Talk:Rationalist community

Topic and sources

I would consider a community or movement to be conceptually distinct from the website LessWrong, but the website topic is currently more clearly established as generally notable. If the redirect has become ambiguous, a disambiguation page is possible. I don't have an NYT subscription, so I can't evaluate the 2021 article, but I see potential issues with several of the other sources. For instance, the Spectator article spends one sentence describing a single "rationalist community" and then uses "communities" in the next sentence. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I performed a Google Books search of the Chivers source, and it does appear to be a strong source for some "rationalist community" statements, possibly with attribution. It's a significant step towards satisfying basic notability, but not sufficient on its own. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why the Plough article would be reliable. It's an essay in a Bruderhof Communities magazine. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

How would that make this magazine not a reliable source on this topic? Eigenbra (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Many claims should be attributed in prose rather than stated in WP:WIKIVOICE. Third-party opinions about what RationalWiki has said could be WP:HEARSAY. Additionally, I don't see Plough on WP:RSP. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim was attributed and not in WP:WIKIVOICE. WP:HEARSAY is not a policy and only advises to treat reported opinion as opinion, which I did. WP:RSP is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability is perennially discussed. I would not expect to see most magazines in it, so this is not an indication of unreliability. Eigenbra (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are referring to this claim, I don't think you understand what I was saying. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess I don't Eigenbra (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

In any case, there are plenty claims of cultishness already, so I'm fine with leaving this one claim out. Eigenbra (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Additional sources

In addition to the sources cited here already, the sources cited in Zizians (almost all of which mention the rationalist community and several of which delve deeply into it), and the sources cited in Rationalism#Contemporary rationalism, here are several more (the last two focus on postrationalists, which should probably also be covered as an offshoot in this article, but also have a lot of coverage of original flavor rationalists):

• https://archive.is/M9wUu (apparently republished from paywalled https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-03-07/effective-altruism-s-problems-go-beyond-sam-bankman-fried)
• https://web.archive.org/web/20210420171731/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html
• https://archive.is/wSo7q
• https://archive.is/w9Zrp
• https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/10/this-one-internet-subculture-explains-murder-suspect-luigi-mangiones-odd-politics/
• https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rational-magic

Eigenbra (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Those sources don't really establish the topic clearly, but I don't think it's unusual to have an article collect related statements that are each valid and reliably sourced. The sources are saying a variety of things with different terminology, so avoiding WP:SYNTH could be complicated. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality in Beliefs section?

There's a line in here "Members of the rationalist community believe only a small number of people, namely themselves, have the unique abilities required to reduce the probability of human extinction." which I feel is overly negative. The community boundaries are blurry, and though there is a group of people who fixate on human extinction from AI risk and believe only they have the unique ability to save humans from AI risk by researching AI/AI safety, that isn't all of them and the current form of the sentence may lead people to believe every single rationalist feels this way.

I think the crux of it is there are different levels of involvement - you might have someone who follows rationalist blogs and is vaguely interested in their ideas, or on the far side of the spectrum, you might have someone who lives in a rationalist group home and works at an effective altruist AI safety organization and believes the world is going to end without this vital work. Both people could be described as rationalists, but the first doesn't fit this sentence's assertion. There are many more people who are only involved with the community online and/or don't care so much about the "only we can prevent AI extinction" thing.

E.g. if you look at the Lewis-Kraus New Yorker article, AI risk is mentioned only once and this extreme paranoia/savior complex is hardly touched on. Also e.g. Luigi Mangione was not working to save humanity from AI risk, and while he is described as post-rationalist-aligned by Emily Shugerman and Max Read, he is described as just a rationalist by the Io Dodds source (which doesn't even mention post-rationalism), and even Emily Shugerman says he may also be "more aligned with effective altruism". So as Huet says, the movement is difficult to define.

I want to change this sentence. Alternatively, move this sentence out of the Beliefs section entirely and into Criticism (could replace it with a longer, more detailed paragraph in the Criticism section about how the savior complex can lead to cult tendencies).

If we keep it as 1 sentence in Beliefs, maybe something like: Many AI-risk focused members of the rationalist community believe only a small number of people, namely themselves, have the unique abilities required to reduce the probability of human extinction.

Or something else that can be workshopped. What do people think? Etryn (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised it reads as overly negative to you. I included that sentence because it was something that seemed to be repeated in many of the sources I read to get this article started. I actually toned downed the language from what I read in the sources to talk about "reducing the probability of human extinction," as opposed to "saving humanity" as the "chosen people," for the sake of making the tone more encyclopedic. Also, we don't need every source to mention this as a belief to include this, so any one source not mentioning it is very weak evidence, and such reasoning is WP:SYNTH in my opinion. I could have gotten this wrong, and I'm not dead set against any changes. However, I would definitely caution that we are looking for WP:Verifiability, not truth. Eigenbra (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is an interpretation of that sentence that is fair to apply to the rationalist community. But that interpretation of that sentence applies to nearly every ideology in the entire world -- of COURSE they believe that only they are the ones who can solve the problems they care about, because they are the ones trying to do it. Of course they believe that the traits they consider valuable are the ones that are important to solving the problems they care about.

