you don't see them bc they're by definition on the fringes as they don't produce original rat thought or writing, hence are more or less invisible

many of these people find "postrationalism" more palatable bc its structure lends itself much better to being applied by most people

you don't need to understand Bayesian reasoning or wtf a prior is, you can just follow the vibes

game theory? nah man just don't be a dick and let people live

isn't AI risk kind of dorky? and AGI probably isn't real anyway, let's focus on trauma instead

if one were to attempt to distill and rigorously define the principles of postrationalism (do not do this, very unwise), I'm fairly confident they'd turn out to be intuitionistic versions of many preexisting rat principles

just, you know, easier to understand and apply

I understand EYs frustration (which I personally share) regarding people burned by rationalism who now decry it a bit too loudly

just bc you've personally moved on from it doesn't mean it no longer has merit

but I also think he may be expecting something no one wants to do

a rigorous takedown of rationalist principles establishing a new school of thought is a much more rat than postrat thing to do

it's just a very different style of discourse and epistemic norms, which doesn't abide by the rules of the community from which it sprung

and that's ok

we can have both rats and postrats and then many more people who are neither but talk about both, it's fine, we don't need to fight

I mean if you're into that go right ahead I guess just keep that behind closed doors

but we don't need to conjure up drama out of thin air for fun