I think there is a certain obsession with The Sequences. To be rational is not the same as to read The Sequences, and having read them is not a necessary condition to read and understand what is written on LW. It is a bad habit of some Lesswrongers to use “read The Sequences” as an advice to an apparently irrational commenter. Linking to a specific Sequences article is fine, bud demanding to read the whole huge bulk of text in order to be worth of participating in LW discussions is silly. After all, rationality is not a religion, and it doesn’t have one source of concentrated wisdom.
(Personally I have read parts of The Sequences, probably more than half, because they were fun to read, well written, with important and interesting insights. I wouldn’t do it if it was presented as a necessary work that one must do to become a rationalist, and this is the way how a lot of people present them in the discussions.)
I’m only trying to estimate the number of people who are naturally ready to read the sequences if they wanted to—those who have no obvious barriers to entry. I’m not trying to say that 99% of the world is unworthy or unwelcome here… only that most people appear to have a barrier or two and are under-prepared in one way or another. I’m sure their experience reading LW would be even more beneficial and helpful to them than it would be to the most obviously prepared potential readers and our community would be all the better if they are able to overcome those barriers.
Also, I agree that telling people to “read the sequences” is asinine and unproductive. I’m sorry if my article looked like I was promoting that idea. The main reason I’m now using a target of “who’s obviously ready to read the sequences” is because last time I tried this, I mentioned growing the number of Less Wrong participants and accidentally elicited everyone’s theory on how we should manage the growth and maintenance of LW instead of getting feedback on my core audience estimates or ideas on how I could improve them.
Thanks for clarifying, this sounds quite reasonable. I liked and upvoted your comment here and appreciate your effort to disseminate the content of the best of the Less Wrong postings to a broader audience.
I think there is a certain obsession with The Sequences. To be rational is not the same as to read The Sequences, and having read them is not a necessary condition to read and understand what is written on LW. It is a bad habit of some Lesswrongers to use “read The Sequences” as an advice to an apparently irrational commenter. Linking to a specific Sequences article is fine, bud demanding to read the whole huge bulk of text in order to be worth of participating in LW discussions is silly. After all, rationality is not a religion, and it doesn’t have one source of concentrated wisdom.
(Personally I have read parts of The Sequences, probably more than half, because they were fun to read, well written, with important and interesting insights. I wouldn’t do it if it was presented as a necessary work that one must do to become a rationalist, and this is the way how a lot of people present them in the discussions.)
Also, I don’t believe in the IQ 130 lower limit.
I’m only trying to estimate the number of people who are naturally ready to read the sequences if they wanted to—those who have no obvious barriers to entry. I’m not trying to say that 99% of the world is unworthy or unwelcome here… only that most people appear to have a barrier or two and are under-prepared in one way or another. I’m sure their experience reading LW would be even more beneficial and helpful to them than it would be to the most obviously prepared potential readers and our community would be all the better if they are able to overcome those barriers.
Also, I agree that telling people to “read the sequences” is asinine and unproductive. I’m sorry if my article looked like I was promoting that idea. The main reason I’m now using a target of “who’s obviously ready to read the sequences” is because last time I tried this, I mentioned growing the number of Less Wrong participants and accidentally elicited everyone’s theory on how we should manage the growth and maintenance of LW instead of getting feedback on my core audience estimates or ideas on how I could improve them.
Thanks for clarifying, this sounds quite reasonable. I liked and upvoted your comment here and appreciate your effort to disseminate the content of the best of the Less Wrong postings to a broader audience.
I fully agree.