LW already feels uncomfortably polarized with a clique of ridiculously high karma users at the top.
Huh. never noticed that. A clique? What an interesting perspective. How much karma do you mean? Or is it some subset of high karma users? For example, I happen to have just over 10k karma, does it make me a clique member? What about TheOtherDave, or Nancy? How do you tell if someone is in this clique? How does someone in the clique tell if she is?
Presumably you joined a while ago, when there weren’t so many intimidating high-karma users around
For example, I happen to have just over 10k karma, does it make me a clique member? What about TheOtherDave, or Nancy?
Yes on all counts. You’re clearly the cool kids here.
How do you tell if someone is in this clique?
You see them talk like they know each other. You see them using specialized terms without giving any context because everybody knows that stuff already. You see their enormous, impossible karma totals and wonder if they’ve hacked the system somehow.
How does someone in the clique tell if she is?
Dunno. It probably looks completely different from the other side. I’m just saying that’s what it feels like (and this is bad for attracting new members), not that’s what it’s really like.
Well, for example, I’m as aware of the differences between me and shminux as I ever was. From my perspective (and from theirs, I suspect), we aren’t nearly as homogenous as we apparently are from lmm’s perspective.
For the record, I have also noticed this subset of LW users—I tend to think of them as “Big Names”—and:
You could ask the same of any clique;
It seems like these high-profile members are actually more diverse in their opinions than mere “regulars”.
Of course, this is just my vague impression. And I doubt it’s unique to LessWrong, or particularly worrying; it’s just, y’know, some people are more active members of the community or however you want to phrase it.
(I’ve noticed similar “core” groups on other websites, it’s probably either universal or a hallucination I project onto everything.)
Relevant link: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (which is mostly talking about real-life political groups, but still, much of it is relevant):
Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion [...]
Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities. They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which creates elites in any group and makes them so difficult to break.
These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group. If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks of communication. Because people are friends, because they usually share the same values and orientations, because they talk to each other socially and consult with each other when common decisions have to be made, the people involved in these networks have more power in the group than those who don’t. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friends that are made in it. [...]
Because elites are informal does not mean they are invisible. At any small group meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing whom. The members of a friendship group will relate more to each other than to other people. They listen more attentively, and interrupt less; they repeat each other’s points and give in amiably; they tend to ignore or grapple with the “outs” whose approval is not necessary for making a decision. But it is necessary for the “outs” to stay on good terms with the “ins.” Of course the lines are not as sharp as I have drawn them. They are nuances of interaction, not prewritten scripts. But they are discernible, and they do have their effect. Once one knows with whom it is important to check before a decision is made, and whose approval is the stamp of acceptance, one knows who is running things.
Huh. never noticed that. A clique? What an interesting perspective. How much karma do you mean? Or is it some subset of high karma users? For example, I happen to have just over 10k karma, does it make me a clique member? What about TheOtherDave, or Nancy? How do you tell if someone is in this clique? How does someone in the clique tell if she is?
Presumably you joined a while ago, when there weren’t so many intimidating high-karma users around
Yes on all counts. You’re clearly the cool kids here.
You see them talk like they know each other. You see them using specialized terms without giving any context because everybody knows that stuff already. You see their enormous, impossible karma totals and wonder if they’ve hacked the system somehow.
Dunno. It probably looks completely different from the other side. I’m just saying that’s what it feels like (and this is bad for attracting new members), not that’s what it’s really like.
(nods) True enough.
That said, you’re absolutely right that it looks completely different from “the other side.”
What does it look like?
Well, for example, I’m as aware of the differences between me and shminux as I ever was. From my perspective (and from theirs, I suspect), we aren’t nearly as homogenous as we apparently are from lmm’s perspective.
For the record, I have also noticed this subset of LW users—I tend to think of them as “Big Names”—and:
You could ask the same of any clique;
It seems like these high-profile members are actually more diverse in their opinions than mere “regulars”.
Of course, this is just my vague impression. And I doubt it’s unique to LessWrong, or particularly worrying; it’s just, y’know, some people are more active members of the community or however you want to phrase it.
(I’ve noticed similar “core” groups on other websites, it’s probably either universal or a hallucination I project onto everything.)
Relevant link: The Tyranny of Structurelessness (which is mostly talking about real-life political groups, but still, much of it is relevant):
I always assumed I’d get a black cloak and a silver mask in the mail once I break 10K and take the Mark of Bayes. Isn’t that what happens?
We aren’t supposed to talk about it.