If none of the smart serious people can do it because we’re terrified that the media (or Twitter, or /r/SneerClub) can’t tell the difference between us and Stuart Anderson, then we’re dead.
The cynical hypothesis is that the media (or Twitter, or /r/SneerClub) fundamentally do not care about the difference between us and Stuart Anderson, and even if they can tell the difference, it doesn’t matter.
But more importantly—
… if there is to be such a thing as an art of rationality, the smart serious version of the discussion … needs to happen somewhere.
Suppose you were asked to briefly describe what such a place (which would, by construction, not be Less Wrong) would be like—what would you say?
Invite-only private email list that publishes highlights to a pseudonymous blog with no comment section.
You might ask, why aren’t people already doing this? I think the answer is going to be some weighted combination of (a) they’re worthless cowards, and (b) the set of things you can’t say, and the distortionary effect of recursive lies, just aren’t that large, such that they don’t perceive the need to bother.
There are reasons I might be biased to put too much weight on (a). Sorry.
(c) unpopular ideas hurt each other by association, (d) it’s hard to find people who can be trusted to have good unpopular ideas but not bad unpopular ideas, (e) people are motivated by getting credit for their ideas, (f) people don’t seem good at group writing curation generally
Thanks. (e) is very important: that’s a large part of why my special-purpose pen name ended up being a mere “differential visibility” pseudonym (for a threat-model where the first page of my real-name Google results matters because of casual searches by future employers) rather than an Actually Secret pseudonym. (There are other threat models that demand more Actual Secrecy, but I’m not defending against those because I’m not that much of a worthless coward.)
I currently don’t have a problem with (d), but I agree that it’s probably true in general (and I’m just lucky to have such awesome friends).
I think people underestimate the extent to which (c) is a contingent self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a fixed fact of nature. You can read the implied social attack in (a) as an attempt to push against the current equilibrium.
Suppose you were asked to briefly describe what such a place (which would, by construction, not be Less Wrong) would be like—what would you say?
I’m a big fan of in-person conversation. I think it’s entirely possible to save the world without needing to be able to talk about anything you want online in a public forum.
As per my other comment—is it the “public” part that you feel is critical here, or the “online” part, or are they both separately necessary (and if so—are they together sufficient? … though this is a much trickier question, of course).
There’s a false dilemma there, though. “In-person conversation” and “online public forum” are surely not the only possibilities. At the very least, “private online forum” is another option, yes?
The cynical hypothesis is that the media (or Twitter, or /r/SneerClub) fundamentally do not care about the difference between us and Stuart Anderson, and even if they can tell the difference, it doesn’t matter.
But more importantly—
Suppose you were asked to briefly describe what such a place (which would, by construction, not be Less Wrong) would be like—what would you say?
Invite-only private email list that publishes highlights to a pseudonymous blog with no comment section.
You might ask, why aren’t people already doing this? I think the answer is going to be some weighted combination of (a) they’re worthless cowards, and (b) the set of things you can’t say, and the distortionary effect of recursive lies, just aren’t that large, such that they don’t perceive the need to bother.
There are reasons I might be biased to put too much weight on (a). Sorry.
(c) unpopular ideas hurt each other by association, (d) it’s hard to find people who can be trusted to have good unpopular ideas but not bad unpopular ideas, (e) people are motivated by getting credit for their ideas, (f) people don’t seem good at group writing curation generally
Thanks. (e) is very important: that’s a large part of why my special-purpose pen name ended up being a mere “differential visibility” pseudonym (for a threat-model where the first page of my real-name Google results matters because of casual searches by future employers) rather than an Actually Secret pseudonym. (There are other threat models that demand more Actual Secrecy, but I’m not defending against those because I’m not that much of a worthless coward.)
I currently don’t have a problem with (d), but I agree that it’s probably true in general (and I’m just lucky to have such awesome friends).
I think people underestimate the extent to which (c) is a contingent self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a fixed fact of nature. You can read the implied social attack in (a) as an attempt to push against the current equilibrium.
I’m a big fan of in-person conversation. I think it’s entirely possible to save the world without needing to be able to talk about anything you want online in a public forum.
I disagree.
(I mean, ‘possible’ is a weak word, many things are possible, but I think it’s the sort of massive handicap that I’m not sure how to get around.)
As per my other comment—is it the “public” part that you feel is critical here, or the “online” part, or are they both separately necessary (and if so—are they together sufficient? … though this is a much trickier question, of course).
There’s a false dilemma there, though. “In-person conversation” and “online public forum” are surely not the only possibilities. At the very least, “private online forum” is another option, yes?