational at all, but in what way it is. So that agrees with this quote.
I think the people in my circles would think the world somewhat fair. Even though “the world isn’t fair” is quite a popular phrase. I still think they would think that the most prestigious people are the most able and intelligent. There’s more skepticism towards CEOs and non-entertainment billionaires (not that people think entertainment billionaires fully deserve their money, but people think that they are good at music or their sport.)
(I find that “the world isn’t fair” is often used to excuse people’s own injustice when they had the choice to be just. I can remember it being used quite a lot in that way by adults when I was a child.)
You’re right about fairness. And it’s quite obvious: leftists think the world is unfair. Rightists may feel various things are unfair at times, but looking at the big picture and across time: leftists think there’s a bunch of unfairness in the world, rightists less so. But their focus is mostly on the unfairness towards the weak. There is almost no sympathy for the Roarks, Mallorys and Elliots of the world.
Let’s consider the rationality institutions of our society: school and academia.
People don’t think that intelligent independent thinkers are leaving or are getting kicked out of academia while obedient idiots stay. Most people expect that peer-review works reasonably well. I’ve heard that scientists will recognize awful science reporting in their own field but then think that science reporting is way better in other fields and ok in general.
People may have many criticisms of education, but they agree on the fundamentals of school, like having a teacher do lectures while students obediently listen. I think most people think that Ivy League schools are doing education in about the most efficient way possible (teaching methods not budget spending, there are too many administrators.)
