I've been introducing rationality not by name, but by description. As in, “I've been working on forming more accurate beliefs and taking more effective action.”
It could work. But people also might think that someone who talks about wisdom a lot is probably a weird person too.
Your best option is to lead from example. Be good enough so people ask you what makes you tick.
Bottom line: Work on yourself first, worry about others later.
I hesitate to ask this, because the fact that you've been posting for six months without it being asked suggests that I'm missing something obvious. But I'm feeling lazy.
Are you actually Less Wrong?
Nah. I thought it was funny to claim the website's name as my username.
The author of HPMOR is Eliezer Yudkowsky.
I strongly disapprove, since it leads casual readers to believe that you're Yudkowsky and/or some official representative of the website. But I have no authority, and nobody else seems to mind, so that's as far as I can go.
I would put this in the Map and Territory field. Or maybe it's a belief paying rent? Maybe both. I will admit I was rather surprised the name was available.
Eliezer has an account here and is a very prominent figure if you check out the sequences. Check it out, I don't wanna spoil your fun.
I would put this in the Map and Territory field. Or maybe it's a belief paying rent? Maybe both.
Not sure what this means.
Eliezer has an account here and is a very prominent figure if you check out the sequences.
Hamish Sinclair has an account at Marathon's Story Forum and is a very prominent figure if you check out the main site, but that didn't stop him randomly switching to a new account as "Godot". Is EY really so much less eccentric, and furthermore universally known to be by everyone but me?
Thought about something similar to this recently. Optimal way to introduce people to the rationalist subculture? Slate Star Codex.
Rationality as wisdom could be a highly useful frame, one that I've been considering myself. If I could describe in layman's terms what it means to be wise, I'd define it as unbiased judgment, appropriately high levels of knowledge, an accurate model of the world, moral behaviour, and the ability to employ your cognitive skills to make decisions which do not result in avoidable mistakes. In fact, just not making mistakes, be they cognitive, philosophical / intellectual, behavioral, moral, affective, economic or whatever, seems to be a good approximation of the definition of wisdom, which of course comes back to our title mission of becoming Less Wrong.
The best part of this frame is that you could draw upon ideas about rationality of people from other times and cultures, since wisdom is a pretty universal concept, more so than LW-style rationality. Perhaps browse the Rationality Quotes thread and exemplify your points using the most-upvoted quotes from there.
Suppose aversion to "rationality" is in fact aversion to calculative thought. If so, branding rationality as "wisdom" at best achieves a bait and switch - which will be seen through once you ask your prospective convert to engage in mentally taxing racionations. The branding ("bait") may be worth paying attention to, but if you want lay people to take a sincere interest in rationality, something more seems called for.
Suppose aversion to "rationality" is in fact aversion to calculative thought.
The standard definition on LW is that rationality doesn't mean "calculative thought". "Rationality is the characteristic of thinking and acting optimally". Optimal doesn't always mean calculated.
Optimal doesn't always mean calculated.
It seems to in most cases. It's the mode of thought people around here seem to focus on the most. In any case, I'm not saying that rationality is calculative thought, just that aversion to rationality stems from aversion to calculative thought due to people commonly associating the two since the latter is a large component in the former.
Also have to admit, I'm somewhat puzzled by how one can achieve optimal thinking without a lot of slow, deliberative calculation. To do so would be to think optimally by reflex - that would be an amazing power.
It seems to in most cases.
I think the dominant thought on LW is that both Kahneman's system I and system II are important and useful. It's not that one is more rational than the other.
I don't disagree, though "rationality" as outlined in the sequences is, if I understood correctly, basically a battery of methods for dealing with the weaknesses of system I by using system II style diagnosis & analysis of habitual irrationality in system I & having it absorb corrected patterns of thought. This process is most likely what people in general dislike.
Unless you're a Latina woman or, at least, just old, you are likely to have credibility problems.
I was recently reminded of two pieces of cached wisdom about wisdom itself.
First, that "Wisdom is not knowledge, but the application of knowledge."
And "The wise learn from others what the foolish learn from experience, or not at all."
Upon the mention of the first, I was immediately reminded of the essence of rationality, further expounded on by the second. My thoughts then jumped to the negative reactions I have become accustomed to from those who hear me refer frequently to "rationality." My salient dedication to the idea evoked in their minds such as to induce the intonation of all the cliched wisdom against the "cold" thinking of those with whom I had (in their minds) associated myself, the Spocks of the world.
And here was a potential alternative. I may be able to communicate to their minds more nearly what I mean by "rationality" by using the word "wisdom" in its place. I suspect the term will seem them more palatable, even noble.
And when I explain all those things which once led them to begrudgingly ration out a measure of respect for rationality, the result shall be rather to confirm in their minds the power, pleasure, and purpose of the pursuit of wisdom.
And so I intend to frame my purposes in that light. Here's hoping...