In other words, SlateStarCodex and LessWrong catered to similar audiences, and SlateStarCodex won out.
SSC kept the (online) rationalist community alive when it was most needed: when LW “died” for a few months. Also, SSC spread the idea of effective altruism to a new audience: the subset of SSC readers who are not LW readers. I don’t see how users switching from LW to SSC could have a negative impact on effective altruism.
Among the options provided in article, 2 and 6 (the speculative alternative) felt plausible to me. However… what other people already wrote here.
Explanation 2 because “people getting enthusiastic about something, and abandoning it a few months or years later” sounds like typical human behavior, the null hypothesis for “people trying new things”.
Explanation 6 because, if I may generalize from 1 example, that’s how it was for me and rationality. It didn’t feel like “Eliezer converted me”, but rather like “for decades I felt like a weird person for caring about things literally no one else seemed to care about… and then I found a blog from a guy on the other side of the planet, who cared about similar things, came to similar conclusions, and actually took it even further but in a direction that felt obviously correct to me”. Also, when I tried to popularize LW in my social circles, the reactions I got were similar to reactions I previously got for my own thoughts: most people ignored it, some people were amuzed for 5 minutes, then tried to integrate it into some bullshit they already believed and essentially use “rationality” as just another applause light.
From that I conclude that LW-style rationalists are… well, “born” is perhaps too strong word, but I would not be surprised if there was a test we could give to 13 years old kids that would quite reliably predict whether 20 years later they will or will not like LessWrong. Because I am pretty sure my 13 years old self would have the same “gods, I’m not the only sane person on this planet” reaction on reading the Sequences. -- But as I said, 1 example.
And similarly, I believe it works the same with effective altruism. There is something almost innate that makes you either agree or disagree emotionally with the proposition that we should care about how much good we do (as opposed to just doing random things and declaring that all non-zero values are alike and anyone who suggests otherwise is a horrible person), which is a thing I have; and then another thing which makes you react to this knowledge by actually donating because you care about other people so much that you are willing to make a non-trivial personal sacrifice, which I admit I have not (though my PR module would prefer to say I do).
Though I am not opposed to further advertising effective altruism (or rationality), because there are probably still many people who haven’t noticed that it exists yet.
SSC kept the (online) rationalist community alive when it was most needed: when LW “died” for a few months. Also, SSC spread the idea of effective altruism to a new audience: the subset of SSC readers who are not LW readers. I don’t see how users switching from LW to SSC could have a negative impact on effective altruism.
Among the options provided in article, 2 and 6 (the speculative alternative) felt plausible to me. However… what other people already wrote here.
Explanation 2 because “people getting enthusiastic about something, and abandoning it a few months or years later” sounds like typical human behavior, the null hypothesis for “people trying new things”.
Explanation 6 because, if I may generalize from 1 example, that’s how it was for me and rationality. It didn’t feel like “Eliezer converted me”, but rather like “for decades I felt like a weird person for caring about things literally no one else seemed to care about… and then I found a blog from a guy on the other side of the planet, who cared about similar things, came to similar conclusions, and actually took it even further but in a direction that felt obviously correct to me”. Also, when I tried to popularize LW in my social circles, the reactions I got were similar to reactions I previously got for my own thoughts: most people ignored it, some people were amuzed for 5 minutes, then tried to integrate it into some bullshit they already believed and essentially use “rationality” as just another applause light.
From that I conclude that LW-style rationalists are… well, “born” is perhaps too strong word, but I would not be surprised if there was a test we could give to 13 years old kids that would quite reliably predict whether 20 years later they will or will not like LessWrong. Because I am pretty sure my 13 years old self would have the same “gods, I’m not the only sane person on this planet” reaction on reading the Sequences. -- But as I said, 1 example.
And similarly, I believe it works the same with effective altruism. There is something almost innate that makes you either agree or disagree emotionally with the proposition that we should care about how much good we do (as opposed to just doing random things and declaring that all non-zero values are alike and anyone who suggests otherwise is a horrible person), which is a thing I have; and then another thing which makes you react to this knowledge by actually donating because you care about other people so much that you are willing to make a non-trivial personal sacrifice, which I admit I have not (though my PR module would prefer to say I do).
Though I am not opposed to further advertising effective altruism (or rationality), because there are probably still many people who haven’t noticed that it exists yet.
“when LW “died” for a few months” ← more like a few years.