Naw, the mixed origin of lingo is all right. I am a botanist and had never met the word ‘akrasia’ before LW, but it is simply useful, and so I liked it. If I ever have to talk to a non-LWer about it, I’ll just explain it, and we’ll move on. It’s like math here, a bit: ‘let akrasia stand for… And affect heuristic for… Then...’
If you know of useful words introduced by Cynics, post a list—it’s better to have more words than less.
If you have a hard time introducing concepts, taboo the words and see what happens.
I do not know, or particularly care, what ancients are in fashion today; my library was inherited from a man who did not know or care, too, and I am more likely to stumble across Catullus because he’s in the front row.
perhaps that could influence a more consistent and controlled vocabulary
I don’t think that would be a good thing. A “controlled” vocabulary is useful in some ways, but harmful in others. Yes, it promotes communication within the narrow circle of experts, but at the same time it inhibits cross-discipline flow of ideas and I believe the latter to be very, very important.
At the same time tracing the origins of LW’s jargon would be a cool project :-)
but to everyone else, is just plain weird
I am entirely fine with that :-P
Most interesting things look weird to outsiders at first glance.
I’d also like to learn more about what Gwern knows, how he knows it, how he uses what he knows and why he uses it that way.
would like to be Lesswrong be more exclusionary too
Exclusionary of what? That’s a rather important question. I suspect that many exclusionists have something particular they want to exclude.
I wanted to see a more natural account—an interview style approach of questioning
Well, do it yourself. Contact gwern, see if he is amenable to an interview, ask him your questions. He’s a real person who hangs around here on occasion, not a mystical figure in a far-away land.
Great suggestion! didn’t think of that, and now I plan to.
edit 1: forgot to answer your question. Hmm, that’s an interesting thought. My exclusionary preferences come from an exclusion of that which I can’t get useful further information of, compared to alternatives. In this example, it’s easier for me to trace by the etymology a term like ‘tardive dyskinesia’, and how it has disseminated through medical literature through to use in a community blog like this. Furthermore, I can burden myself with less synonyms for the same term—AFAIK, there are no consise synonyms for tardive dyskinesia. I cannot, however, readily trace where death spiral comes from, without having to ask further questions. There are are a myriad of more concise synonyms too.
On second thought, this comparison is unfair and suggests my reasoning is motivated. Tardive dyskinesia isn’t exactly a word in common usage. I’m not sure if my point still stands since I suspect I’m reasoning emotionally, but am not motivated enough to challenge that further at this point.
Great initiative OP. I love this kind of work.
Taking future suggestions on this line of work. It was intended as a meta:ourselves quantification. But it didn’t quite work that way...
sorry, this was an unhelpful comment that is now gone :)
Naw, the mixed origin of lingo is all right. I am a botanist and had never met the word ‘akrasia’ before LW, but it is simply useful, and so I liked it. If I ever have to talk to a non-LWer about it, I’ll just explain it, and we’ll move on. It’s like math here, a bit: ‘let akrasia stand for… And affect heuristic for… Then...’
unhelpful comment, disregard
If you know of useful words introduced by Cynics, post a list—it’s better to have more words than less.
If you have a hard time introducing concepts, taboo the words and see what happens.
I do not know, or particularly care, what ancients are in fashion today; my library was inherited from a man who did not know or care, too, and I am more likely to stumble across Catullus because he’s in the front row.
You’ve misunderstood me, which is incredibly ironic.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mc9/regular_lesswrongers_interviews/ Made a new discussion post about it. Happy to hand over the initiative considering you came up with the idea. Send me a PM and we could even work together on it.
Your deference is duly noted but undeserved. Thank you.
I don’t think that would be a good thing. A “controlled” vocabulary is useful in some ways, but harmful in others. Yes, it promotes communication within the narrow circle of experts, but at the same time it inhibits cross-discipline flow of ideas and I believe the latter to be very, very important.
At the same time tracing the origins of LW’s jargon would be a cool project :-)
I am entirely fine with that :-P
Most interesting things look weird to outsiders at first glance.
Gwern.
unhelpful comment, disregard
Gwern’s often in the #lesswrong IRC channel; you could interview him yourself.
Exclusionary of what? That’s a rather important question. I suspect that many exclusionists have something particular they want to exclude.
Well, do it yourself. Contact gwern, see if he is amenable to an interview, ask him your questions. He’s a real person who hangs around here on occasion, not a mystical figure in a far-away land.
Great suggestion! didn’t think of that, and now I plan to.
edit 1: forgot to answer your question. Hmm, that’s an interesting thought. My exclusionary preferences come from an exclusion of that which I can’t get useful further information of, compared to alternatives. In this example, it’s easier for me to trace by the etymology a term like ‘tardive dyskinesia’, and how it has disseminated through medical literature through to use in a community blog like this. Furthermore, I can burden myself with less synonyms for the same term—AFAIK, there are no consise synonyms for tardive dyskinesia. I cannot, however, readily trace where death spiral comes from, without having to ask further questions. There are are a myriad of more concise synonyms too.
On second thought, this comparison is unfair and suggests my reasoning is motivated. Tardive dyskinesia isn’t exactly a word in common usage. I’m not sure if my point still stands since I suspect I’m reasoning emotionally, but am not motivated enough to challenge that further at this point.