What do people think about the more polemical people in the rationality and effective altruism space? Some names that come to mind are Robin Hanson, Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Each of them seems to derive their persuasive force by identifying examples of what they perceive to be a social ill. In Robin’s case, it’s often about signalling—when people say or display things that are insincere or hypocritical, in order to achieve some gain. For Scott, it tends to be about the excesses of tribalism. For Eliezer, it’s about cognitive biases. It’s interesting that these persuasive writers all identify a fundamental and pervasive flaws in human character, and of the importance of overcoming them. It’s a kind of motivational critique has obviously been around at least since the bible. It’s not necessarily a bad trick, but it does seem to add persuasive value.
Are there other good persuasive techniques in this space?
What do people think about the more polemical people in the rationality and effective altruism space? Some names that come to mind are Robin Hanson, Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Each of them seems to derive their persuasive force by identifying examples of what they perceive to be a social ill. In Robin’s case, it’s often about signalling—when people say or display things that are insincere or hypocritical, in order to achieve some gain. For Scott, it tends to be about the excesses of tribalism. For Eliezer, it’s about cognitive biases. It’s interesting that these persuasive writers all identify a fundamental and pervasive flaws in human character, and of the importance of overcoming them. It’s a kind of motivational critique has obviously been around at least since the bible. It’s not necessarily a bad trick, but it does seem to add persuasive value.
Are there other good persuasive techniques in this space?