Before wanting to grow “the community” it makes sense to ask what “the community” happens to be.
You can count Scott’s blog into the community or you can decide that the community is only what’s branded as LW.
This community is some kind of organization, and it has a goal. To be precise, it probably has two goals, as I see it:
to make existing members more rational
to get more members.
I wouldn’t consider that to be the main goals.
For me one of the most important goals is developing the “art of rationality”. A lot of discussion on LW is not about simply applying existing techniques of how to be rational but to develop new concepts.
A while ago someone complained that he read a LW post about how to estimate whether a woman will say yes when asked out for a date as probability.
If you think the goal is effective action, there are a lot of reasons why that’s not a good way to approach the subject of asking out a woman. If you on the other hand care about how probability estimates are made in emotionally charged real life situations the inquiry is a lot more interesting.
When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity.
At our Berlin LW meetup we could trivially increase the attendance by putting it on meetup.com. We don’t and as a result have a meetup with the kind of people who find the event without having to check meetup.
I would STRONGLY encourage new topics
So, what’s stopping you from posting new topics yourself?
When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity.
Exactly the reason why I posted. Nobody wants to make a big community by destroying the quality. That’s the main topic of this course I recommended.
For me one of the most important goals is developing the “art of rationality”.
Would it be easier if there were 10 times more people like you, who want to do the same?
Would it be easier if existing people were more rational?
Your goal has nothing(or very little) to do with my goals, which is self- and world-improvement. So I would call your and my goals as subgoals with regard to community. If any of our goals would be main goal to the community, the other guy would not have interest to contribute.
This is the reason i ask for separation of topics.
So, what’s stopping you from posting new topics yourself?
I just did, my friend. This topic is on growth of the community.
What you want to say is “it’s not the topic I’m interested in”, and that’s the reason I want separation of topics. So that I can speak about growth of the community without bothering you.
So, what’s stopping you from posting new topics yourself? I just did, my friend. This topic is on growth of the community.
I don’t think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward.
So that I can speak about growth of the community without bothering you.
I don’t think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction.
Especially for people with low karma.
I don’t think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward.
I don’t think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction.
Funny you say that. Because you want LW to go forward, no? I got that from your wording.
However, you want to avoid talking about that, and you want to proceed doing what you feel you need to do, which is making posts on whatever you want to post about. You don’t want to do it deliberately, and you want to let it happen on its own. I think that if you thought for 5 minutes on this topic (improvement of LW), you would not have this opinion.
Especially for people with low karma.
Is this ad hominem?
Better evaluate my arguments than my karma. And even if you want to evaluate me, having karma as only argument is pretty miserable.
I will continue with position you want LW to improve.
Do you claim that staying the same will improve LW or its members? Do we agree LW has to change, as well as its members in order to improve?
Do we agree change has to be deliberately chosen to be an improvement?
Do you claim you can do it with your gut feeling?
Do you claim that course I offered as a resource is false in any way? If so, please refer me to the counterargument.
Do you claim organization of the site would not be good for its members?
Do you claim segregation of topics would not organize this site?
Do you claim this solution is not feasible?
I tried to be rigorous towards arguments you offered, and not harsh to you. I love you, and i hope this conversation will do good to both of us.
Please stop this. Unusual familiarity in the context of disagreeing with someone, is condescending and an insult. And no, it doesn’t fool everyone, either.
If you don’t mind, explain, I honesty don’t get it. I don’t see how that can be an insult.
If i wanted to insult him, I would do that much simpler.
My reasoning was:
There is no way he can see my face, or my mimics, therefore he can perceive me as aggressive, although I am not. I wanted to make an end to any idea of aggressiveness. I want to make an agreement, and not to have endless conversation just because I am perceived aggressive, and because I don’t look like someone you want to agree with.
I wanted to show open palms or something, but I cannot do that on keyboard. So in order to express my attitude, i said that to point out my friendly attitude towards him in contrast to my rigorous attitude towards his arguments.
Besides, it’s not even a lie. My vocabulary is maybe too small, and “love” has a bit wide meaning, but I do feel some kind of brother or sister love towards everyone.
