No one is more critical of us than ourselves. “LessWrong” is lesswrong for being humble about it. Hopefully that humility sticks around for a very long time.
In the past I could also have pointed to some individuals (who AFAIK were not associated with RW, but they could have been) who I think would have counted. I can’t think of any right now, but I expect they still exist.
I think I would rather say, less superlatively, that we’re unusually good at self-criticism.
(I do note that I’m comparing my inside view of the rationalist community with my outside view of other communities, so I shouldn’t put too much confidence in this.)
(But yes, I agree that I was ignoring the thing that Elo was actually trying to point at.)
No one is more critical of us than ourselves. “LessWrong” is lesswrong for being humble about it. Hopefully that humility sticks around for a very long time.
This seems untrue. For example, RationalWiki.
In the past I could also have pointed to some individuals (who AFAIK were not associated with RW, but they could have been) who I think would have counted. I can’t think of any right now, but I expect they still exist.
That’s fair, but I also think it largely misses the point of Elo’s comment. Here, have (an attempt at) a rephrase:
No community is as prone to self-criticism as the rationalist community.
I think I would rather say, less superlatively, that we’re unusually good at self-criticism.
(I do note that I’m comparing my inside view of the rationalist community with my outside view of other communities, so I shouldn’t put too much confidence in this.)
(But yes, I agree that I was ignoring the thing that Elo was actually trying to point at.)
yes. the fact that we know of RW, and this mention, and try to understand what is going on here. is a good start.
Humility is good, but calibration is better.