What's in a name? That which we call a rationalist…

College of Cartographers has a nice secret society ring to it. It's versatile as well. I can imagine it being applied to explorer-adventurers out to conquer terra incognita or a shadowy group governing the world.

One advantage of using something unique to our community, like cartographer, is that it doesn't have any pre-formed associations in epistemology or science. If we use it consistently and well, there is always a chance it will catch on more broadly.

To counteract the inclusiveness it might bring (e.g. Rattlers vs. Eagles at Robbers Cave), we can make an effort to honorarily induct others doing good work. Greg Mankiw did a good job marketing the Pigou Club by identifying those with similar views to him.

If we carry on as we seem to have begun, Less Wrong will be to rationalism as the Royal Society was to Natural Philosophy. "Less Wrong reader" will sound like "Fellow of the Royal Society". Not a bad epithet, I think.

I think we want to stay away from names that reference end results, instead of processes. Goal-based names can make it falsely sound like we have already achieved those goals. To me, "optimizer" is most likely to be interpreted as "one who makes optimal decisions", which would be presumptuous. It can also be interpreted as "one who optimizes (but doesn't necessarily succeed)", but this is the same ambiguity that "rationalist" has.

For example, "rationalist should win!", but I don't think we should go by "winner". On the other hand, "evidentialist" stays away from most claims about what we are like by referencing a position on the justification of beliefs.

I don't think we should call ourselves anything at all because labeling yourself ("I am X") is simply inaccurate.

You may as well stop thinking, because thinking of X with a map of X is simply inaccurate.

Much of what we here appreciate that is not widely appreciated elsewhere is not a pick-and-mix collection of rationalist tips, but a coherent body of thought with complex interdependencies, which in my opinion adds up to a coherent programme to set out what rationality is and how to achieve it, and a taxonomy of the ways you can think you've solved a problem when you haven't. We'll draw people in with the tidbits, but at some point we're going to have to talk about the meat of it, and it would be nice to have a name for that.

I still like aspiring rationalist: rationalist, by which I understand one who behaves rationally, modified by aspiring, which I understand to imply the proper humility of recognizing that none among us is truly rational, that there is always ever more we all must learn. (Following badger's update, I do mean we in the most inclusive sense, as most aspiring rationalists are elsewhere: the reason this business of rationality is such a special endeavor is that true beliefs and effective actions are about the closest thing there can be to a universal ideal. The blog is but a device; the community we hope a mere conduit. See also the twelfth virtue.)

I don't take seriously the objection that rationalist has been used to refer to other philosophies. I am given to understand that rationality is a standard term in economics and cognitive psychology, and if someone out there is that hellbent on confusing us with Spinoza, I'm inclined to just let them.

All this said, of course people can and should call themselves whatever they like.

This implies to me that it can be achieved, and when it is achieved, it is a simple switch from aspiring X to just plain X.

But we're not aspiring rationalists, we're aspiring rational people (at least if "aspiring X" means "aspiring to be X"). Though on the other hand maybe "rationalist" means "one who wields rationality skill", sort of like how a "pianist" is not just someone who approves of pianos.

One reason against rationalist, though not a huge one, is that in philosophy it refers to an adherent of a particular theory of epistemology [...] it could lead to confusion (though obviously only among the relatively small number of people who have studied epistemology).

Since it's in Philosophy 101 (or so I assume), you don't need to study that much. The meaning of the term shifted over time, it's like appealing to the etymology of some normal word in the already pointless definition debate.

I agree, but is there a good alternative? I've heard a couple of complaints that I agree with, but is rationalist just the least bad term?

eventually we're going to need to use these terms out loud -- x-rationalist sounds an awful lot like "former rationalist".

My friend Amanda, who is studying Japanese in order to teach English in Japan, writes:

Bayes (if it's pronounced how I think it would be pronounced) would actually translate to beizu in katakana. Otherwise, Beizu-tsukai would be perfect, I think. The person is probably thinking of "mahou-tsukai" which is technically a "magic user" but always translates to "witch" or "wizard" in English.

There's always Bayesian Empirimancer... but that's probably getting a bit too silly.

"member of the Bayes-based [or probability-based] community"?

I like this. It is a little awkward, but evidentialism appears to be very close to what we mean by epistemic rationality here. I'd be interested to hear if someone has an idea how Bayesian priors might fit in with evidentialism. My guess is that an evidentialist would say that pure priors are not justified, but gain justification as you incorporate more evidence in. However, we do generally have a sense that some priors are better than others. Is that belief justified by evidence?

Well I'd reprise my objection to stealing the names of obscure-among-the-general-population theories of epistemology. And if you don't care about that objection then I think rationalist has the edge over evidentialist. It's also awkward sounding and I'm not sure it captures the feel of what we're doing. Our concern hasn't been with the evidence so much as how the evidence is processed.

Oh, um, in case it wasn't clear, I think everybody would have their own array of negative and positive descriptors. I don't think we're that similar.

That sounds like someone who rationalizes, which is something we should be avoiding.

It's weird that trying to rationalize something can go against rationality, but that's English for you.

Edit: I assume this was downvoted so heavily because I failed do the constructive thing by providing a suggestion of my own. Sorry about that.

How about something based on the name of the site? LWite, LWer, LWan? Or maybe a more pronounceable version like Lewite, etc.

If we're going for pejoratives, I prefer "epistemology fascist".

omg .. Yudkis .. lol .. this is a WINNER.

We could go ahead and identify ourselves with the fiction and call ourselves Conspirators, but perhaps that sounds too negative.

There's also conflation with Bayesian superintelligences and the proponents of Bayesian interpretation of propability. Look at the disambiguation list on Wikipedia!

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory, put forth by John Stuart Mill. It's distinct from confusingly similar technical terms like expected utility, and is definitely not a unanimous ethical position around here.