Do you think LessWrong is too intellectually insular? What I mean by this is that we very seldom seem to adopt useful vocabulary or arguments or information from outside of LessWrong. For example all I can think of is some of Robin Hanson’s and Paul Graham’s stuff. But I don’t think Robin Hanson really counts as Overcoming Bias used to be LessWrong.
But for the most part not only has the LessWrong community not updated on ideas and concepts that haven’t grown here. The only major examples fellow LWers brought up in conversation where works that Eliezer cited as great or influential. :/
Another thing, I could be wrong about this naturally, but it seems to clear that LessWrong has NOT grown. I can’t put my finger to major progress done in the past 2 years. I recently realized this, when I saw LessWrong listed in a blogroll as a Eliezer’s blog about rationality. I realized that essentially it is. And worse this makes it a very crappy blog since EY dosen’t make new updates any more. Originally the man had high hopes for the site, something that could keep going, growing without him, but honestly its mostly just a community dedicated to studying the scrolls he left behind. We don’t even seem to do a good job of getting others to read the scrolls.
Overall I think I’m not seeing enthusiasm for actually reading the old material systematically. A symptom of this is I think I’ve come to notice recently. I was debating what to call my first ever original content main article (it was previously titled “On Conspiracy Theories”) and made what at first felt like a joke but then took on a horrible ring of truth to it.
“Over time the meaning of an article will tend to converge with the literal meaning of its title.”
We like linking articles, and while people may read a link the first time, they don’t tend to read it the second or third time it is linked. People also eventually also opick up the phrase and star using it out of context. Eventually a phrase that was supposed to be a shorthand for a nuanced argument starts to mean exactly what it says. Well not exactly, people still recall it is a vague applause light. Which is actually worse.
I cited precisely “Politics is the Mindkiller” as an example of this. In the original article Eliezer basically argues that gratuitous politics, political thinking that isn’t outweighed by its value to the art of rationality is to be avoided. This soon came to meant it is forbidden to discuss politics in Main and Discussion articles, though politics does live in the comment sections.
Now the question if LessWrong is growing and productive intellectually is separate from the question of it being insular. Both I feel need to be discussed. If LW is not growing and wasn’t insular, it could at least remain relevant. This site has a wonderful ethos for discussion and thought. Why do we seem to be wasting it?
Meta
Guys I’d like your opinion on something.
Do you think LessWrong is too intellectually insular? What I mean by this is that we very seldom seem to adopt useful vocabulary or arguments or information from outside of LessWrong. For example all I can think of is some of Robin Hanson’s and Paul Graham’s stuff. But I don’t think Robin Hanson really counts as Overcoming Bias used to be LessWrong.
But for the most part not only has the LessWrong community not updated on ideas and concepts that haven’t grown here. The only major examples fellow LWers brought up in conversation where works that Eliezer cited as great or influential. :/
Another thing, I could be wrong about this naturally, but it seems to clear that LessWrong has NOT grown. I can’t put my finger to major progress done in the past 2 years. I recently realized this, when I saw LessWrong listed in a blogroll as a Eliezer’s blog about rationality. I realized that essentially it is. And worse this makes it a very crappy blog since EY dosen’t make new updates any more. Originally the man had high hopes for the site, something that could keep going, growing without him, but honestly its mostly just a community dedicated to studying the scrolls he left behind. We don’t even seem to do a good job of getting others to read the scrolls.
Overall I think I’m not seeing enthusiasm for actually reading the old material systematically. A symptom of this is I think I’ve come to notice recently. I was debating what to call my first ever original content main article (it was previously titled “On Conspiracy Theories”) and made what at first felt like a joke but then took on a horrible ring of truth to it.
We like linking articles, and while people may read a link the first time, they don’t tend to read it the second or third time it is linked. People also eventually also opick up the phrase and star using it out of context. Eventually a phrase that was supposed to be a shorthand for a nuanced argument starts to mean exactly what it says. Well not exactly, people still recall it is a vague applause light. Which is actually worse.
I cited precisely “Politics is the Mindkiller” as an example of this. In the original article Eliezer basically argues that gratuitous politics, political thinking that isn’t outweighed by its value to the art of rationality is to be avoided. This soon came to meant it is forbidden to discuss politics in Main and Discussion articles, though politics does live in the comment sections.
Now the question if LessWrong is growing and productive intellectually is separate from the question of it being insular. Both I feel need to be discussed. If LW is not growing and wasn’t insular, it could at least remain relevant. This site has a wonderful ethos for discussion and thought. Why do we seem to be wasting it?