Funny thing, the previous person with minimal earlier site presence who came in with “here’s how to start properly growing Less Wrong” was also kind of tone-deaf and annoying.
You are just rude now. You just straight up try to insult and discredit me, you did not even try to hide it.
I never said “this is how to …” I offered course specialized in that topic. I offered material. I don’t own that course, i just thought it would be useful to people who try to get more members here (I met few of them, so i expect there are more). I properly separated what is my idea, from that course.
If i wanted to insult him, I would do that much simpler.
Insults don’t work that way. And I don’t think you seriously believe that just because someone’s insult could be simpler, it isn’t an insult.
Besides, just because the explanation for an insult isn’t simple doesn’t mean the insult isn’t simple.
I wanted to make an end to any idea of aggressiveness.
The only way you can end aggressiveness is by not being aggressive. You can’t be aggressive and then add something at the end to make up for it.
Besides, it’s not even a lie… I do feel some kind of brother or sister love towards everyone.
It has a meaning based on context, and the meaning based on context is not “I love all human beings”. This ought to go in “geek social fallacies” if it isn’t already; “it’s literally true” is not an excuse. Words have connotations and implications, and it is your responsibility to understand them.
Edit: I believe that if it is plain there is no intention of insult, insult does not exist.
I plainly said that I wasn’t aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words “i love you”.
I have positive record with that tactic, people have understood my attitude like that in the past, and I expected it to work again. It didn’t, and that is fine. Maybe I need better technique to express myself, but that is different topic now, and not important since I expressed everything explicitly afterwards (and now again). Why are you still behaving like I wanted to insult him with these words? You clearly see I don’t have that intention.
it is your responsibility to understand them.
Yeah, it is, but today i don’t understand. The only thing i see is related to “mother love” and sounding like I am above him, but I can’t make a clear case out of it. And understanding is not dirty dishes, I cannot just make a decision to understand them and do it in a few minutes. Maybe I’ll read something on that topic this year.
I think it’s your responsibility that if you see what I expressed and what i wanted to express, you take what I wanted to express (you can even warn me that I expressed wrongly, if you feel so.)
I plainly said that I wasn’t aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words “i love you”.
You can’t add a disclaimer “Don’t interpret my words as aggressive” and then be able to say anything at all without it being interpreted as aggressive. After all, anyone who does have aggressive intentions and just wants to lie about it can use any disclaimer that you can use.
Even as a disclaimer, “I love you” is not very good.
The reason why it is insulting is that using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult. I’m sure I could find some explanation for it (sounding like you’re above him is pretty close), but really, you just need to know that certain things are insults. Understanding why they are insults is less important than understanding that they are insults.
You can’t add a disclaimer “Don’t interpret my words as aggressive”
Well, you can often interpret someone’s words many ways. Just because you cannot see the person, and you cannot get information about their emotional state. So, i think you can write something that can be understood many ways, and add a disclaimer, “it’s not the other thing”.
Regarding
using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult
I never saw this. Maybe we are from different areas, and this could be explained through cultural difference. First, I am thought to never approach opponent as an enemy, and to always keep in mind they are like me (meaning they are humans, with feelings, with ideas, with goals, with hobbies, with experiences) and not empty, emotionless, evil, etc. Furthermore, I approach discussion as a cooperative activity, since its purpose is to improve both me and the guy I discuss with, and give us both insight in something new. That’s why I never saw “familiarity” being looked upon, since that behavior highlights those two mindsets.
However, I acknowledge there are people with different background, who have different approach (different, not opposite). And now I acknowledge some people could perceive familiarity as insult. Would you mind explaining me how does that insult work? I don’t even have a feeling for it. The closest I ever encountered was where middle-high-class-old-lady meets some homeless person who says something along the lines of “we are the same” and then she stops him to say they are not the same, etc, but that is pretty far from this case.
So, i think you can write something that can be understood many ways, and add a disclaimer, “it’s not the other thing”
You can try, but it’s unlikely to work, because anyone who wants to be aggressive and lie about it can say exactly the same thing as you.
