I think it’s likely that the second option will be true of someone—that at least one, and maybe several people, who are contributing to this site or just reading it, will, years from now, be making discoveries, in psychology or in some field that doesn’t yet exist, and it will be because this site warped their sensibility (or straightened it).
But it is also likely that there is someone out there who will be effected negatively by this site. Your statement is only slightly relevant to the question of whether LessWrong is overall a positive influence. In other words, it’s rhetorical dark arts.
But it is also likely that there is someone out there who will be effected negatively by this site.
You mean, someone who would have made a positive contribution, but they were intellectually (or otherwise) sidetracked by what they read here? That hadn’t occurred to me. (Which is why my statement wasn’t “rhetorical dark arts”—I genuinely didn’t think of that possibility; I only thought in terms of “LW leads somewhere” or “LW leads nowhere”.)
But it is also likely that there is someone out there who will be effected negatively by this site. Your statement is only slightly relevant to the question of whether LessWrong is overall a positive influence. In other words, it’s rhetorical dark arts.
You mean, someone who would have made a positive contribution, but they were intellectually (or otherwise) sidetracked by what they read here? That hadn’t occurred to me. (Which is why my statement wasn’t “rhetorical dark arts”—I genuinely didn’t think of that possibility; I only thought in terms of “LW leads somewhere” or “LW leads nowhere”.)
I apologize, I did not mean to give the connotation of malice on your part, merely danger for readers.