Coxon: oh shit don't give away how deep in I am with the rationalistsCoxon: I'm totally not a rationalist, I just hung out with them for a decade because I admire their huge swole brains and how right they are about everythingCoxon: nailed it

[abucci@buc.ci]

@davidgerard@circumstances.run

uniquely able to be correct about topics removed from daily experience

I wonder if they are uniquely able to be correct about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I certainly trust them to be correct about factual questions

Factual questions, like those that are enmeshed with daily experience, which is what we tend to mean when we refer to "facts". Is he really trying to say "I trust them to be correct about questions concerning daily experience because they have specialized minds that are uniquely able to be correct about topics removed from daily experience."

He thinks we're all living in a giant sudoku puzzle, where we can "be correct" or "be incorrect" and we can know the difference and it's all tidy and easy (if you have a uniquely specialized mind). I suppose that sums up rationalists generally.

[doombunny@toot.wales]

@davidgerard Why am I not surprised that Harry Frotter believes in this whole scene? It would also be interesting to know how much he was paid to spout this nonsense to a craven and credulous press.

I suspect the talk about a mutual cessation treaty is entirely down to the people funding this tripe demanding the promised returns on "investment" *right now*, meaning they need another way to say "look over there!" in financial jargon.

[anarchoninawrites@jorts.horse]

@davidgerard "Look, I don't know if you can call giving truckers handies through a glory hole at the rest stop "sex" per se..."

[cyberquixote@infosec.exchange]

@AnarchoNinaWrites @davidgerard

“Im too rational to be controlled”

[zeh@mstdn.io]

@davidgerard
this for some reason reminded me of sloppy thinking as a qualifier. it sure reads as slop (which was probably the connect my brain drew), but the qualifier is too mild. that shit there is in no way a form of thinking, at all

[paco@infosec.exchange]

@davidgerard I’m doing what I can to hasten the Quornpocalypse!

@aslakr @tante

[ncrazed@fd00.space]

@davidgerard I felt like I was having a stroke trying to read his part

[robinsyl@meow.social]

@Jer why does the representation that polyamorous folks get have to be *checks notes* Zizians and SBF

[jeffgrigg@mastodon.social]

@davidgerard

I consider myself a rationalist. I've even used the term "hyper-rationalist" for myself, at times.

But almost nothing he says there makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

Like, I wouldn't want to judge anyone for their polyamory or veganism, but I just don't see how those things are relevant.

…

[Looking up who "Jacob Coxon" is …]

Oh; he's *that* guy.

Why does anyone think this guy has anything remotely interesting (or rational) to say?

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@JeffGrigg the Rationalists are a different sort of creature! Look up LessWrong and Yudkowsky.

[jonhendry@iosdev.space]

@davidgerard

"Correct about topics removed from daily experience"

Like the utility or viability of WorldCoin?

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@abucci the other thing rationalists mean by "factual questions" is race science and eugenics