I'm crossposting this from Below the Conversation, where it went up on September 19. It is about this week's discussion that spread over sites like BlueSky about rationalist and EA communities, but it isn't community-scandal content. Rather, it's a deep dive on the epistemics of the rationalist and EA communities with some observations built out of the work I have been doing on rivalry, from where it starts in the brain out to how it affects civilization. A central part of my work discusses René Girard's theories of mimetic rivalry and scapegoating.
The claim I've made in the piece is narrow: it uses Roko's Basilisk as a case study for why a community built specifically around public refutation chose to ban an idea instead of refuting it, and argues that the specific pattern, taboo rather than refutation, has an anthropological name and mechanism behind it. It should be relevant to anyone interested in this community's own epistemics and discourse norms.