Would you mind explaining me how does that insult work?
Yes, I’d mind. Because you can reply “I don’t understand your explanation (or I think your explanation is wrong), and since I don’t understand it, I can keep using the insult”.
That’s wrong. You need to stop using insults whether you understand why they are insults or not. You can’t use “I don’t understand the insult” or “nobody has explained it to me properly” as an excuse to keep saying it.
You don’t use some words only if you think the other guy would classify that as an insult (unless you want to insult him). If you dont know someone classifies something as an insult, you might use it on accident.
There is a set of rules that I use to describe an insult (which I have gotten from my culture). You have one, probably everybody has some set of rules. Some general set of rules. If my set of rules does not classify something as an insult, I will think it is safe to say that.
If it happens that I say something, which you consider an insult, and I don’t, unless I understand what is it about, I will need to remember “never tell to Jiro that you love him” (I simplify for the sake of shortness, but there are other parameters inside that statement). I assume there is an underlying explanation behind your rule. This is probably not the only thing you would consider an insult and i wouldn’t. Maybe you will consider an insult “I hate you”, “I like your dog”, “You love me”, or whatever, but I cannot deduce that based on the “never tell Jiro that you love him”.
Help me. I literary see chaos in your statements. I cannot deduce anything better than “Jiro (and maybe culture he is coming from) is quite different from the people (cultures) I faced already”. I don’t know if you can imagine that state of knowledge about something. It’s mostly empty with only one example.
If you dont know someone classifies something as an insult, you might use it on accident.
Well, now you know.
What I am trying to avoid is
I explain why the statement is an insult
You think “that’s not a very good reason” or “that’s not my motivation”.
You decide that because you don’t think the reason is very good, you can keep using it. Or you decide that because your motivation doesn’t match the reason, you can keep using it.
I cannot deduce anything better than “Jiro (and maybe culture he is coming from) is quite different from the people (cultures) I faced already”.
If you think I’m the only person who sees such things as insulting, and that the cultures you have already faced do not, you haven’t been paying attention.
You suggested that I likely haven’t spend 5 minutes thinking about the subject which shows complete ignorance.
That might be a honest belief but it certainly not rigorous.
Everybody regular of LW has thought about how to improve LW for more than 5 minutes. In my case I have even written tons of posts about the subject.
There are two ways to read this. (1) You felt personally attacked and wanted to retaliate. (2) You lack basic understanding.
It’s very hard to read what you wrote and not come to the conclusion that (1) played at least a part.
I wanted to show open palms or something, but I cannot do that on keyboard.
And you failed. You communicated in a way that doesn’t signal what you want to signal.
It’s interesting that you ask that question will ignoring my request to define what you mean with LW.
I think that if you thought for 5 minutes on this topic (improvement of LW), you would not have this opinion.
If you would search posts that I have written on the topic, would would see that I spent many hours thinking about this topic.
Basically the only way for you to hold this misconception is by being ignorant of prior discussions on the subject on LW. The fact that you haven’t read them suggests to me that you have thought relatively little compared to the amount of thought I put into the subject.
Do you claim segregation of topics would not organize this site?
I think having too much segregation of topic is one of the reasons why the QS forum doesn’t work (where I’m a moderator but lost this argument).
I say that as someone who did moderate a big personal development forum for 4 years and who has been asked for advice by other people starting personal development forums.
How much experience do you have in shaping online communities?
Do we agree change has to be deliberately chosen to be an improvement?
No, I don’t believe in intelligent design.
On LW everybody is free to start a new threads without having a debate about starting it. Karma votes then either show that the community likes the new thread or that it doesn’t like it. It sometimes worthwhile to express arguments for why you vote the way you do, but no group design progress is needed at the start.
Especially for people with low karma. Is this ad hominem? Better evaluate my arguments than my karma.
Karma shows to what extend people contribute to this community. People who don’t contribute to this community don’t have the same standing to tell other people on LW to do things to change LW than people who contribute.
Goals of a community aren’t supposed to be set by outsiders.
