OK … If someone asked you “So, there’s a million words of these Sequences that you think I should read. What do I get out of reading them?” then what’s the answer to that? You seem to be saying “we don’t think they actually do anything much.” Surely that’s not the case.
Mostly standard arguments, often with nonstandard examples and lively presentation, for a related cluster of philosophical views: physicalism, the appearance of free will as outgrowth of cognitive algorithm, his brand of metaethics, the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, the irrelevance of verbal disputes, etc.
A selective review of the psychology heuristics and biases literature, with entertaining examples and descriptions
A bunch of suggested heuristics, based on personal experience and thought, for debiasing, e.g. leaving a line of retreat to reduce resistance
Some thoughtful exposition of applications of intro probability and Bayes’ theorem, e.g. conservation of expected evidence
Interesting reframings and insights into a number of philosophical problems using the Solomonoff Induction framework, and the “how could this intuition emerge from an algorithm?” approach
Debate about AI with Robin, a science fiction story, a bunch of meta posts, and assorted minor elements
“So, there’s a million words of these Sequences that you think I should read. What do I get out of reading them?” then what’s the answer to that?
The large chunks that are review of existing psychology and philosophy would be hard to get from one or a few books (as they are extracted from far and wide), although those would then be less filtered. They may be more enjoyable and addictive than an organized study program, i.e. as popular science/philosophy, so folk who wouldn’t undertake the former alone find themselves doing the latter, and then perhaps also doing the former. This would depend on how they felt about the writing style, their own habits, and so forth. The other elements would have to be evaluated more idiosyncratically.
Now, because of the online forum element of Less Wrong, there is another big benefit in selectively attracting a very unusual audience, and providing common background knowledge and norms that help discussion on most (if not all) discussions to be relatively truth-seeking compared to most online fora.
You seem to be saying “we don’t think they actually do anything much.” Surely that’s not the case.
Well, for one thing, I’m speaking only for myself, and I’m more skeptical of the novelty and impact per reader (as mentioned above) than others.
But I do think that reading the sequences on probability, changing your mind, and other core topics (as opposed to quantum mechanics) causes some improvement in quality of argumentation, readiness to accede to evidence, and similar metrics (as judged by 3rd party raters). I don’t think the effect is enormous, i.e. well-read physics or philosophy grad students will have garnered most of the apparent benefits from other sources, but it’s there. And interest, enjoyment, and accessibility aren’t peanuts either.
Sequences contain a rational world view. Not a comprehensive one, but still, it gives some idea about how to avoid thinking stupid and how to communicate with other people that are also trying to find out what’s true and what’s not. It gives you words by which you can refer to problems in your world view, meta-standards to evaluate whether whatever you’re doing is working, etc. I think of it as an unofficial manual to my brain and the world that surrounds me. You can just go ahead and figure out yourself what works, without reading manuals, but reading a manual before you go makes you better prepared.
That’s asserting the thing that the original question asked to examine: how do we know that this is a genuinely useful manual, rather than something that reads like the manual and makes you think “gosh, this is the manual!” but following it doesn’t actually get you anywhere much? What would the world look like if it was? What would the world look like if it wasn’t?
Note that there are plenty of books (particularly in the self-help field) that have been selected by the market for looking like the manual to life, at the expense of actually being the manual to life. This whole thread is about reading something and going “that’s brilliant!” but actually it doesn’t do much good.
It’s an enjoyable read, which helps establish some good community norms? I’d value reading the sequences more than, say, a randomly selected novel (though maybe not randomly selected from novels that I have actually read.)
So, the Sequences and LessWrong in general are purely for entertainment purposes? That’s fine, but that certainly wasn’t the original idea, which was to be practical.
Yeah I am not sure how much practicality the sequences contain (although some other posts here have been practical) but that wouldn’t stop me from recommending them.
OK … If someone asked you “So, there’s a million words of these Sequences that you think I should read. What do I get out of reading them?” then what’s the answer to that? You seem to be saying “we don’t think they actually do anything much.” Surely that’s not the case.
Major elements to consider:
Mostly standard arguments, often with nonstandard examples and lively presentation, for a related cluster of philosophical views: physicalism, the appearance of free will as outgrowth of cognitive algorithm, his brand of metaethics, the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, the irrelevance of verbal disputes, etc.
A selective review of the psychology heuristics and biases literature, with entertaining examples and descriptions
A bunch of suggested heuristics, based on personal experience and thought, for debiasing, e.g. leaving a line of retreat to reduce resistance
Some thoughtful exposition of applications of intro probability and Bayes’ theorem, e.g. conservation of expected evidence
Interesting reframings and insights into a number of philosophical problems using the Solomonoff Induction framework, and the “how could this intuition emerge from an algorithm?” approach
Debate about AI with Robin, a science fiction story, a bunch of meta posts, and assorted minor elements
The large chunks that are review of existing psychology and philosophy would be hard to get from one or a few books (as they are extracted from far and wide), although those would then be less filtered. They may be more enjoyable and addictive than an organized study program, i.e. as popular science/philosophy, so folk who wouldn’t undertake the former alone find themselves doing the latter, and then perhaps also doing the former. This would depend on how they felt about the writing style, their own habits, and so forth. The other elements would have to be evaluated more idiosyncratically.
Now, because of the online forum element of Less Wrong, there is another big benefit in selectively attracting a very unusual audience, and providing common background knowledge and norms that help discussion on most (if not all) discussions to be relatively truth-seeking compared to most online fora.
Well, for one thing, I’m speaking only for myself, and I’m more skeptical of the novelty and impact per reader (as mentioned above) than others.
But I do think that reading the sequences on probability, changing your mind, and other core topics (as opposed to quantum mechanics) causes some improvement in quality of argumentation, readiness to accede to evidence, and similar metrics (as judged by 3rd party raters). I don’t think the effect is enormous, i.e. well-read physics or philosophy grad students will have garnered most of the apparent benefits from other sources, but it’s there. And interest, enjoyment, and accessibility aren’t peanuts either.
Also see one mathematician’s opinion: Yes, a blog.
Sequences contain a rational world view. Not a comprehensive one, but still, it gives some idea about how to avoid thinking stupid and how to communicate with other people that are also trying to find out what’s true and what’s not. It gives you words by which you can refer to problems in your world view, meta-standards to evaluate whether whatever you’re doing is working, etc. I think of it as an unofficial manual to my brain and the world that surrounds me. You can just go ahead and figure out yourself what works, without reading manuals, but reading a manual before you go makes you better prepared.
That’s asserting the thing that the original question asked to examine: how do we know that this is a genuinely useful manual, rather than something that reads like the manual and makes you think “gosh, this is the manual!” but following it doesn’t actually get you anywhere much? What would the world look like if it was? What would the world look like if it wasn’t?
Note that there are plenty of books (particularly in the self-help field) that have been selected by the market for looking like the manual to life, at the expense of actually being the manual to life. This whole thread is about reading something and going “that’s brilliant!” but actually it doesn’t do much good.
[struck]
It’s an enjoyable read, which helps establish some good community norms? I’d value reading the sequences more than, say, a randomly selected novel (though maybe not randomly selected from novels that I have actually read.)
.
So, the Sequences and LessWrong in general are purely for entertainment purposes? That’s fine, but that certainly wasn’t the original idea, which was to be practical.
Yeah I am not sure how much practicality the sequences contain (although some other posts here have been practical) but that wouldn’t stop me from recommending them.