If there was not similar language about how they believe that "only a small number of people, namely themselves, have the ability to solve the problem that they want to solve," on the pages of every other ideology and movement, then it didn't belong here. 2601:800:C100:72A0:A049:8368:7F85:23C0 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't think exceptionalism is ubiquitous in all movements or ideologies. NobodyGetsOutAlive (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Etryn: I agree with @Hand of Lixue: that the "Beliefs" section could be improved. It appeared to be a confusing combination of near-consensus descriptions of rationalist beliefs and subjective claims about rationalists. I changed the section title to "Description" while we find something better. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. We want a neutral description of beliefs. It being in-universe would be less neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You said "It being in-universe would be less neutral." I don't know what that means. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Allegations from the Zizians

This article and the one on the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR) give disproportionate weight to allegations from the Zizians, based on a source that also describes the Zizians as delirious and prone to hallucinations. Even if it's appropriately attributed to the Zizians, I think it's problematic to select and spread rumors that are unreliable and potentially libelous. Moreover, the article on CFAR currently makes the accusation of not caring about animal welfare look like it involves CFAR even though the source only links it to MIRI, and this Wikipedia article broadens all the accusations to the whole rationalist community. Alenoach (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think WP:UNDUE applies in the context of either article. In both cases I think an explanation of the Zizians' grievances against rationalists is necessary. In this article, in a section on offshoots, it is necessary to explain why they broke off. In the CFAR article, it is necessary to explain why they were protesting. The Zizians' grievances are brought up in context and succinctly, not given large weight in the article or brought up as general criticism. I'm not sure what you're referring to as a rumor. Clearly, Wired (and other publications) had no problems repeating these accusations. A possible solution for your concern is to add information about the Zizians' unreliability. Eigenbra (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraph on the Zizians is quite brief and I don't think their views are being given undue attention. If there are reliable sources that suggest the Zizians claims are unreliable these would be a potential avenue to expand the article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing from Twitter and LessWrong

Just a note that Oliver Habryka is canvassing edits to this page through Twitter and LessWrong. 117.195.143.62 (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The recent set of edits by WP:SPAs 189.115.193.23 and @Hand of Lixue look like second hand COI and content removal unjustified by Wikipedia policies. I propose reverting to the version before these edits. Eigenbra (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any personal COI. Could you please clarify why you think that? Hand of Lixue (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hand of Lixue there seems to be a user with the same username who is a frequent commenter on LW and SSC. I'm not saying that's necessary a coi, but wouldn't it have been a reasonable thing to disclose in this context? Eigenbra (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Eigenbra It's possible I had an account there sometime in the past. SSC has been closed since 2020, so I sincerely doubt I'm still a "frequent commenter". If this request of yours is considered normal, then would you please be willing to disclose all of your own social media handles, so that we can similarly confirm no COI exists for you? Hand of Lixue (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hand of Lixue I made no request. You seem to be trying to engage in WP:Civil POV pushing and WP:Wikilawyering. That's not behavior that suggests you're here to build an encyclopedia. Eigenbra (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not you identify as a rationalist, if a LW commenter starts editing the article about their own community in response to stealth canvassing on LW, pushing rationalist POV without disclosing that they came from LW in response to canvassing, then that creates a very bad impression. Do you disagree? Eigenbra (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Also happy to chat here. The current page does indeed have quite a few issues that I am hoping someone will fix. I have an obvious COI, so won't edit by default, though I might suggest some edits after discussing them here.

I don't think there is really any case for the IP address account and Hand of Lixue having a COI here. I don't know who they are, but it's not against Wikipedia rules to request editors to improve an article off-site, and it's not against the rules to edit an article as a result of such a request. You can ask Hand of Lixue and the IP-address account whether they have any COI, but I am pretty sure presuming a COI and unilaterally reverting their edits would be against Wikipedia rules, though feel free to correct me here. Habryka (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation here. I think this is a better forum for any grievances you have with the article instead of WP:STEALTH canvassing. My main issue with the recent edits is not inherently the possible COI, but the disruptive editing. The edits amount mainly to (1) undiscussed mass WP:REMOVAL of content that was well sourced and (2) reorganizing the article in a way that clearly contradicts Wikipedia policies such as WP:CSECTION. I and other editors put in significant work to edit the article to conform to these policies, and when WP:SPAs come in and make large scale edits in ignorance of these policies, this is highly disruptive to the communal editing practices on Wikipedia. Your twitter post also goes against Wikipedia practices by casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I can't speak for any of the other editors, but I can say I have never read nor edited RationalWiki, so you might be a little paranoid in that regard. Since you are now engaging the right forum, I will revert the recent disruptive edits, and you can use the talk page, as intended, to bring up whatever grievances you have about the article, instead of soliciting your followers for biased edits that ignore Wikipedia's policies (by choice or ignorance). Eigenbra (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

ABOUT ME

You seem to have me confused with Habryka - I did not make any Twitter post about this. Nonetheless, you have reverted MY edits.

You have not given any explanation for why MY edits would be reverted, nor has any consensus been established in the talk page. I'm new here, but this would seem like a clear violation of WP:WAR, which asks that you reach consensus or otherwise seek to resolve the dispute. A unilateral reversion of good-faith edits does not seem like either of those to me.

