I alluded to this in this comment, but wanted to put it a bit more clearly:
I think it makes sense to think of The 2018 Review as like “an academic journal”, where you submit ideas, and if the ideas seem valuable it get included into a curated work – but not a work that everyone is expected to have read.
By contrast, Rationality A-Z is more like “a textbook”, which is foundational to the field. My current best guess it’ll make sense for next year’s review process to include considering which things make sense to add to a sequence that’s similar in scope to R:AZ and the Codex, in terms of “major works that most people are expected to be familiar with.”
I didn’t want to tackle that this year a) because I expected there to be a lot of kinks in the system to work out, and I didn’t want to try ‘adding things to canon’ without having had a chance to do a “medium-stakes” project. b) I think one year just isn’t enough time to see if something feels really valuable enough to make into obligate reading material.
I alluded to this in this comment, but wanted to put it a bit more clearly:
I think it makes sense to think of The 2018 Review as like “an academic journal”, where you submit ideas, and if the ideas seem valuable it get included into a curated work – but not a work that everyone is expected to have read.
By contrast, Rationality A-Z is more like “a textbook”, which is foundational to the field. My current best guess it’ll make sense for next year’s review process to include considering which things make sense to add to a sequence that’s similar in scope to R:AZ and the Codex, in terms of “major works that most people are expected to be familiar with.”
I didn’t want to tackle that this year a) because I expected there to be a lot of kinks in the system to work out, and I didn’t want to try ‘adding things to canon’ without having had a chance to do a “medium-stakes” project. b) I think one year just isn’t enough time to see if something feels really valuable enough to make into obligate reading material.