I suppose it depends on the value provided by the group you are trying to grow. I’m not qualified to speak to the objective value of LW. It’s cool. It’s taught me some cool stuff about biases and rationality.
I only noticed—and then commented—that the language used was similar to the way we used to talk in church.
“Outreach”, “bring a friend on a night like this”, “appropriate for non-believers”, “seeker-sensitive” (that one means they will use less church-y dialect and talk about fewer docrinal oddities so you can brong your “unsaved” friends… it is less church-y and doctrinally odd to call them “seekers”.)
I likely just have a strong aversion signal that goes off when I see such language. It instantly strikes me as weird and activist-y… a desperate attempt to spread a particular “gospel”.
It instantly strikes me as weird and activist-y… a desperate attempt to spread a particular “gospel”.
Leaving out the words “weird” and “desperate”, that is exactly what it is. That is what LessWrong was founded for. That is what every blog in the sidebar is doing. That is the entire purpose of CFAR.
What is wrong with communicating ideas worth spreading?
Nothing. As long as the ideas are worth spreading.
I notice it feels odd to me that your response indicates you missed my point. The language just feels like church to me. I’m not making any judgements against LW’s content. In fact, I’m often quite complementary.
The reality is there are methods of spreading ideas that have been spoiled for many people.
The reality is there are methods of spreading ideas that have been spoiled for many people.
Should they have been, though? Is there something inherently anti-epistemic about “If you’ve been thinking of a friend you might like to bring along—this is the night to do it”?
To answer, no. But some methods have been spoiled in reality for many people. Even churches are learning this and approaching evangelism differently.
I’m in sales and I can tell you from experience: You can fail to sell a product to someone who truly needs and wants that product because you’re using bad methods.
I suppose it depends on the value provided by the group you are trying to grow. I’m not qualified to speak to the objective value of LW. It’s cool. It’s taught me some cool stuff about biases and rationality.
I only noticed—and then commented—that the language used was similar to the way we used to talk in church.
“Outreach”, “bring a friend on a night like this”, “appropriate for non-believers”, “seeker-sensitive” (that one means they will use less church-y dialect and talk about fewer docrinal oddities so you can brong your “unsaved” friends… it is less church-y and doctrinally odd to call them “seekers”.)
I likely just have a strong aversion signal that goes off when I see such language. It instantly strikes me as weird and activist-y… a desperate attempt to spread a particular “gospel”.
Yes, I purloined the “outreach” term from churchy language. :)
Perhaps a desperate attempt to spread rationality? ;) or just a wish to have more rational friends to talk to.
I like “purloined” much more than I like “outreach”. :)
Leaving out the words “weird” and “desperate”, that is exactly what it is. That is what LessWrong was founded for. That is what every blog in the sidebar is doing. That is the entire purpose of CFAR.
What is wrong with communicating ideas worth spreading?
Nothing. As long as the ideas are worth spreading.
I notice it feels odd to me that your response indicates you missed my point. The language just feels like church to me. I’m not making any judgements against LW’s content. In fact, I’m often quite complementary.
The reality is there are methods of spreading ideas that have been spoiled for many people.
Should they have been, though? Is there something inherently anti-epistemic about “If you’ve been thinking of a friend you might like to bring along—this is the night to do it”?
“Should” is strange word.
To answer, no. But some methods have been spoiled in reality for many people. Even churches are learning this and approaching evangelism differently.
I’m in sales and I can tell you from experience: You can fail to sell a product to someone who truly needs and wants that product because you’re using bad methods.