I lost the login to my old Wikipedia account, but I also edited a number of additional articles when Wikipedia offered some Suggested Edits. I've routinely made small changes to improve readability to a variety of pages, I just don't worry too much about keeping an account. I would appreciate you please avoid WP:ASPERSIONS about my intentions in the future, especially after having already made unfounded claims of a COI violation.

---

ABOUT THE EDITS

If you review my edits, there was very little content removal beyond excessive ref tags. I rewrote a few sections, and I moved a few paragraphs into a new "Controversy" section.

If you wanted to revert the more aggressive pruning of sources, that's fine - I marked it as aggressive for transparency and ease of reversion. I do feel it is excessive having so many citations; do you really feel it is necessary to offer FOUR different sources to confirm, for instance, that Rationalists "are concerned with applying Bayesian inference to understand the world as it really is, avoiding cognitive biases, emotionality, or political correctness."? As a contrast, "Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life" currently has zero footnotes. This seems like rather blatant WP:OVERCITE to me.

I've already sent Thanks to people who restored specific references they valued - I'm simply trying to fix the WP:OVERCITE. It seems like we could easily reach a consensus, rather than engage in WP:WAR over this matter.

I'm unclear how WP:Controversial applies. If you feel this is a controversial topic, why object to me listing all those controversies in one section? Currently the topic is not marked as controversial, nor do I see any reason to consider it so.

Basic edits for a neutral POV seem obviously justified: a community does not have "adherents", for instance. It has "members." You wouldn't refer to "adherents of sewing", would you? "Rationalists are concerned with improving human reasoning, rationality, and decision-making" is a direct copy from the Wikipedia article on LessWrong. I'm happy to review the edit line by line if it would benefit you, but I think it's premature to say that there's absolutely no value or good faith in those edits.

WP:Removal would not apply here: I was utterly transparent in my edit logs and made multiple edits to enhance visibility and allow objection on a case by case basis. Instead, you've unilaterally elected to revert those edits without consensus. Hand of Lixue (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I corrected my initial erroneous link to WP:CONTROVERSY to the intended WP:CSECTION. I'm sorry for the initial error. If you had bothered to look at the page history you would have seen the correct policy linked in my previous edit eliminating the "Criticism" section. Your edits were directly undoing the work I did to improve the adherence to WP policies.

I also never accused you of having COI. I clearly said the COI was second hand, referring to the canvasser, who has a clear COI. However, just so we're clear: were your edits prompted by Habryka's canvassing? Eigenbra (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Also please note unless when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts as per WP:ALTACCN. Eigenbra (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an alternative account - I lost the old one. Per "Clean Start" it is perfectly acceptable to create a new account. I don't think my activity on "Earth" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" from years ago has any bearing on this discussion, nor was I ever involved in anything controversial. I mostly just prune WP:OVERLINK and WP:OVERCITE. If I could find the login, I'd be using it - I might have just used an IP back then.

Thank you for the clarification on WP:CSECTION. Unfortunately, your edit was made after I saw your message. I had seen a Controversies section on many articles previously, so I was unfamiliar with that convention.

As I said before, yes, Wikipedia did offer me a number of Suggested Edits when I created my account. I am not aware of any policy that would prohibit such suggestions.

Your objections have all been to removals and WP:CSECTION, neither of which applies to my initial edit. I shall take your advice on WP:BRD and restore those edits. If you have objections, I'd appreciate the basic civility and respect of a discussion on the specifics.

I'd also like to discuss whether we can work to resolve WP:OVERCITE on this page. I'm fine keeping all of the sources, it just doesn't seem necessary to have four footnotes for something that isn't even controversial. As I said, I appreciated the constructive collaboration others showed in restoring citations - since you've reverted my edits, perhaps you would prefer to address that issue yourself? Hand of Lixue (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I made some copy edits for style and grammar. I don't think WP:CITETRIM is a bad idea, but, as you said, it is most appropriate for noncontroversial statements. Aggressive removal of all instances of grouped citations and breaking citations is disruptive. Eigenbra (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

My revert is the "R" in WP:BRD, not engaging in WP:WAR. Eigenbra (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It certainly is not a better forum for me, who has little experience editing Wikipedia, is not familiar with the norms, and does not generally frequent the discussion here.

Certainly Wikipedia does not ban discussion of the quality of its articles off-site, and also of course has no jurisdiction about what I decide to post on my personal Twitter or LessWrong account. I also didn't call for any particular edits, just called for any editor with experience to improve the article as they see fit. Calls for edits like this happen thousands of times every week all across the internet as people from many professional communities talk about the quality of articles relevant to their interests. I am friends with many Wikipedia editors and I see them request help improving articles on non-Wikipedia platforms a routine basis, and of course, the Wikimedia foundation and the Wikipedia community themselves have run many campaigns (both on Wikipedia and outside of it), with the aim of improving the quality of articles.

I think the discussion here is best left to experienced Wikipedia editors, who don't have COIs. My guess is my involvement only makes sense if for some reason this discussion stalls out, but my best guess is some experienced editor without a COI will show up and give the article a pass, and everyone will be happy about that (that possibly could be Hand of Lixue, who I don't think has any COI, and seems to have a bit of experience editing Wikipedia, though not enough to call him experienced).

