One of my least favorite trends in rationalist communities is taking extremely weak signals and using mental gymnastics to amplify those signals into some more dramatic conclusion. Apply overt formal writing style combined with some cleverly disguised fallacies (“few would disagree...”) and the piece has an air of faux sophistication and manufactured consensus.
Meanwhile, you’re arguing that you can draw sweeping conclusions about a person simply because they read a certain publication. Ironic, given the rationalist community’s original embrace of exploring a wide array of perspectives and writings rather than letting pre-conceived biases dominate one’s thinking.
I think you’re projecting your own habit of tying your identity to the material you read. Plenty of people read NYT articles without aligning themselves with the NYT, without thinking of themselves as part of the NYT community, and without building an identity around being an NYT reader. Plenty of people read NYT articles even though they disagree with them. Simply reading the NYT doesn’t turn someone into a self-described NYT person in the way that many people thinking reading SSC turns them into a rationalist.