It says on the top of the page that this community exists for refining the art of rationality. You don’t care for that goal. You also don’t care for the AI discussions with are a main reason for which LW was founded.
If you want to have something different than what this community is about then why don’t you start something different?
It’s hard to define the terms of that bet. What am I pointing towards:
I did hear of LW in multiple different contexts online.
I heard it recommended at a CCC event.
I know two people who attended local LW meetups who I meet at QS events.
The week before the first LW Community camp a 99% match turned up on OkCupid. It was a woman who was in Berlin for the LW Community camp. If I wouldn’t have known about LW that’s also an event that would have made me check out LW.
Not having heard of LW would mean that I would have quite different ways to consume information and hang out with people.
You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.
Although i don’t know who you are (except the member of the LW), there are lot of people on this world (, andLW is not the only source of rationality).
You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.
That’s arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.
there are lot of people on this world
A person who lives in a village in Africa, might have similar genes as I have but they don’t live in the same culture as I. The fact that I discovered LW is a function of the culture to which I’m exposed.
LW is not the only source of rationality).
Rationality isn’t the only think that make a person like me, to be like me.
You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.
That’s arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.
That is arguing with substance.
Say there is probability x someone is like you. Talking about your personality, not genes.
N is number of people outside LW.
In the first approximation, where
“person is a member of LW” is independant of “person is like you.”
you have (1-x)^N to be right.
I have 1-(1-x)^N to be right.
If N is big, my probability goes to 1, your goes to 0.
Now, you can say, my approximation is false, which it is. LW influenced you, etc, so there is a correlation.
However, unless correlation is 1, there is still a probability for someone to be outside of LW and like you, and if there is a large number N, my probability is still going to 1 and yours is still approaching 0. Exponentially.
Now, you can narrow the choice by demanding more similarities, and then this growth would not be strong enough to make up for the smallness of x. But we are talking about someone who could give equal contribution to LW as you(edit: and who would like to develop art of rationality), you can’t diminish x too much.
It is pretty shitty someone is down-voting you, you are just making a very common mistake of underestimating exponential growth. They could at least tell you what mistake did you make.
That is arguing with substance. Say there is probability x someone is like you.
The problem is that you don’t focus on the intent of the statement. You try to find a meaning in the statement that’s wrong and then focus on that. That goes against the idea of “refuting the central point”. Instead of trying to understand where I’m coming from you assume that I haven’t thought about what I’m saying.
“Like you” is a very vague category.
There a good chance that you engage in the typical mind fallacy. Your personality is more or less normal and therefore there are a lot of people like you outside.
My own personality is not normal but shaped in contexts. It’s shaped by things like doing QS community building where I explained to journalist why QS is the new thing. It’s also shaped by Danis Bois perceptive pedagogy.
But we are talking about someone who could give equal contribution to LW as you
That’s not what “like me” means. A professor of psychology is in many ways not like me but he might still contribute to developing the art of rationality.
Now, you can say, my approximation is false, which it is. LW influenced you, etc, so there is a correlation.
My argument doesn’t rest on the fact that LW influenced me. The QS community is not the LW community even when it’s no accident that I meet.
It is pretty shitty someone is down-voting you, you are just making a very common mistake of underestimating exponential growth. They could at least tell you what mistake did you make.
That’s still the kind of passive aggressive communication that Jiro complained about.
Before wanting to grow “the community” it makes sense to ask what “the community” happens to be. You can count Scott’s blog into the community or you can decide that the community is only what’s branded as LW.
I wouldn’t consider that to be the main goals.
For me one of the most important goals is developing the “art of rationality”. A lot of discussion on LW is not about simply applying existing techniques of how to be rational but to develop new concepts. A while ago someone complained that he read a LW post about how to estimate whether a woman will say yes when asked out for a date as probability.
If you think the goal is effective action, there are a lot of reasons why that’s not a good way to approach the subject of asking out a woman. If you on the other hand care about how probability estimates are made in emotionally charged real life situations the inquiry is a lot more interesting.
When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity. At our Berlin LW meetup we could trivially increase the attendance by putting it on meetup.com. We don’t and as a result have a meetup with the kind of people who find the event without having to check meetup.