Again, I am not familiar with all the norms of Wikipedia editing, but my understanding is that blanket reversion of supported edits should only be done under very rare circumstances (yet again, my guess is people with more Wikipedia experience will understand the exact policies better here). Blanket reversion of edits by people who have no affiliation with me whatsoever, who simply heard about this article because it was linked publicly (the way everyone basically always heard about issues in Wikipedia articles), seems extremely unlikely to me to be compatible with Wikipedia policies. Habryka (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I also didn't call for any particular edits. You literally pointed to two sentences that you wanted edited. Eigenbra (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I said those sentences had issues, but I didn't call for any specific way to change them. Any editor taking a look is happy to make their own judgement of the page content. I provided no commentary beyond just those quotes (and a negative judgement, though not with any specifics).

I agree if I was asking people to make specific edits, or ask for specific information to be included, then we could be talking about more serious canvassing issues, but the only thing I did was draw attention to what seemed to me a low-quality article, without any requests for specific edits.

But again, I do not claim any kind of deep familiarity with Wikipedia norms. In as much as I will want to participate more in the discussion, I will familiarize myself with the norms more, but I just showed up here since it seemed nice. I will continue to be around to answer questions and try to be helpful as an informed outsider, but again, I don't know the norms here. Habryka (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It is not "nice" to accuse me and other editors of being banned from editing on this topic. Eigenbra (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the part where I started writing in this comment section, which I did out of courtesy of being mentioned. Habryka (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. So being nice here does not include the "courtesy" of telling us when you are being nasty elsewhere. Eigenbra (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

No, "being nice" here meant I showed up and tried to make myself available to answer questions, which is what I said. Habryka (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Habryka: You're here now, and you've said little about improving the article. The X post called two passages "inane", but you have not explained why you considered them so, or even repeated them here. Eigenbra gathered many published articles in which authors make claims about rationalists, with useful reference quotes, but possibly WP:Attribution could still be made clearer in the body of the article. Who's saying what, exactly? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that direct criticism should be attributed, and I think this is generally already done in the article. Attributing descriptive claims, even if unflattering, is probably excessive and can clutter up the article. Particularly for the unflattering descriptions I included, I made sure they reflect the general view in multiple sources, which is why they might have multiple citations attached. Unfortunately, that has now led to complaints about overcitation from @Hand of Lixue. You can't win with some people... Eigenbra (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is that overcitation is a natural reaction to a fact that is... embarrassing. Because, when the response is "but that's just what one source says" the easiest response is "well look at these five sources then." I think what we might consider is to look at which citations in a cluster are both the weakest and the most duplicated and just cut those in favour of higher quality sources for any given statement. If all citations are necessary for a section, we leave them in (that would not be over-citing). Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this passage from the article: "Rationalists are concerned with applying Bayesian inference to understand the world as it really is, avoiding cognitive biases, emotionality, or political correctness.[1][2][3][4]". Each of those reference quotes is saying something different. This is not overcitation for an "embarrassing fact" because these are different opinions. Whether in-prose attribution is needed or not, references could still be moved closer to their respective claims. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

In this instance the part I'm concerned with preserving is Bayesian inference which is cited to two of the four sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The primary source, LessWrong, offers this description: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/rationality

"Rationality is the art of thinking in ways that result in accurate beliefs and good decisions. It is the primary topic of LessWrong."

While "Bayes Theorum" is referenced, it's merely one of many concepts - I don't see any evidence that it's so important it needs to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.

It seems extremely odd to prioritize external sources when it comes to the beliefs of a group, without clarifying that this is an external perspective. If we can't take the group serious on their own claims, can we at least make it clear that these are 3rd party claims?

I'm not disputing that other people say this, but this is "Beliefs", not "Criticism" Hand of Lixue (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

They are not criticisms. They are the prevailing characterization of rationalists' beliefs in the secondary sources. If you are trying to promote rationalists' own perspective, that's advocacy. Eigenbra (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. We should give less weight to ABOUTSELF descriptions than to those from independent reliable secondary sources.Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities"

"The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" - none of your sources contradict the Rationalist Community's own description, they simply emphasize different aspects. So this clearly isn't self-serving nor exceptional.

(Criteria 2-5 are all obviously met as well) Hand of Lixue (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia pages reflect the group's beliefs, not the characterizations of outsiders. The "Christianity" page is a discussion of religious dogma like heaven and hell, not 3rd party characterizations. The "Wikipedia" page cites Wikipedia's own view on it's principles, not 3rd party characterizations.

Given this, it seems perfectly reasonable to make a distinction between "what the community publicly endorses" and "what 3rd parties have characterized them as" - I'm not looking to remove anything here, simply make it clear that this is a 3rd party characterization and not a description the community itself endorses. Hand of Lixue (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a bad example, sorry, but Wikipedia's religion articles are principally derived from secondary sources from whch membership in any given religion is not a weighted reason for inclusion. When we have had groups of pages on religion that seem to have bedn "taken over" by adherents of that faith, Wikipedia generally responds against this. Simonm223 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Could we possibly also reword "avoiding political correctness"? I feel like "free and open debate, even with people whose views you find abhorrent" is a better, broader description - they're avoiding a lot more than just political correctness there Hand of Lixue (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The grammar needs fixing but the cite is to "political correctness" and not the wordy confectionery you prefer. I need to look at the quality of the source for this one. Simonm223 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not repeating it here because I do not have any intention of advocating for any specific changes to this article.

