Given your statement #1, why would you want to be on a mailing list of “non-rational, non-high IQ” people? ;-)
(I’m joking, of course; I have many customers who read and enjoy OB and LW, though I don’t think any have been top-level posters. Interestingly enough, my customers are so well-read that I usually receive more articles on recent research from them as emailed, “hey didja see”s, than I come across directly or see on LW!)
Huh? More articles than you see on LW? That’s absurd!
I usually see more articles about recent scientific research from my paying customers than I encounter via LW postings.
Or more precisely, and to be as fair as possible, I remember seeing more articles emailed to me from my customers about relevant research of interest to me than I remember discovering via LW… or such memories are at any rate easier to recall. Less absurd now? ;-)
That’s called “irony”, hinting to the fact that not a whole lot of articles are cited on LW, too few to warrant it a mention as a measure for the quantity of articles. Routine research browsing makes such quantity irrelevant, the only benefit might come from a mention of something you didn’t think existed, because if you thought it existed, you’d be able to look it up yourself.
P.S. I deleted my comment (again) before seeing your reply, thought it’s too mindless.
See this comment.
Given your statement #1, why would you want to be on a mailing list of “non-rational, non-high IQ” people? ;-)
(I’m joking, of course; I have many customers who read and enjoy OB and LW, though I don’t think any have been top-level posters. Interestingly enough, my customers are so well-read that I usually receive more articles on recent research from them as emailed, “hey didja see”s, than I come across directly or see on LW!)
More articles than you see on LW? That’s absurd!
I usually see more articles about recent scientific research from my paying customers than I encounter via LW postings.
Or more precisely, and to be as fair as possible, I remember seeing more articles emailed to me from my customers about relevant research of interest to me than I remember discovering via LW… or such memories are at any rate easier to recall. Less absurd now? ;-)
That’s called “irony”, hinting to the fact that not a whole lot of articles are cited on LW, too few to warrant it a mention as a measure for the quantity of articles. Routine research browsing makes such quantity irrelevant, the only benefit might come from a mention of something you didn’t think existed, because if you thought it existed, you’d be able to look it up yourself.
P.S. I deleted my comment (again) before seeing your reply, thought it’s too mindless.