Sofie Channel

Sofie Channel

Anonymous 0x198
said (9mo ago #1366 ✔️ ✔️ 83% ✖️ ✖️ ):

Known good guides to gatekeeping?

Suppose you are starting a social club as a means of moving toward something bigger and better.

One important thing to do is gatekeep. You don’t want leftists joining up, because leftists shit up every group they are a part of. You also want to avoid too many shitlibs, at least when building out the core of your group, as they will create a lot of friction when the time comes to, say, have some friendly discussion about the state of the world.

Depending on what the group is organized around, gatekeeping will be harder or easier. Something organized around hiking will exclude fats but not necessarily lefties. Something organized around reading great works in the social sciences won’t really exclude anyone, though the choice of works could do some filtering. A literary group or book club has almost no natural barriers. You see where I am going.

Moreover, gatekeeping online is pretty easy thanks to ban hammers and such, but gatekeeping in the real world can be a more sensitive affair.

What are the best resources you know of for learning the art of gatekeeping? What are your own methods? Hard gatekeeping, soft gatekeeping, you name it. You want to keep the wrong people out without giving away the game and without giving yourself a scarlet letter.

Suppose you are star (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 83% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x199
said (9mo ago #1367 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1368 >>1668:

IME the hardest part is willingness, not skill or technical knowledge. I don't recall any cases where gatekeeping failed because people just *didn't know how*. I know plenty of cases where it failed because people didn't want to be mean, or because no one was willing to have a shitty conversation with someone who had to be kicked out. (I can say from experience that kicking people out is by far the most unpleasant part of running a regular event.) I expect that if you have an idea of what standard you're holding people to, and you're willing to pull the trigger, then that's sufficient.

Because of this, the most effective guides I've seen work by persuading people that gatekeeping is moral and necessary, not by explaining the craft. https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/ and https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism and https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths come to mind. But I don't think that's what you're after.

Hazing works, including hazing of the "lurk moar" or "read the canon" variety, because it forces people to self-select on whether they care enough to pay the toll. Similar effect with anything that requires people to put in legwork or pay a membership fee. Book groups that eject non-readers are sharper than those that let them coast and drag things down. Etc. The people you actually want will find these "costs" much less costly than the posers, dilettantes, and hangers-on. Once a scene is big enough, invite-only inner circles are always where the real action is.

Maybe you might find some good stuff in Lenin's "What Is To Be Done"? It's been a while since I've read it.

IME the hardest part (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x19a
said (9mo ago #1368 ✔️ ✔️ 77% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1370:

>>1367
>well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism
Ironically, I think Lesswrong didn't gatekeep enough to keep from degenerating into a social club for high IQ losers. It was most interesting as a serious philosophical movement, and least interesting as a "bayesian"-themed polyamorous sex cult.

As for OP's question, I think there are no universal rules, and the biggest thing is having some actual context in which you can build up experience making gatekeeping judgement calls. The other anon is right to call out willingness as the zeroth rule.

Ironically, I think (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 77% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x19b
said (9mo ago #1369 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

Yes, the best method of gatekeeping is bullying. When people are below the standards you set for your group, you should directly tell them to their face. If they improve in that regard they knit tighter into your group. If they fail, eventually you kick them out. A more in-depth essay on this here:
>>1031

Yes, the best method (hidden image) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x199
said (9mo ago #1370 ✔️ ✔️ 78% ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1371:

>>1368
>Ironically, I think Lesswrong didn't gatekeep enough to keep from degenerating into a social club for high IQ losers. It was most interesting as a serious philosophical movement, and least interesting as a "bayesian"-themed polyamorous sex cult.

That's true. At the same time, they did an extremely good job of gatekeeping out the leftist entryists that OP mentions. Note that they're probably the most prominent movement that's kept intellectual sovereignty in the face of the Current Thing. I can name half a dozen honeypots who ran the standard playbook of talking about making the space "more welcoming" while dating a series of successively more prominent rationalist men... and then every single time, after 4-6 months all the invitations would abruptly dry up and they'd suddenly find themselves totally shut out. I assume there are lots more that I never heard about, since I left before the rationalists became rich and famous.

I suppose the lesson is that there's more than one type of person you'll have to recognize and gatekeep.

That's true. At the (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ 78% ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x19a
said (9mo ago #1371 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1370
Ok fair enough. The rationalists are notable precisely because they gatekept enough to stay real. I'm just griping because I remember the early peak and the fall into the trough before the recent Lesswrong revival.