So, what’s stopping you from posting new topics yourself?
Exactly the reason why I posted. Nobody wants to make a big community by destroying the quality. That’s the main topic of this course I recommended.
I don’t think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward.
I don’t think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction. Especially for people with low karma.
Funny you say that. Because you want LW to go forward, no? I got that from your wording. However, you want to avoid talking about that, and you want to proceed doing what you feel you need to do, which is making posts on whatever you want to post about. You don’t want to do it deliberately, and you want to let it happen on its own. I think that if you thought for 5 minutes on this topic (improvement of LW), you would not have this opinion.
I will continue with position you want LW to improve. Do you claim that staying the same will improve LW or its members? Do we agree LW has to change, as well as its members in order to improve? Do we agree change has to be deliberately chosen to be an improvement? Do you claim you can do it with your gut feeling? Do you claim that course I offered as a resource is false in any way? If so, please refer me to the counterargument. Do you claim organization of the site would not be good for its members? Do you claim segregation of topics would not organize this site? Do you claim this solution is not feasible?
I tried to be rigorous towards arguments you offered, and not harsh to you. I love you, and i hope this conversation will do good to both of us.
Please stop this. Unusual familiarity in the context of disagreeing with someone, is condescending and an insult. And no, it doesn’t fool everyone, either.
If you don’t mind, explain, I honesty don’t get it. I don’t see how that can be an insult. If i wanted to insult him, I would do that much simpler. My reasoning was: There is no way he can see my face, or my mimics, therefore he can perceive me as aggressive, although I am not. I wanted to make an end to any idea of aggressiveness. I want to make an agreement, and not to have endless conversation just because I am perceived aggressive, and because I don’t look like someone you want to agree with. I wanted to show open palms or something, but I cannot do that on keyboard. So in order to express my attitude, i said that to point out my friendly attitude towards him in contrast to my rigorous attitude towards his arguments. Besides, it’s not even a lie. My vocabulary is maybe too small, and “love” has a bit wide meaning, but I do feel some kind of brother or sister love towards everyone.
Funny thing, the previous person with minimal earlier site presence who came in with “here’s how to start properly growing Less Wrong” was also kind of tone-deaf and annoying.
You are just rude now. You just straight up try to insult and discredit me, you did not even try to hide it.
I never said “this is how to …” I offered course specialized in that topic. I offered material. I don’t own that course, i just thought it would be useful to people who try to get more members here (I met few of them, so i expect there are more). I properly separated what is my idea, from that course.
LW doesn’t have a culture where trying to hide what you want to communicate is valued.
Insults don’t work that way. And I don’t think you seriously believe that just because someone’s insult could be simpler, it isn’t an insult.
Besides, just because the explanation for an insult isn’t simple doesn’t mean the insult isn’t simple.
The only way you can end aggressiveness is by not being aggressive. You can’t be aggressive and then add something at the end to make up for it.
It has a meaning based on context, and the meaning based on context is not “I love all human beings”. This ought to go in “geek social fallacies” if it isn’t already; “it’s literally true” is not an excuse. Words have connotations and implications, and it is your responsibility to understand them.
Edit: I believe that if it is plain there is no intention of insult, insult does not exist.
I plainly said that I wasn’t aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words “i love you”.
I have positive record with that tactic, people have understood my attitude like that in the past, and I expected it to work again. It didn’t, and that is fine. Maybe I need better technique to express myself, but that is different topic now, and not important since I expressed everything explicitly afterwards (and now again). Why are you still behaving like I wanted to insult him with these words? You clearly see I don’t have that intention.
Yeah, it is, but today i don’t understand. The only thing i see is related to “mother love” and sounding like I am above him, but I can’t make a clear case out of it. And understanding is not dirty dishes, I cannot just make a decision to understand them and do it in a few minutes. Maybe I’ll read something on that topic this year. I think it’s your responsibility that if you see what I expressed and what i wanted to express, you take what I wanted to express (you can even warn me that I expressed wrongly, if you feel so.)