I would like to see the article improved. All I want is to start a conversation and draw attention to improving it. Pointing out some low-quality sections is as far as I know the default thing to do both on Wikipedia and outside of it, but in the moment I start proposing specific changes, that seems much more likely to interfere with the Wikipedia consensus protocol.

I'll follow this discussion with interest, but please have conversations with anyone who actually wants to make specific changes. Habryka (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

it would be probably less objectionable if you weren't the person running the whole lesswrong site, mind. 83.27.157.10 (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the article could do with some kind of "reception" section containing external critical appraisal of the movement, both positive and negative, rather than this article being purely descriptive. That said, we should rely on what independent external sources have said about the movement, not what "rationalists" would necessarily prefer themselves to be described as. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to "reception" sections as it kind of ghettoizes a lot of significant information. But I could be persuaded. Other than that I've gone through and made a few neutrality edits, mostly just removing weasel words with the exception of restoring the information about the rats' fondness for Bayesian inference which was removed for some reason. I will echo that claiming any editors here are banned is, absent evidence, a personal attack and that editors should remain civil and focus on content. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy,_religion,_or_politics

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (...) it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section (...). Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."

I'm supportive of such a section, but @Eigenbra may feel differently. I feel like, as is, the page is clearly treating this as a philosophy - there's a heavy emphasis on what the group supposedly believes in. I'd say that, as written, it's often unclear which beliefs the group actually endorses and which aspects are external perspectives. Hand of Lixue (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Categorization

Should there be a Category:Rationalist community? It would add an alternative to hijacking Category:Rationalism to group this and related articles.

I think Category:Singularitarianism works, representing a consistent major interest covered in the body. It's a subcategory of Transhumanism. I'm not sure about Category:Effective altruism, which is more clearly associated with LessWrong, and only mentioned here as an interest and distinct community with a "large overlap". WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea, and such a category should be a subcategory of Category:Rationalism. I wish I had seen this talk page discussion before I created Category:LessWrong Rationalists. If you want to change all the pages that I edited to include that category, delete the category, and add Category:LessWrong Rationalists or Category:Rationalist community to each of the pages, then you are welcome to do so.

I personally think that "LessWrong Rationalists" and "LessWrong Rationalism" are both better names for this article and the category respectively. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the category. I think it's an improvement over using Category:Rationalism, but I would note that the scope of the rationalist community topic appears to extend beyond LessWrong, with Slate Star Codex also prominently included in this article. I'm skeptical of the subcategorization within Category:Rationalism because of an apparent contrast in defining characteristics: "Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism." Science and Bayesian inference are examples of empirical methods. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That is true. Category:Rationalist community might be an improvement like I said. But I also think it's kind of problematic, since it could suggest that everybody who is a rationalist is part of the Rationalist community, which is not true. Another problem is that The borders of the rationalist community are blurry and subject to debate among the community and adjacent groups.[1], as stated in Rationalist community, so it could be difficult to determine who should be included in the category. For these reasons, I don't know what an optimal name for the category would be.

When I created Category:LessWrong Rationalists, one of my subconscious thoughts was that a person is either a notable member of the LessWrong forum, or they are not.

My understanding is that the contrast between rationalism and empiricism was more a historical thing, and it's largely outdated in modern times. If I'm not mistaken, most people who historically identified as empiricists or rationalists weren't necessarily opposed to the other concept. While I can't cite a source off the top of my head to verify these beliefs, I don't think the historical contrast between rationalism and empiricism is problematic for being a subcategory of Category:Rationalism. Zero Contradictions (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It's longer, but "Category:21st-century rationalist community" may be less ambiguous. I don't see why it would be meaningfully harder to categorize RC-related articles under a new category than under Category:Rationalism, as many were. An alternative approach would be to add a Category:LessWrong to accompany Template:LessWrong, but that would not fully disambiguate articles in Category:Rationalism.

Regarding subcategorization, the name collision is unfortunate. I see quite little formal connection between the two communities. To my understanding, the RC was not formed around reading rationalist philosophers of past centuries; it was formed around reading Yudkowsky, who most prominently cited 20th-century cognitive science and science fiction. Are there reliable sources that describe the RC as a descendant of rationalism? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it, but I think "Category:21st-century rationalist community" would be an improvement.

You are correct that Yudkowsky isn't well read about academic philosophy. I haven't looked into it, but I think that most philosophy academics would probably be critical of his writings for this reason. My prediction is that it would be difficult to find many academic sources that praise the RC for rationality. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm that the rationalist community has very little to do with rationalism as an historical philosophical movement. The rationalist community has little to say about knowledge distinct from experience as far as I'm aware. In fact they seem to do very little to distinguish sense experience from reflective experience let alone to argue for innate knowledge underived from experience. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Description of LessWrong as a religion or cult

This edit removed the following sentence from the article:

The movement has been described by former members, media, and religious scholars as either a religion or a cult.

The edit summary said that we should seek a consensus on the talk page. I don't think this statement is undue for the lead. There are multiple sources and sentences in the article to support this description. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Just in general, I think we should agree that the bar for adding something like this (a description of a major internet community as a religion and a cult) in the first paragraph of an article and with no contrasting views should be quite high, even if framed as an opinion, per WP:UNDUE.

