I suppose I’m not the average casual reader, but here’s my comparison--
Less Wrong front page: -Occam efficiency/rationality games—low interest -Strategies for confronting existential risk—high interest -Potential biases in evolutionary psychology—mid-level interest -Taking ideas seriously—extremely high interest -Various community threads—low/mid interest -Quick explanations of rationality techniques—extremely high interest -Conflicts within the mind—mid/high interest
Overcoming Bias front page: -Personality trait effects on romantic relationships—minimal interest -Status and reproduction—minimal interest -Flaws with medicine- mid-level interest -False virginity—no interest beyond “it exists” -(In)efficiency of free parking—minimal interest -Strategies for influencing the future—high interest -Reproductive ethics—minimal interest -Economic debate—minimal interest
Only two of the Overcoming Bias articles were interesting to me at all; only one was strongly interesting, and it was also short. Less Wrong seemed, at least to me, to have better/more interesting topics than Overcoming Bias, which might be why it has better/more interesting discussions.
But personally, I know a lot of fairly smart, moderately well-educated people who just aren’t very interested in a life of the mind. They don’t get a lot out of studying philosophy and math, they read a little but not a lot, they don’t seek intellectual self-improvement, and they aren’t terribly introspective. However, they all have a passing interest in current events, technology, economics, and social issues; the stuff you’d find in the New Yorker or Harper’s, or on news aggregators. Hanson’s writing on these topics is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to that demographic, whereas Less Wrong is just not.
Hanson’s writing on these topics is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to that demographic, whereas Less Wrong is just not.
I certainly find Hanson’s anecdotes far more useful when socialising with people that have interested in hearing surprising stories about human behaviour (ie. most of the people I bother socialising with). The ability to drop sound bites is, after all, the primary purpose of keeping ‘informed’ in general.
I suppose I’m not the average casual reader, but here’s my comparison--
Less Wrong front page:
-Occam efficiency/rationality games—low interest
-Strategies for confronting existential risk—high interest
-Potential biases in evolutionary psychology—mid-level interest
-Taking ideas seriously—extremely high interest
-Various community threads—low/mid interest
-Quick explanations of rationality techniques—extremely high interest
-Conflicts within the mind—mid/high interest
Overcoming Bias front page:
-Personality trait effects on romantic relationships—minimal interest
-Status and reproduction—minimal interest
-Flaws with medicine- mid-level interest
-False virginity—no interest beyond “it exists”
-(In)efficiency of free parking—minimal interest
-Strategies for influencing the future—high interest
-Reproductive ethics—minimal interest
-Economic debate—minimal interest
Only two of the Overcoming Bias articles were interesting to me at all; only one was strongly interesting, and it was also short. Less Wrong seemed, at least to me, to have better/more interesting topics than Overcoming Bias, which might be why it has better/more interesting discussions.
I totally agree with you; that’s why I’m here!
But personally, I know a lot of fairly smart, moderately well-educated people who just aren’t very interested in a life of the mind. They don’t get a lot out of studying philosophy and math, they read a little but not a lot, they don’t seek intellectual self-improvement, and they aren’t terribly introspective. However, they all have a passing interest in current events, technology, economics, and social issues; the stuff you’d find in the New Yorker or Harper’s, or on news aggregators. Hanson’s writing on these topics is exactly the sort of thing that appeals to that demographic, whereas Less Wrong is just not.
I certainly find Hanson’s anecdotes far more useful when socialising with people that have interested in hearing surprising stories about human behaviour (ie. most of the people I bother socialising with). The ability to drop sound bites is, after all, the primary purpose of keeping ‘informed’ in general.
It seems unusual that people would have a passing interest in technical issues in economics but not psychology.
Hmm, you seem to be seeing a totally different OB “front page” to me. Where are you seeing those articles?
edit: nevermind, I thought this was the current open thread. I didn’t see that it was from 2010.