You can’t add a disclaimer “Don’t interpret my words as aggressive” and then be able to say anything at all without it being interpreted as aggressive. After all, anyone who does have aggressive intentions and just wants to lie about it can use any disclaimer that you can use.
Even as a disclaimer, “I love you” is not very good.
The reason why it is insulting is that using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult. I’m sure I could find some explanation for it (sounding like you’re above him is pretty close), but really, you just need to know that certain things are insults. Understanding why they are insults is less important than understanding that they are insults.
Well, you can often interpret someone’s words many ways. Just because you cannot see the person, and you cannot get information about their emotional state. So, i think you can write something that can be understood many ways, and add a disclaimer, “it’s not the other thing”.
Regarding
I never saw this. Maybe we are from different areas, and this could be explained through cultural difference. First, I am thought to never approach opponent as an enemy, and to always keep in mind they are like me (meaning they are humans, with feelings, with ideas, with goals, with hobbies, with experiences) and not empty, emotionless, evil, etc. Furthermore, I approach discussion as a cooperative activity, since its purpose is to improve both me and the guy I discuss with, and give us both insight in something new. That’s why I never saw “familiarity” being looked upon, since that behavior highlights those two mindsets.
However, I acknowledge there are people with different background, who have different approach (different, not opposite). And now I acknowledge some people could perceive familiarity as insult. Would you mind explaining me how does that insult work? I don’t even have a feeling for it. The closest I ever encountered was where middle-high-class-old-lady meets some homeless person who says something along the lines of “we are the same” and then she stops him to say they are not the same, etc, but that is pretty far from this case.
Edit: formatting and spelling.
You can try, but it’s unlikely to work, because anyone who wants to be aggressive and lie about it can say exactly the same thing as you.
Yes, I’d mind. Because you can reply “I don’t understand your explanation (or I think your explanation is wrong), and since I don’t understand it, I can keep using the insult”.
That’s wrong. You need to stop using insults whether you understand why they are insults or not. You can’t use “I don’t understand the insult” or “nobody has explained it to me properly” as an excuse to keep saying it.
You don’t use some words only if you think the other guy would classify that as an insult (unless you want to insult him). If you dont know someone classifies something as an insult, you might use it on accident.
There is a set of rules that I use to describe an insult (which I have gotten from my culture). You have one, probably everybody has some set of rules. Some general set of rules. If my set of rules does not classify something as an insult, I will think it is safe to say that.
If it happens that I say something, which you consider an insult, and I don’t, unless I understand what is it about, I will need to remember “never tell to Jiro that you love him” (I simplify for the sake of shortness, but there are other parameters inside that statement). I assume there is an underlying explanation behind your rule. This is probably not the only thing you would consider an insult and i wouldn’t. Maybe you will consider an insult “I hate you”, “I like your dog”, “You love me”, or whatever, but I cannot deduce that based on the “never tell Jiro that you love him”.
Help me. I literary see chaos in your statements. I cannot deduce anything better than “Jiro (and maybe culture he is coming from) is quite different from the people (cultures) I faced already”. I don’t know if you can imagine that state of knowledge about something. It’s mostly empty with only one example.
Well, now you know.
What I am trying to avoid is
I explain why the statement is an insult
You think “that’s not a very good reason” or “that’s not my motivation”.
You decide that because you don’t think the reason is very good, you can keep using it. Or you decide that because your motivation doesn’t match the reason, you can keep using it.
If you think I’m the only person who sees such things as insulting, and that the cultures you have already faced do not, you haven’t been paying attention.
You suggested that I likely haven’t spend 5 minutes thinking about the subject which shows complete ignorance. That might be a honest belief but it certainly not rigorous.
Everybody regular of LW has thought about how to improve LW for more than 5 minutes. In my case I have even written tons of posts about the subject.
There are two ways to read this.
(1) You felt personally attacked and wanted to retaliate.
(2) You lack basic understanding.
It’s very hard to read what you wrote and not come to the conclusion that (1) played at least a part.
And you failed. You communicated in a way that doesn’t signal what you want to signal.
