Suppose that, as a Buddhist or a lobotomy patient or just a very phlegmatic person, finding your shoelaces tied together didn’t make you angry.
Buddhist, lobotomy patients and phlegmatic people all have things in their closets, they all have things to get angry, upset or confused about. If you are a Buddhist, lobotomy patient and phlegmatic you still see the particular narrative worldview. What you see does not change because after all there will always be something to get tied up on. It is about shaping the things that you do get tied up on and further controlling your reaction to them.
The goblin is the writer
The closet is your map and territory of your mind
The shoelaces tie together connections in your mind
The shoes are the words
If you read an article here that makes you angry it is okay. The writer has simply made a connection in your mind that you believe imposes upon you a negative feeling. You feel angry because of the map and territory of your mind, not what is written.
Perception of the writer as the globin disappears when you can change the shape of the map or territory.
Who is a globin to steal your gold, but a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow.
Science was noticing that certain modes of thinking uncovered beliefs that let us manipulate the world
Science is our tool to manipulate the world. Science is the instrument of truth. If you can not manipulate the meaning of reality through definition of words such as 'rational', what it is and it isn't. Where science is the substitute for truth and rationality is the substitute for truth also. As self-evident the definition of rationality is substituted for science and this forms our basic definition for rationality moving forward. Care not to define science as in rationality, science is a tool as is rationality.
In rationality, as in science. 'Curiosity, pragmatism, and quasi-moral injunctions' are injected into research questions and colour our understanding of both the world and truth.
To use science as a tool is to obtain the truth, to use rationality is to obtain the truth. We must apply a scientific approach and method to our rationality.
You cannot change reality, or prove the thought, by manipulating which meanings go with which words.
The same word can mean many things, words that have convergent evolution in their sounding but different meanings are spelled differently for a reason. Propaganda is manipulating the meaning of things, this is often done with slogans and words. Lies are the changed meaning of things to shape reality. Reality is a perception from a particular perspective as in the anthropic problems, it is relational not necessarily objective.
Creating a definition can be done, and is at times useful to make sense of and verify the likeness of maps and territory contained in other people's heads. Such to confirm the maps of language and words are congruent.
If things can not be defined the definition is left up to the individual and open to interpretation. The utility of this experiential approach allows individuals to engender their own ideas. When reading around a philosophical work and engaging with the material you build a representation of its meaning. As you do every time you read or write a word. Even where philosophical works have definitions there is often further assumed knowledge to decode and grasp the work in its entirety. In both cases where there is a formal definition, examples and implementation of its usage, this adds meaning and information.
Where the probability of controversy high and the ability to quell controversy is low, the probability of formal defence of ideas is reduced. There is a ceiling but unto time to which, things can be defended, defined or explained.
We need not provide and defend formal definitions, a definition is defined through usage. If the probability of a definition causing controversy is high and defining it has low utility the importance of a formal definition is decreased. Leaving things in ambiguity or with multiple degrees of interpretation limits reprisals.
If you don't have anything nice to say don't allow it to take shape, to become definitive. This is besides the point that communication can still transmit useful information.
The fact that there is no definition is the definition and is evidence for the definition. You can define things, but in the experiential sense what can you do with information that is wrong to steel-man it, to give it utility and make it useful.
If the benefit of a definition providing epistemic accuracy is lower than the instrumental utility of not defining, why define it?
Ultimately if we are to become rational the worst way to brainstorm is to have an anchoring effect around a definition of rationality that also causes controversy. As in the Stability–instability paradox, not naming something creates more names not of the thing in actuality but ideas around it. We are the Blind men yet but touching the elephant that is rationality.
The lesswrong community at least the writers let's say they're like IQ is higher on average let's just say 110 without capturing the data, it's not really important to boast about it as Stephen Hawking would say. But it exista and that's something. However the style of writing here it's not like a textbook or even a non-fiction book. It's more personal. It's also written in a way in plain natural English where it's able to reach a wider audience. Writing in this style avoids sounding or coming off pompous towards individuals of superior intellectual capacity. Making the articles somewhat less concise without devaluing the information itself. There is a humbleness to the writing and yet the style often chosen is not jargon laden and more narrative. My sneaking suspicion is this is for the reason that these are mainly n = 1 narrative life observations made by high IQ individuals. Where these are observations are important to the writers life as untowards but themselves. They are of such importance and value to the individual person that these intelligent and academically inclined individuals feel a passion to share it amongst other individuals who might yet understand and find relatability in the writers curse of knowledge. I suspect it is probably the wider experience of most individuals upon these forums is that their ideas fall upon a dearth of understanding in their personal lives and as a result while they feel an urge and passion to share their valuable insights with others. However yet not too waste their own time by overworking or over developing the lexicon and the linguistical density of their writing as towards other intellectual individuals understanding capabilities themselves.
An idea of true genius is yet more simple and plain in view to the person themselves then as it appears towards the outside and in post production of story, stardom and fame. Genius arrives at simple conclusions to complex problems. But genius is to see things as simple if not self-evident. It is towards everyone else to create a story of brilliance. The story of brilliance is untowards the capability, capacity and intellectual life as well as eventuation in peronal life narrative circumstance of these individuals themselves. Yeah, you can make yourself sound smart if you want to, you can always make yourself sound smarter, everyone can. But why would you? Everyone who is smart enough already realizes it doesn't actually help you in any material capacity to do so whatsoever. As obviously ideas articulated are self-evident if not obfuscated and gatekept in order to fence off the horde of intellectually jealous and deranged peons. You just see it in plain sight before everybody else and given enough time somebody else would have thought of anyway. It is funny to think that genius is simple because it actually is the case that someone half is intelligent would have stubmled upon the same conclusion yet gone unrecognized for it were they not of some made up story creation of reput brilliance. No one wants to see genius shine. Intelligence agents, they are like how psychologist think of with people, they are like Microsoft, they eat information, they are hungry for it they can't help but swallow what they chew. But true genius as towards mastership of tradecraft.