I'm interested in #4, is there anywhere you know of to read more about that? I don't think I've seen that described except obliquely in eg sayings about the relationship between genius and madness.
I don't, that one's me speaking from my own speculation. It's a working model I've had for a while about the nature of a lot of kinds of mental illness (particularly my own tendencies towards depression), which I guess I should explain more thoroughly! This gets a bit abstract, so stick with me: it's a toy model, and I don't mean it to be definitive truth, but it seems to do well at explaining my own tendencies.
-------
So, toy model: imagine the brain has a single 1-dimensional happiness value that changes over time. You can be +3 happy or -2 unhappy, that kind of thing. Everyone knows when you're very happy you tend to come down, and when you're very sad you tend to eventually shake it off, meaning that there is something of a tendency towards a moderate value or a set-point of sorts. For the sake of simplicity, let's say a normal person has a set point of 0, then maybe a depressive person has a set point of -1, a manic person has a set point of +1, that sort of thing.
Mathematically, this is similar to the equations that describe a spring. If left to its own devices, a spring will tend to its equilibrium value, either exponentially (if overdamped) or with some oscillation around it (if underdamped). But if you're a person living your life, there are things constantly jostling the spring up and down, which is why manic people aren't crazy all the time and depressed people have some good days where they feel good and can smile. Mathematically, this is a spring with a forcing function - as though it's sitting on a rough train ride that is constantly applying "random" forces to it. Rather than x'' + kx = 0, you've got x'' + kx = f(t) for some external forcing function f(t), where f(t) critically does not depend on x or on the individual internal dynamics involved.
These external forcing functions tend to be pretty similar among people of a comparable environment. But the internal equilibria seem to be quite different. So when the external forcing is strong, it tends to pull people in similar directions, and people whose innate tendencies are extreme tend to get pulled along with the majority anyway. But when external forcing is weak (or when people are decoupled from its effects on them), internal equilibria tend to take over, and extreme people can get caught in feedback loops.
If you're a little more ML-inclined, you can think about external influences like a temperature term in an ML model. If your personal "model" of the world tends to settle into a minimum labeled "completely crazy" or "severely depressed" or the like, a high "temperature" can help jostle you out of that minimum even if your tendencies always move in that direction.
Basically, I think weird nerds tend to have low "temperature" values, and tend to settle into their own internal equilibria, whether those are good, bad, or good in some cases and bad in others (consider all the genius mathematicians who were also nuts). "Normies", for lack of a better way of putting it, tend to have high temperature values and live their lives across a wider region of state space, which reduces their ability to wield precision and competitive advantage but protects them from the most extreme failure-modes as well.
>These external forcing functions tend to be pretty similar among people of a comparable environment. But the internal equilibria seem to be quite different. So when the external forcing is strong, it tends to pull people in similar directions, and people whose innate tendencies are extreme tend to get pulled along with the majority anyway. But when external forcing is weak (or when people are decoupled from its effects on them), internal equilibria tend to take over, and extreme people can get caught in feedback loops.
Yeah, this makes sense, an isolated group can sort of lose the "grounding" of interacting with the rest of society and start floating off in whatever direction, as long as they never get regrounded. When you say feedback loops, do you mean obsessive tendencies tending to cause them to focus on and amplify a small set of thoughts/beliefs, or something else?
I like the ML/temperature analogy, it's always interesting watching kids and thinking in that vein, with some kids at a super high temp exploring the search space of possibilities super quickly and making tons of mistakes, and others who are much more careful. Interesting point on nerds maybe having lower temp/converging more strongly/consistently on a single answer. And I guess artist types would be sort of the opposite on that axis?
A lot of rationalists that go deep are on the autistic spectrum. Their feedback loops are often classic autistic thought traps of people who end up "committing to the bit". Add anxiety to it and you get autistic style rumination loops that go nuts.
Edit: Funny enough, when I wrote "autistic thought traps", I thought I just made it up to describe something, but it is common terminology. An AI summary of what they are:
Autistic people may experience thought traps, which are unhelpful patterns of thinking that can lead to anxiety and stress. These traps can include catastrophizing, all-or-nothing thinking, and perseverative cognition.
Catastrophizing:
Jumping to the worst-case scenario;
Imagining unlikely or improbable scenarios;
Focusing on negative aspects of a situation;
Having difficulty letting go of negative thoughts;
All-or-nothing thinking:
Categorizing people or things as entirely good or bad;
Having a tendency to think in black and white;
A lot of people say this, but I think it's the wrong word in an important way.
I'll give you P(autistic|rationalist) > P(autistic), but beware the base rate fallacy. My guess is you're focussing on a proxy variable.
To show some important counter-examples: Temple Grandin, famously autistic and a lot of people's idea what autism means - not a rationalist in the sense you mean. Scott Alexander - fairly central example of the rationalist community, but not autistic (he's a psychiatrist so I trust him on that).
EDIT: also P(trans|rationalist) > P(trans), but P(rationalist|trans) I'd say is fairly small. Base rate fallacy and something something Bayes. Identifying these two groups would definitely be a mistake.
I think when you look at these types of groups that become cult or cult-like, they often appeal to a specific experience or need that people have. My guess is the message that many trans and autistic people take away is fulfilling for them. Many people in these communities share similar traumas and challenges that affect them deeply. It makes them vulnerable to manipulation and becoming true believers capable of more extreme behavior.
The more common pattern is a false prophet cult where the influential leader is a paternal figure bringing enlightenment to the flock. It just so happens that free labor and sex with pretty girls are key aspects of that journey.
It doesn't mean that "all X are Y" or "Y's are usually X".
There's another way around it. People that see themselves as "freethinkers" are also ultimately contrarians. Taking contrarianism as part of your identity makes people value unconventional ideas, but turn that around: It also means devaluing mainstream ideas. Since humanity is basically an optimization algorithm, being very contrarian means that, along with throwing away some bad assumptions, one also throws away a whole lot of very good defaults. So one might be right in a topic or two, but overall, a lot of bad takes are going to seep in and poison the intellectual well.
You don't have to adopt the ideas of every fringe or contrarian viewpoint you come across to be a freethinker; you simply have to be willing to consider and evaluate those views with the same level of rigor you give to mainstream views. Most people who do that will probably adopt a handful of fringe beliefs but, for the most part, retain a very large number of conventional beliefs too. Julia Galef is kind of an archetypal rationalist/free thinker and she has spoken about the merits of traditional ideas from within a rationalist framework.
I'm interested in #4, is there anywhere you know of to read more about that? I don't think I've seen that described except obliquely in eg sayings about the relationship between genius and madness.