So, find the fiesty ones and sic them on LW. The only way to avoid evaporative cooling is to invite and welcome people who disagree with you. I’m interested in rationality and AI (note the lack of G), but don’t buy into the transhumanist belief cluster- if more people like me show up, we’ll move in that direction. But I don’t see the change happening without the population to make the posts and upvote them and comment encouragingly.
Yep. It doesn’t have to be anti-transhumanist, or anti-anything—it just needs to be more on topic, and less off topic. Here’s a suggestion list.
Note that I’ve been here three weeks, so (per Shirky’s A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy, which appears to have fallen offline—Google cache for the moment) have much less claim to the secret of making LW the social forum from Rationalist Heaven than those who’ve been here three years. So evaluate my words with a suitable quantity of salt. OTOH, it was basically in agreement with Yvain, the second-rated poster on the site and a transhumanist.
I find it very pleasing that I have been able to make quite strong criticisms (e.g.) of locally favoured memes and get upvoted, because I’ve taken the time to show my working, link my references and show my understanding of what I’m criticising. So the moderation system (“vote up what you want more of”) appears to work as advertised.
And I’ve found it personally very useful discipline in learning to think clearly as I write, instead of just spewing abuse at people for being stupid. Not that there’s no place for that sort of thing, just that this isn’t it and it’s not an effective way to convince someone they’re wrong.
Trying to change Less Wrong into an anti-transhumanist site sounds like trying to divert a river. Unless perhaps somehow transhumanist beliefs and rationality can be shown to be opposed.
I meant it in a hypothetical sense, so I apologize for the implication that that would really be your goal. It might be my goal if I thought transhumanism was irrational though, as I would consider irrational beliefs to be at odds with the mission of a rationalist site.
There could certainly be irrational aspects of transhumanism worthy of criticism without the entire belief-cluster being invalidated as well. My main interest is in the cryonics sub-cluster (which is complex enough in its own right) -- one could in theory be a transhumanist and opposed to cryonics, or a cryonicist opposed to most other transhumanist beliefs. (I know some anti-uploading cryonicists, for example.)
So, find the fiesty ones and sic them on LW. The only way to avoid evaporative cooling is to invite and welcome people who disagree with you. I’m interested in rationality and AI (note the lack of G), but don’t buy into the transhumanist belief cluster- if more people like me show up, we’ll move in that direction. But I don’t see the change happening without the population to make the posts and upvote them and comment encouragingly.
Yep. It doesn’t have to be anti-transhumanist, or anti-anything—it just needs to be more on topic, and less off topic. Here’s a suggestion list.
Note that I’ve been here three weeks, so (per Shirky’s A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy, which appears to have fallen offline—Google cache for the moment) have much less claim to the secret of making LW the social forum from Rationalist Heaven than those who’ve been here three years. So evaluate my words with a suitable quantity of salt. OTOH, it was basically in agreement with Yvain, the second-rated poster on the site and a transhumanist.
I find it very pleasing that I have been able to make quite strong criticisms (e.g.) of locally favoured memes and get upvoted, because I’ve taken the time to show my working, link my references and show my understanding of what I’m criticising. So the moderation system (“vote up what you want more of”) appears to work as advertised.
And I’ve found it personally very useful discipline in learning to think clearly as I write, instead of just spewing abuse at people for being stupid. Not that there’s no place for that sort of thing, just that this isn’t it and it’s not an effective way to convince someone they’re wrong.
Trying to change Less Wrong into an anti-transhumanist site sounds like trying to divert a river. Unless perhaps somehow transhumanist beliefs and rationality can be shown to be opposed.
Check your assumptions; what evidence do you have that this statement describes my goal? Is that evidence sufficient?
I meant it in a hypothetical sense, so I apologize for the implication that that would really be your goal. It might be my goal if I thought transhumanism was irrational though, as I would consider irrational beliefs to be at odds with the mission of a rationalist site.
There could certainly be irrational aspects of transhumanism worthy of criticism without the entire belief-cluster being invalidated as well. My main interest is in the cryonics sub-cluster (which is complex enough in its own right) -- one could in theory be a transhumanist and opposed to cryonics, or a cryonicist opposed to most other transhumanist beliefs. (I know some anti-uploading cryonicists, for example.)