A bigger problem is that this is not written as a concern by a small group of people. Instead, it is presented almost as if it was an agreement or consensus view held by all of “former members, the media, and religious scholars,” even though the sources only back up these claims, for each of these groups, as being held by an anecdotal amount of people, and arguably only the claims by the media raise to the standard of sufficiently notable. It's also the case that the source article that precipitated the addition of this claim in the first place was written by a journalist, Cade Metz, who has had very public clashes with the rationalist community in the past, and whose neutrality on the issue should be at least taken with some skepticism.

Given the relative notability of some of these views, it would be bad not to have them somewhere in the page, but in my opinion the existing article prior to this edit already did a good job of explaining them (though a section on “Criticism” or something like it could possibly be even better). Adding them in the first paragraph in this way, to me, seems to constitute both undue weight and lack of balance, making it seem like this is some sort of consensus, when there's a much larger dominant view on the topic. agucova (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If anybody wants to add more reliable sources to show that "cult" or "religion" is a unwarranted description for the rationalist community, then they are welcome to cite them.

I'm aware of the February 2021 article that journalist Cade Metz wrote in the New York Times. While it doesn't describe the rationalist community as a cult or religion, it does describe them as a safe space. A more recent NYTimes article described the Rationalist community as a religion in its title, and it heavily implied that it's a religion in its text.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. If there are sources which describe the RC as a cult or religion in the article body, then they should be mentioned in the lead. The lead should be expanded with another paragraph or two anyway, since it needs to sufficiently summarize everything in the body. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t say once in the article that anyone has even called it a cult or a religion. We have one source saying some current and former members have described the community's "dynamics" as “cult-like”, and one longer quote from an academic saying it’s close to, but not, a cult. That’s two attributed points of view, neither of which describe the community as a religion or cult. In general, coverage of this community does not include such comparisons. It's just flatly undue—and actually literally false, because the prose in question says the rationalist community has been described as a religion and a cult, whereas we have no sources describing it as a religion, nor as a cult. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There's also the following quote from the NYTimes article, "The Rise of Silicon Valley’s Techno-Religion": “Religion is text and story and ritual,” said Ilia Delio, a Franciscan sister and professor of theology at Villanova University. “All of that applies here.”

which comes closer to calling it a religion. But I agree our sources do not explicitly describe it as a cult or religion, so this should not be in the lead. (Edited to add: I do think a more nuanced description should stay in the body of the article, since we have many sources likening it to a religious or spiritual movement one way or the other.) Elestrophe (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

To the contrary, there are multiple reliable sources that describe the RC a religion, cult, or cult-like. These should be cited in both the body and the lead, but also with other citations for opposing views to maintain WP:NPOV. Edit: I no longer stand by this belief. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That is simply not true. There is an NYTimes article "The Rise of Silicon Valley's Techno-Religion" that is cited in the article, and it describes the Rationality community as a religion in its title, and it has a quote and text inside it that strongly support describing it as a religion, which was inside the article before I started editing it. I also just added another source that describes the Rationality community as a cult.

Nevertheless, I also recognize that there are other sources which argue against describing the RC as a religion, cult, or cult-like, and I will be sure to cite them to avoid giving any undue weight to the cult and religion characterizations. Edit: I don't think it's necessary to do this anymore. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with Zero Contradictions; UNDUE to claim when this is, at best, a metaphor used by some individuals, not many Secarctangent (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