It’s interesting that you ask that question will ignoring my request to define what you mean with LW.
If you would search posts that I have written on the topic, would would see that I spent many hours thinking about this topic.
Basically the only way for you to hold this misconception is by being ignorant of prior discussions on the subject on LW. The fact that you haven’t read them suggests to me that you have thought relatively little compared to the amount of thought I put into the subject.
I think having too much segregation of topic is one of the reasons why the QS forum doesn’t work (where I’m a moderator but lost this argument).
I say that as someone who did moderate a big personal development forum for 4 years and who has been asked for advice by other people starting personal development forums.
How much experience do you have in shaping online communities?
No, I don’t believe in intelligent design.
On LW everybody is free to start a new threads without having a debate about starting it. Karma votes then either show that the community likes the new thread or that it doesn’t like it. It sometimes worthwhile to express arguments for why you vote the way you do, but no group design progress is needed at the start.
Do-ocracy is a decent organisational concept.
Karma shows to what extend people contribute to this community. People who don’t contribute to this community don’t have the same standing to tell other people on LW to do things to change LW than people who contribute.
Goals of a community aren’t supposed to be set by outsiders.
It says on the top of the page that this community exists for refining the art of rationality. You don’t care for that goal. You also don’t care for the AI discussions with are a main reason for which LW was founded.
If you want to have something different than what this community is about then why don’t you start something different?
Everyone who’s like me already knows that LW exists.
Do you want to bet?
It’s hard to define the terms of that bet. What am I pointing towards:
I did hear of LW in multiple different contexts online.
I heard it recommended at a CCC event.
I know two people who attended local LW meetups who I meet at QS events.
The week before the first LW Community camp a 99% match turned up on OkCupid. It was a woman who was in Berlin for the LW Community camp. If I wouldn’t have known about LW that’s also an event that would have made me check out LW.
Not having heard of LW would mean that I would have quite different ways to consume information and hang out with people.
You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong. Although i don’t know who you are (except the member of the LW), there are lot of people on this world (, andLW is not the only source of rationality).
That’s arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.
A person who lives in a village in Africa, might have similar genes as I have but they don’t live in the same culture as I. The fact that I discovered LW is a function of the culture to which I’m exposed.
Rationality isn’t the only think that make a person like me, to be like me.
That is arguing with substance. Say there is probability x someone is like you. Talking about your personality, not genes. N is number of people outside LW. In the first approximation, where “person is a member of LW” is independant of “person is like you.” you have (1-x)^N to be right. I have 1-(1-x)^N to be right. If N is big, my probability goes to 1, your goes to 0.
Now, you can say, my approximation is false, which it is. LW influenced you, etc, so there is a correlation. However, unless correlation is 1, there is still a probability for someone to be outside of LW and like you, and if there is a large number N, my probability is still going to 1 and yours is still approaching 0. Exponentially. Now, you can narrow the choice by demanding more similarities, and then this growth would not be strong enough to make up for the smallness of x. But we are talking about someone who could give equal contribution to LW as you(edit: and who would like to develop art of rationality), you can’t diminish x too much.
It is pretty shitty someone is down-voting you, you are just making a very common mistake of underestimating exponential growth. They could at least tell you what mistake did you make.
The problem is that you don’t focus on the intent of the statement. You try to find a meaning in the statement that’s wrong and then focus on that. That goes against the idea of “refuting the central point”. Instead of trying to understand where I’m coming from you assume that I haven’t thought about what I’m saying.
“Like you” is a very vague category.
There a good chance that you engage in the typical mind fallacy. Your personality is more or less normal and therefore there are a lot of people like you outside.
My own personality is not normal but shaped in contexts. It’s shaped by things like doing QS community building where I explained to journalist why QS is the new thing. It’s also shaped by Danis Bois perceptive pedagogy.
That’s not what “like me” means. A professor of psychology is in many ways not like me but he might still contribute to developing the art of rationality.
My argument doesn’t rest on the fact that LW influenced me. The QS community is not the LW community even when it’s no accident that I meet.
That’s still the kind of passive aggressive communication that Jiro complained about.