Regarding elitism: LW is elitist, and would not be what it is without its elitism. What else differentiates LW from /r/skeptic or agi-list? The LW community recognizes that some writings are high quality and deserve to be promoted, and others are not. If anything, I wish LW would become more elitist.
The way you’re using elitism isn’t the way that I’m using it. Here’s the dictionary definition:
e·lit·ism
practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
What I’m saying is more like “It won’t do anyone any good to act like we should rule other people, and it won’t do anyone any good to behave arrogantly.” There’s a difference between caring about the quality of work that your group is putting out and having standards for your work, versus behaving like a jerk. If there wasn’t, then work ethics and quality would be elitist.
Voting may be included at LessWrong, and voting is associated with choosing rulers, but we’re not voting on who rules. We’re just voting on writings.
People may be proud of joining LessWrong but it’s not exactly a select or favored group. Unless you mean that LessWrongers favor it, but if you’re going to say “LessWrongers are elitist because LessWrongers favor LessWrong” then you’d also have to say “Icanhascheezburger users are elitist because they favor hanging out with people and laughing at lolcats.”
Elitism is a word that is often used to describe a nasty prejudice. I think its a terrible idea to start applying that to things that aren’t elitist, especially important ones, like enjoying work ethics and quality.
If you still want me to think that “elitism” is the right word for what you are talking about, I will need you to explain.
LW could be considered a select group by discussion board standards. For example, posters who haven’t studied the rather large amount of presumed background knowledge are, to a decreasing but still significant extent, only reluctantly tolerated. Some people accustomed to more typical discussion boards do seem somewhat miffed about the idea that LW has such prerequisites at all, and I assume this is because they perceive it as elitist.
Bringing this back to the main point, LW already does a reasonably good job at covering what you call the ‘hard’ material. It’s hard to overstate how fickle and delicate online communities can be. I’m wary of attempting to change the norms of the existing community in order to produce more ‘easy’ material. (This is what you are effectively proposing, since newbies can’t produce their own ‘easy’ material, it would be the blind leading the blind.) Therefore I think that job should be delegated to another website (maybe appliedrationality.org) rather than shoehorned into LW.
LW could be considered a select group by discussion board standards. For example, posters who haven’t studied the rather large amount of presumed background knowledge are, to a decreasing but still significant extent, only reluctantly tolerated.
By that definition, restaurants are elitist because people with no knowledge of silverware and table manners are only reluctantly tolerated. Roads are elitist because drivers with no knowledge of traffic rules are only reluctantly tolerated. Grocery stores are elitist because only people with no understanding of trade and shoplifting laws aren’t tolerated. Is there any place you can go in the civilized world and be accepted regardless of whether you have knowledge relevant to that place? Even in jail, inmates are expected to know better than to drink out of the toilet and that food goes in their mouth. The mental ward might be the only place—but that isn’t a place of acceptance.
Let’s look at the dictionary definition for the word elitist, now, as it’s more detailed:
(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society: elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don’t care about anybody else.
catering to or associated with an elitist class, its ideologies, or its institutions: Even at such a small, private college, Latin and Greek are under attack as too elitist.
a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society: He lost a congressional race in Texas by being smeared as an Eastern elitist.
a person who believes in the superiority of an elitist class.
Reasons LessWrong isn’t automatically elitist, as relates to the above:
Regardless of whether LessWrong members have more or less talent, intellect, power, wealth or position, if they do not have a superior attitude about it, that doesn’t qualify them as elitist by definition 1.
Depending on whether LessWrong wants to be a place where everybody can learn or a place where only people thought to have “superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society” can join, it might be non-elitist.
If LessWrong defines itself as “A place where people who want to refine their rationality gather” then it’s not a group defined by “talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society”, it’s a place defined by common interest.
Do you believe that LessWrong is an elite class, and that they are superior? I don’t.
The trade off between being elitist and new comers is something to think about. Apparently some LWs aspire to bring more people, as rationalists teachings assumes. Point is whats costs to pay for growing with (same?)quality.