You could say that the descriptions of the Rationalist community as a cult or religion are opinions, but they are obviously not metaphorical. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Exceptionally WP:UNDUE. The phrasing is MOS:WEASEL because it doesn't really make a claim to prominence, which masks the issue of undue weight. What fraction of the former members call it a cult? What fraction of media coverage characterizes it as a cult? This is left unsaid, hence, it's a MOS:WEASEL issue. Leijurv (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I concur. The phrasing of the old sentence in the lead was very problematic due to MOS:WEASEL, so I'm glad that Zanahary removed it. I added a sentence to the body with more precise wording, and specific citations for each of the various characterizations of the RC. I also included a following sentence to present opposing views. I am going to copy that sentence from the body to the lead, since I believe that it's accurate and that it avoids the previous problems with the old sentence. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense? To be clear, the version that's "very problematic" is The movement has been described by former members, media, and religious scholars as either a religion or a cult.. And your version is The rationalist community, its aspects, and organizations have been variously described by media, religious scholars, and former members as a safe space,[4] a religion,[5] a cult,[6] and cult-like.[7][8][9] These descriptions have also been criticized as ambiguous[10] and unmerited.[11] I recognize there are now cited sources, and I recognize that each specific word is attached to a specific citation. Nevertheless, what I said above about MOS:WEASEL still applies just as much. This is not fixable by adding citations because I didn't take issue with WP:V, rather with WP:NPOV. In order to be WP:DUE, weight needs to be given in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. If some former members have described the community as cult-like, that does pass WP:V, but does not necessarily pass WP:NPOV. It gives undue weight to something that is not actually that prominent in the WP:RS, see examples by comparison. The sentence is also WP:SYNTHy because you're blending together three sources (media, religious scholars, and former members) into a combined statement. Especially the next sentence, These descriptions have also been criticized as ambiguous[10] and unmerited.[11] is textbook "some people say" weasel words, except even worse because it's passive voice. Also keep in mind that there is a high bar for describing something as a cult at all on Wikipedia, let alone in the lead, see MOS:LABEL. These sources are a collection of "some people say" and they don't build up to anything near a WP:RS consensus to the reputation of rationalists. An example of a strong source would be a secondary or tertiary source written by a subject matter expert that characterizes in what ways rationalism is like a cult. You'd probably say that this source constitutes that evidence, but the mentions of the word "cult" are quoted and not actually a claim being made by the author (WP:LINKSINACHAIN). This one is a bit strange because other than the title and heading it doesn't seem to substantiate any link between rationalism and safe spaces? Anyway at the end of the day the phrasing, and its location of the article, give undue weight. I'm not denying that you have a good WP:RS in the NYT that analyses rationalism from the lens of religion but it's dubious whether that perspective is prominent enough overall to be mentioned in the lede. But comparing it to a religion isn't really the issue, it's the "cult" and "cult-like" that trigger MOS:LABEL, and that I think is more clearly undue weight. Leijurv (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This was a very thoughtful and thorough response. I think I now understand what the problems were. What do you think about the current version? I don't think the lead or the body has any weasel words now, and I included a sentence, source, and quotation where the author labeled the RC directly as a cult. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! This version seems essentially fine to me. This sentence In The New York Times, religious scholar Greg Epstein stated: "When you think about the billions at stake and the radical transformation of lives across the world because of the eccentric vision of this group, how much more cult-y does it have to be for this to be a cult? Not much."[27] is good because 1. the cited source is NYT, which is fine (WP:NYT) and 2. the author is credentialed as a religious scholar which clarifies their authority to make such a claim and 3. the prominence of this idea in the article is reasonably not too far off from its prominence in the sources. This sentence Some members and former members of the community have said that aspects of the community and its organizations are cult-like. is all right, because 1. the claim is attributed to members and former members, which is a lower standard of proof and 2. the prominence of this idea in the article is rather low (just a single sentence, not in the lead, we don't dwell on the idea that much). (Sorry to beat the dead horse again but the phrasing is still a little bit weasely/synthy - the ideal source for a sentence like this would be a WP:SECONDARY that actually makes the exact claim "some former members have called it a cult", as opposed to "X person said Y" which is WP:PRIMARY per WP:LINKSINACHAIN). However that is not a big issue and this is overall fine to my eyes. Leijurv (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That sentence isn’t due in lead per current body. However, I think lead should be expanded to more adequately reflect the Description and History sections. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I updated the body. I agree that the lead should be expanded to adequately summarize the entire article. This should be done even if this talk page reaches a consensus that the Rationalist community should not be described as a cult or religion in the lead section. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

"Cult" is a very loaded term and we should probably avoid it when we don't have particularly clear sourcing describing a group this way. A New York Times article that cites one Catholic theologian would not be what I would describe as particularly clear sourcing. "Religion" is more a matter of whether it is an accurate summary of the body. I would not oppose calling them a religion if the sources represent that view. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Me either, and the sources definitely do not. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. There are no sources which explicitly describe the RC as a religion. There is one source that explicitly calls it a cult, but I see no reason to mention it in the lead. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that a single source is insufficient for that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to also be very clear I agree completely with @Zanahary that Unherd is a non-reliable source and opinions sourced to it should generally be treated as undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I generally prefer to assess opinion sources by author, not publisher, and in this case the author does not make for a reliable source on rationalism nor cults. So high-five! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I certainly get where you're coming from - I generally want to look at both because both authorial reputation and editorial standards affect source reliability and dueness. In the case of Unherd their standards are low enough that the author would have a pretty high hill to climb before I'd consider their positions due. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be the case according to WP:SOURCE. The UnHerd source should be excluded then.

At this point, I think expanding the AI safety section is the main thing that could be done to improve this article, but I'm probably going to work on something else. Zero Contradictions (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for reasons already eloquently articulated by others. Applies both to "religion" and "cult." I will note that this all seems to have been precipitated by this questionable series of edits by ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, one of which is still extant on this talk page. The same editor has made even more questionable edits on other rationalist-related pages. Patternbuffered (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Patternbuffered: I don't think my edits are "questionable" when they are backed up by reliable sources like the New York Times. It's not like I have any personal experience or opinion on this subject. I'm also curious what you find "questionable" about copyediting citations, removing duplicate citations, adding redirect categories, and adding Category:Fictional cats to a page about a fictional cat, since those are the edits you linked. Since you are so quick to call these edits questionable, I'm sure you can justify why each one is bad, right? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not Patternbuffered, but I will comment. This edit changed the lead section to add weasel words, it did not have citations to verify it, it was arguably WP:SYNTH, and it was undue.

I didn't think that additional sentence to the lead section was problematic when I first saw it, but I eventually understood why after I read more of the article's cited sources, and especially after other people explained it to me on this talk page. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with disagreement over the edit, it's not a hill I'm going to die on and content disagreements are normal. I just don't think that one perceived bad edit justifies the implication that I'm going around making questionable/biased edits in this topic area and then linking to my contributions like some sort of gotcha. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding the NYTimes quote by Greg Epstein was a great edit and so were some of the things that you mentioned. But there just aren't enough high-quality sources to justify describing the Rationalist Community as a religion or a religious movement in the article. Ditto for categorizing it as such.

