+OUTLINE—
+
+ * Requiem for the Rationalists
+ * I've been involved in this subculture that's specifically about truthseeking for the past 10 years, and so in late 2016, early 2017 I kind of freaked-out, because the two-types thing seemed pretty obvious to me, and I thought that if we were going to be an epistemic community, we should get this one right, and if we can't, that's really confusing—there was actually a nervous breakdown and hopsitalization involved
+ * that may have bene slightly pre-mature; psychology is hard!
+ * lately I've been focusing on this philosophy-of-language thing, which seems _much_ more solid
+ * And ... I'm still not impressed.
+ * All the actually-smart people clearly _see_ the Bayes-structure I'm trying to point to, but they either find some excuse to dismiss it (often using the word "whatever"; I consider this blameworthy), or say that they don't want to touch the subject in public (which I don't find blameworthy if you do it explicitly)
+ * nothing is _really_ changing, but I need to stop attaching value to the rationalist brand name
+ * expecting "rationalist" social consensus to be reasonable creates a _huge_ amount of cognitive dissonance
+ * "If you speak overmuch of the way, you will not attain it."
+ * my open-source peeps are way worse
+ * martyrdom, strategy, pseudonyms
+ * I had fantasized about _suddenly_ stopping preference-falsifying on Twitter to be a Damore- or Lindsay-Shepard-like hero
+
+(The virtue of navel-gazing is that it takes less effort to just bare your soul, but this still feels like it takes enough effort to get right-enough that I might not even bother? We'll see if I summon up the energy to just bang it out in one sitting on a dedicated day: that's what "Untitled Metablogging" was, and it was a hit; and the anti-martyrdom thing is important)