The most important one is: the further an idea spreads, the more likely it is to be misinterpreted and distorted, and discussed elsewhere in the misinterpreted/distorted form; and the more this happens, the more likely it will be that anyone discussing the idea here has, in their mind, a corrupted form of it (both because of contamination in the minds of Less Wrong commenters from the corrupted form of the idea they read/hear in discussions elsewhere, and because of immigration of people, into Less Wrong discussions, who have first heard relevant ideas elsewhere and have them in a corrupted form). This can, if common, be seriously damaging to our ability to handle any ideas of any subtlety or complexity over even short periods of time.
Another very important reason is the chilling effects on discussions here due to pressure from society-wide norms. (Many obvious current examples, here; no need to enumerate, I think.) This means that the more widely we can expect any given post or discussion to spread, the less we are able to discuss ideas even slightly outside the Overton window. (The higher shock levels become entirely out of reach, for example.)
Finally, commonplace wide dissemination of discussions here are a strong disincentive for commenters here to use their real names (due to not wanting to be exposed so widely), to speak plainly and honestly about their views on many things, and—in the case of many commenters—to participate entirely.
It feels quite suboptimal to have a public forum that’s indexed on google, and at the same time be trying to deliberately keep the riffraff out by being obtuse.
If you want to not worry about what people will think, while being able to use your full name, you should use a private forum. Not understanding what Moloch means won’t stop an employer from not hiring you for considering heterdox views.
On a public forum, where anyone could stumble on a link from google, I think eukaryote’s thoughts are quite important.
Or, to be more precise, I agree denotationally but object connotationally: indeed, the thing I want is a different thing than what Less Wrong is, but it’s not clear to me that it’s a different thing than what Less Wrong easily could be.
To take a simple example of an axis of variation: it is entirely possible to have a public forum which is not indexed by Google.
A more complicated example: there is a difference between obtuseness and lack of deliberate, positive effort to minimize inferential distance to outsiders. I do not advocate the former… but whether to endorse the latter is a trickier question (not least because interpreting the latter is a tricky matter on its own).
I think I agree with mr-hire that this doesn’t seem right to me. The site is already public and will turn up when people search your name—or your blog name, in my case—or the idea you’re trying to explain.
I don’t especially care whether people use their real names or pseudonyms here. If people feel uncomfortable making their work more accessible under their real names, they can use a pseudonym. I suppose there’s a perceived difference in professionalism or skin in the game (am I characterizing the motive correctly?), but we’re all here for the ideas anyways, right?
The “real name” issue is only one part of one of the points I made. Even if you reject that part entirely, what do you say to the rest?
I suppose there’s a perceived difference in professionalism or skin in the game (am I characterizing the motive correctly?), but we’re all here for the ideas anyways, right?
This is not a realistic view, but, again, I am content to let it slide. By no means is it the whole or even most of the reasons for my view.
Say more?
Several reasons.
The most important one is: the further an idea spreads, the more likely it is to be misinterpreted and distorted, and discussed elsewhere in the misinterpreted/distorted form; and the more this happens, the more likely it will be that anyone discussing the idea here has, in their mind, a corrupted form of it (both because of contamination in the minds of Less Wrong commenters from the corrupted form of the idea they read/hear in discussions elsewhere, and because of immigration of people, into Less Wrong discussions, who have first heard relevant ideas elsewhere and have them in a corrupted form). This can, if common, be seriously damaging to our ability to handle any ideas of any subtlety or complexity over even short periods of time.
Another very important reason is the chilling effects on discussions here due to pressure from society-wide norms. (Many obvious current examples, here; no need to enumerate, I think.) This means that the more widely we can expect any given post or discussion to spread, the less we are able to discuss ideas even slightly outside the Overton window. (The higher shock levels become entirely out of reach, for example.)
Finally, commonplace wide dissemination of discussions here are a strong disincentive for commenters here to use their real names (due to not wanting to be exposed so widely), to speak plainly and honestly about their views on many things, and—in the case of many commenters—to participate entirely.
It feels quite suboptimal to have a public forum that’s indexed on google, and at the same time be trying to deliberately keep the riffraff out by being obtuse.
If you want to not worry about what people will think, while being able to use your full name, you should use a private forum. Not understanding what Moloch means won’t stop an employer from not hiring you for considering heterdox views.
On a public forum, where anyone could stumble on a link from google, I think eukaryote’s thoughts are quite important.
I didn’t advocate being obtuse. I only said that by default, we probably do not (and/or ought not) want a post to be disseminated widely.
What is the best way of accomplishing this, is a separate matter.
My point was that if that’s a thing you want, you probably do not want a public site like LW. The thing you want is a different thing than what LW is.
I don’t think I agree.
Or, to be more precise, I agree denotationally but object connotationally: indeed, the thing I want is a different thing than what Less Wrong is, but it’s not clear to me that it’s a different thing than what Less Wrong easily could be.
To take a simple example of an axis of variation: it is entirely possible to have a public forum which is not indexed by Google.
A more complicated example: there is a difference between obtuseness and lack of deliberate, positive effort to minimize inferential distance to outsiders. I do not advocate the former… but whether to endorse the latter is a trickier question (not least because interpreting the latter is a tricky matter on its own).
I think I agree with mr-hire that this doesn’t seem right to me. The site is already public and will turn up when people search your name—or your blog name, in my case—or the idea you’re trying to explain.
I don’t especially care whether people use their real names or pseudonyms here. If people feel uncomfortable making their work more accessible under their real names, they can use a pseudonym. I suppose there’s a perceived difference in professionalism or skin in the game (am I characterizing the motive correctly?), but we’re all here for the ideas anyways, right?
The “real name” issue is only one part of one of the points I made. Even if you reject that part entirely, what do you say to the rest?
This is not a realistic view, but, again, I am content to let it slide. By no means is it the whole or even most of the reasons for my view.