Indeed, all editors should assume that other editors are acting in good faith, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary (WP:AGF). I haven't looked at all your edits, but I did not see clear evidence of bad faith in what I did see. Zero Contradictions (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see why..." this very discussion is the reason why. It exists becuase of these two edits of yours from my first example. As for the rest, what stands out the most applies to those two edits as well: no edit summaries in cases where there should be (WP:UNRESPONSIVE). What was changed and why? Just a brief explanation to save time for your fellow editors is very helpful and much appreciated (H:ES). Otherwise, when we find things like what brought us here, it makes us wonder what else is out there and so for example we click through to this edit of Roko's basilisk from my second example and discover things like "Ziz LaSota, the leader of the cult" etc. Patternbuffered (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the absence of an edit summary, what's wrong with that first edit? I think it was a good edit, and nobody has removed it, nor has anybody given a reason why its text should be removed. Zero Contradictions (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not putting edit summaries was a force of habit that I acknowledge is unhelpful, and I have been working to use edit summaries much more since I got a talk page message about it ten days ago. Again, I don't think something like that justifies the uncharitable implication that I'm going around making disruptive edits or pushing some sort of agenda against rationalism. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply you had an agenda against rationalism, and I apologize if it came across that way. I looked for what had precipitated this discussion, and I could see the logic in your edits and why you edited related articles. I saw no evidence of an agenda, and I could see you're a prolific editor. What I had hoped to convey was how *in general* on Wikipedia one decision can have many repercussions - e.g. adding religious categories to multiple pages based on one source, or multiple edits of related articles for the same reason. And also how really REALLY helpful edit summaries can be - which you seem to get. I would also reiterate the *in cases where there should be* part. Time is valuable. Significant changes warrant summaries, not copy edits. All the best, and happy editing. Patternbuffered (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

All good, thanks for explaining. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with the "questionable series of edits" characterization.

For example, "Ziz LaSota, the leader of the cult" is not particularly far out there. Here "cult" refers to Zizians, not to the Rationalist community. Taking this sentence from that article:

The group has been called radical or cult-like by publications such as The Independent, the Associated Press, SFGate, and Reason. The Boston Globe and The New York Times have compared the Zizians to the Manson Family.

we see that three of the six sources explicitly call the Zizians a cult or even "death cult", while the other three hedge with "cult-like" or "described as cult-like". Based on this, I think it's still a fine choice to avoid calling the Zizians a cult in wikivoice, but it's also totally reasonable for an editor to come to the conclusion that calling them a cult in wikivoice is warranted.

Similarly, for Rationalist community, I think based on policy that we should not call them a religion in Wikivoice, but I can again see how an editor can reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. So I would not call this a "questionable series of edits", but rather a series of good-faith, WP:BOLD edits that other editors happen to disagree with.

Elestrophe (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

References

MIRI critique

@Eigenbra, does the source with the cult-like self-importance quote about MIRI relate it more broadly to the rationalist community? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It's literally in the previous sentence: Taylor, who wrote about her breakdown in a 14,000-word blog post in 2021 on the forum LessWrong, a hub for rationalist thought, said that some tenets and practices of rationalists could test the limits of a person’s sanity, sending them down existential wormholes. She described a “cult-like” sense of self-importance that coursed through MIRI. Eigenbra (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

14,000-word blog post in 2021 on the forum LessWrong

Please see WP:RS and WP:DUE. We can't use that kind of source, unless you want to argue LessWrong is a reliable source in general, which I'm extremely skeptical of. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The source here is the SF Chronicle article which describes this incident, not the LessWrong post itself. Elestrophe (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The source seems to be only talking about MIRI specifically, then? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it too minor of a detail and too tangential to rationalism to be due for the article. If we represented the text precisely, our prose would be something like “one former member of the community described a “cult-like” sense of self-importance at the MIRI, a rationalist organization, in a blog post.” That’s not really important information. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using this source to support the sentence as written, since it is clearly making a point about the rationalist community writ large, and not just MIRI. However, there is plenty of support already for that sentence and there is no need to WP:OVERCITE, so I commented out that reference. Eigenbra (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Is the Gideon Lewis-Kraus quote UNDUE?

The article quoted Gideon Lewis-Kraus writing in the New Yorker about how the rationalists have given safe harbor to egregious ideas such as the ones associated with neoreaction. @Secarctangent removed this quoted as "UNDUE". The same editor also recently tried to remove content from the LessWrong article linking rationalists to neoreaction. The connection between rationalists and neoreaction is widely discussed in reliable sources, as was pointed out in the discussion over the LessWrong edits. Also, this is a particularly good source about this connection. I don't see how including this quoting is giving undue weight to this connection. Eigenbra (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't believe that the Gideon Lewis-Kraus quote is undue either, so I restored it. As I said in my edit summary, that quote is necessary to explain what kinds of objectionable topics that the rationalists are willing to engage with.

It also gives context to the sentences that follow it. For example, that paragraph has a sentence that says "Though this attitude is based on "the view that vile ideas should be countenanced and refuted rather than left to accrue the status of forbidden knowledge". Including that quote would suggest that the RC is largely opposed to scientific racism and neoreactionary views. Without the quote, the paragraph becomes ambiguous. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)