Regarding elitism: LW is elitist, and would not be what it is without its elitism. What else differentiates LW from /r/skeptic or agi-list? The LW community recognizes that some writings are high quality and deserve to be promoted, and others are not. If anything, I wish LW would become more elitist.
The way you’re using elitism isn’t the way that I’m using it. Here’s the dictionary definition:
e·lit·ism
practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
What I’m saying is more like “It won’t do anyone any good to act like we should rule other people, and it won’t do anyone any good to behave arrogantly.” There’s a difference between caring about the quality of work that your group is putting out and having standards for your work, versus behaving like a jerk. If there wasn’t, then work ethics and quality would be elitist.
Voting may be included at LessWrong, and voting is associated with choosing rulers, but we’re not voting on who rules. We’re just voting on writings.
People may be proud of joining LessWrong but it’s not exactly a select or favored group. Unless you mean that LessWrongers favor it, but if you’re going to say “LessWrongers are elitist because LessWrongers favor LessWrong” then you’d also have to say “Icanhascheezburger users are elitist because they favor hanging out with people and laughing at lolcats.”
Elitism is a word that is often used to describe a nasty prejudice. I think its a terrible idea to start applying that to things that aren’t elitist, especially important ones, like enjoying work ethics and quality.
If you still want me to think that “elitism” is the right word for what you are talking about, I will need you to explain.
LW could be considered a select group by discussion board standards. For example, posters who haven’t studied the rather large amount of presumed background knowledge are, to a decreasing but still significant extent, only reluctantly tolerated. Some people accustomed to more typical discussion boards do seem somewhat miffed about the idea that LW has such prerequisites at all, and I assume this is because they perceive it as elitist.
Bringing this back to the main point, LW already does a reasonably good job at covering what you call the ‘hard’ material. It’s hard to overstate how fickle and delicate online communities can be. I’m wary of attempting to change the norms of the existing community in order to produce more ‘easy’ material. (This is what you are effectively proposing, since newbies can’t produce their own ‘easy’ material, it would be the blind leading the blind.) Therefore I think that job should be delegated to another website (maybe appliedrationality.org) rather than shoehorned into LW.
Seconded. I suggest adding appliedrationality.org to the LW Wiki under Getting Started, near the top.
I sort of took your suggestion. (See OP under Center for Modern Rationality).
Is LessWrong Elitist:
By that definition, restaurants are elitist because people with no knowledge of silverware and table manners are only reluctantly tolerated. Roads are elitist because drivers with no knowledge of traffic rules are only reluctantly tolerated. Grocery stores are elitist because only people with no understanding of trade and shoplifting laws aren’t tolerated. Is there any place you can go in the civilized world and be accepted regardless of whether you have knowledge relevant to that place? Even in jail, inmates are expected to know better than to drink out of the toilet and that food goes in their mouth. The mental ward might be the only place—but that isn’t a place of acceptance.
Let’s look at the dictionary definition for the word elitist, now, as it’s more detailed:
(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society: elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don’t care about anybody else.
catering to or associated with an elitist class, its ideologies, or its institutions: Even at such a small, private college, Latin and Greek are under attack as too elitist.
a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society: He lost a congressional race in Texas by being smeared as an Eastern elitist.
a person who believes in the superiority of an elitist class.
Reasons LessWrong isn’t automatically elitist, as relates to the above:
Regardless of whether LessWrong members have more or less talent, intellect, power, wealth or position, if they do not have a superior attitude about it, that doesn’t qualify them as elitist by definition 1.
Depending on whether LessWrong wants to be a place where everybody can learn or a place where only people thought to have “superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society” can join, it might be non-elitist.
If LessWrong defines itself as “A place where people who want to refine their rationality gather” then it’s not a group defined by “talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society”, it’s a place defined by common interest.
Do you believe that LessWrong is an elite class, and that they are superior? I don’t.
On educating new rationalists:
Do they even have a forum? I don’t see how this is going to work. Explain this plan.
The trade off between being elitist and new comers is something to think about. Apparently some LWs aspire to bring more people, as rationalists teachings assumes. Point is whats costs to pay for growing with (same?)quality.