There is certainly a lot of Eliezer in the posts by Eliezer; yet that seems to part of what makes them so good to read. Taking out the Eliezer might not be desirable, if it produces posts that are that much less fun to read or easy to understand.
Part of my progress as a rationalist was learning to see past the writer and focus only the written. If the most prolific and oft-quoted figure of the community deliberately obfuscates himself from his posts, I fear the result may be an undesireable “easy mode” where that learning is not achieved.
Until more high-level rationalists have emerged and their Ways can be amalgamated, there is nothing wrong with having the Way be shaded by its walker.
There is certainly a lot of Eliezer in the posts by Eliezer; yet that seems to part of what makes them so good to read. Taking out the Eliezer might not be desirable, if it produces posts that are that much less fun to read or easy to understand.
Part of my progress as a rationalist was learning to see past the writer and focus only the written. If the most prolific and oft-quoted figure of the community deliberately obfuscates himself from his posts, I fear the result may be an undesireable “easy mode” where that learning is not achieved.
Until more high-level rationalists have emerged and their Ways can be amalgamated, there is nothing wrong with having the Way be shaded by its walker.
I can duplicate the sentiment that growth in rationality means bypassing the writer for the written; I consider it part of the Way.
As is going beyond the written to that which is written of.