Ok fair enough. The (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x19f
said (9mo ago #1376 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1379 >>1389:

I’d be interested to know if keeping out ethnocentric entryists is a concern, and if so, how to do that? This may not be relevant to a purely social club, but it becomes relevant for many organizations at some point, especially if they become politically relevant. For example, allegedly the State Department has a disproportionate number of employees from former Soviet bloc countries dictating their Russia policy (source: Daryl Cooper’s Martyrmade podcast episode on Ukraine; his source: I don’t know), and tech companies like Google and Cisco seem to have issues with caste-based discrimination https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/big-techs-big-problem-also-best-kept-secret-caste-discrimination-rcna33692. Arguably many modern leftist movements have been co-opted by ethnocentric interests, but I’m no expert there. There seems to be no shortage of ethnocentrism in Western countries these days, but the current political or ideological order seems to have little immune system against such things, which has led to much disfunction and rent-seeking. Liberalism’s answer seems to be “just don’t be ethnocentric” but that hasn’t seemed to work. It seems any new ideology that grows out of whatever this is needs to decide how it will address this question and so far this is a topic that I haven’t really seen discussed much, possibly because it is so politically fraught, or more likely because I’m not well read enough. Perhaps this isn’t the correct thread for this question either, the prompt just made me think of it.

I’d be interested to (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x1a1
said (9mo ago #1379 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1389:

>>1376
I'm not aware of so much problems with directly ethnocentric peoples except for the Hindu problem ("caste discrimination" being PC code for hindus preferentially hiring a bunch more hindus from their own tribe or whatever). But the more general problem is that you bring in people's weird ethnic interests and grievances when you bring in all the diversity the empire has to offer. I have a friend in politics who tells stories of his own ethnic grievances with other diverse tribes and how these petty conflicts drive a large portion of "western" politics now. It's actually really hard to govern diverse social spaces, so avoiding diversity where possible is probably the smart play, or knowing how to sort between the problem tribes and the harmless tribes.

I'm not aware of so (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x1a8
said (9mo ago #1389 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1392:

>>1376
>>1379

This seems to be a failure mode for Anglo-derived cultures. Merit-based systems are attempted. High performers are selected. Some high performers have tribal inclinations. This leads to some decay of merit-based selection. This often takes the form of people hiring their coethnics, but it can also take the form of hiring cousin Tommy and so on, which is really the same thing but slightly more whitewashed thanks to accidents of history.

Thankfully, for sufficiently small and nimble groups, this shouldn’t matter. You simply do not give the power to recruit out lightly, and when you do, you make sure the recruiter has to stick their neck all the way out when they bring someone on. Additionally, your process can never be blind, and it won’t be.

Above a certain size, this probably becomes impossible, which is why most theory around organizing recommends keeping the core as small as possible. For a social club, no problem staying small. Set a hard cap. For something seeking to grow in power, though, it seems like a puzzle. More hands, well-utilized, is often a good thing, but the risks of cultural compromise grow at least super-linearly. I might be misremembering, but I believe the take in e.g. Anti-Tech Revolution (which I promise can be read neutrally as a survey of the political organizing literature) is that organizations have a limited time to fulfill their purpose for exactly this reason. Moldbug has rhyming opinions when he is willing to write about coups.

Companies are instructive in their cultural failures but probably not in their telos, which will often be perpetual pursuit of profit until death. At maturity, they seek long, prosperous lives, not short and glorious ones. I am noticing that my ability to think about group action is almost totally enframed by commercial entities. I have a complete lack of imagination, maybe it’s a disease of my generation. I suppose I need to hit the Lenin as #1 suggested.

This seems to be a f (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x1ab
said (9mo ago #1392 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1399:

>>1389
I always cringe at this stuff being called "Anglo" though historically that is it's genealogy. The glories of anglodom were all quite before this failed "meritocracy" idea. The spirit was exhausted by the time it was tried. When meritocracy was implemented I think it lasted about one generation before the new ethnics purged the remnants of anglo power and dismantled meritocracy in favor of racial quotas for their preferred clients and allies. It was always a strategically foolish and dynamically unstable idea.

There is some hope now from certain corners for a reinstatement of meritocracy as an incremental stepping stone back to civilization. Maybe it could work, but it would be temporary afaict. Meritocracy is a cooperative equilibrium that any group can just defect from to take over.

I always cringe at t (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x1ae
said (9mo ago #1399 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1392

> ... a reinstatement of meritocracy as an incremental stepping stone back to civilization. Maybe it could work, but it would be temporary ...

What's the thing we should try to get back to beyond meritocracy? Might it actually be more effective to directly aim at that? (In other words, don't think in terms of a incremental roadmap. Think in terms of the true shift needed.)

To use history as a guide to the question:

> The glories of anglodom were all quite before this failed "meritocracy" idea.

What were the relevant aspects of Anglo before its weakening and decay? Can they be identified and targeted in new form?

What's the thing we (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x1f2
said (9mo ago #1513 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1524:

This guide here is a good resource:
https://edith.reisen/computers/security/forum_shills#cointelpro

I've seen the author employ these tactics and they work very well. Lots of good info on controlling a forum, rules on how to use or deflect disinformation.

More resources are at the bottom here:
https://edith.reisen/computers/security/forum_shills#appendix

This guide here is a (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x19a
said (9mo ago #1524 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ), referenced by >>1536 >>1537:

>>1513
That looks like a great resource. Please post as a new thread so we can discuss.

That looks like a gr (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

Anonymous 0x1f2
said (9mo ago #1537 ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️ ):

>>1524

Thanks! Posted here: >>1536.

Thanks! Posted here: (hidden) ✔️ ✔️ --- ✖️ ✖️

You must login to post.