Another problem of LessWrong is that its isolationism represents a self-made problem (unlike demographics). Despite intense philosophical speculation, the users tend towards a proud contempt of mainstream and ancient philosophy[39] and this then leads to them having to re-invent the wheel. When this tendency is coupled with the metaphors and parables that are central to LessWrong’s attraction, it explains why they invent new terms for already existing concepts.[40] The compatibilism position on free will/determinism is called “requiredism”[41] on LessWrong, for example, and the continuum fallacy is relabeled “the fallacy of gray.” The end result is a Seinfeldesque series of superfluous neologisms.
In my view, RationalWiki cherry picks certain LessWrongers to bolster their case. You can’t really conclude that these people represent LessWrong as a whole. You can find plenty of discussion of the terminology issue here, for example, and the way RationalWiki presents things makes it sound like LessWrongers are ignorant. I find this sort of misrepresentation to be common at RationalWiki, unfortunately.
Their approach reduces to an anti-epistemic affect-heuristic, using the ugh-field they self-generate in a reverse affective death spiral (loosely based on our memeplex) as a semantic stopsign, when in fact the Kolmogorov distance to bridge the terminological inferential gap is but an epsilon.
RationalWiki discusses a few:
In my view, RationalWiki cherry picks certain LessWrongers to bolster their case. You can’t really conclude that these people represent LessWrong as a whole. You can find plenty of discussion of the terminology issue here, for example, and the way RationalWiki presents things makes it sound like LessWrongers are ignorant. I find this sort of misrepresentation to be common at RationalWiki, unfortunately.
Their approach reduces to an anti-epistemic affect-heuristic, using the ugh-field they self-generate in a reverse affective death spiral (loosely based on our memeplex) as a semantic stopsign, when in fact the Kolmogorov distance to bridge the terminological inferential gap is but an epsilon.
You know you’ve been reading Less Wrong too long when you only have to read that comment twice to understand it.
I got waaay too far into this before I realized what you were doing… so well done!
What are you talking about?
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by Kolmogorov distance.