John Maxwell and I went back and forth on this question a bunch. I was initially on the con side and updated in the direction that increasing lurker ratios and common knowledge generation are big enough considerations that forum participation is probably pretty good/helpful. He was initially on the pro side and I think updated in the direction that without an anchor of scholarship (textbooks, research review, and structured notes) and longer/more in depth conversations online activity can acquire a veneer of productivity that is harmful to both real productivity and mental health.
Maybe I remember the conversation differently than Romeo, because I remember being on the pro side.
Participation inequality is a thing. Here is one estimate for LW. Here is a thread from 2010 where Kevin asked people to delurk which has over 600 comments in it. Anecdotally, I’m no longer surprised by experiences like:
Friend I didn’t know very well recently came to visit. Says my ideas about AI are interesting. Friend is just learning to program. I didn’t even know they read LW, much less that they knew anything about my AI ideas.
Write a comment on the EA Forum. Go to an event that evening. I talk to someone and they’re like “oh I saw your comment on the EA Forum and it was good”.
I visited Europe and met an EA from the Czech Republic. He says: “I’ve probably read more words by you than by William MacAskill because you post to the EA Forum so much.”
My impression is this is a contrast to academia, where virtually no one reads most academic publications. I suspect acquiring an online following allows for greater total influence than ascending the academic ladder, though it’s probably a different kind of influence (people are less likely to cite your work years later? In the spirit of that, here is a LW thread from years ago on papers vs forums.)
However:
With great power comes great responsibility. If you are speaking to a big audience, spreading bad info is harmful. And debunking bad info is valuable.
I agree that the “anchor of scholarship” is valuable. I view FP as a guilty pleasure/structured procrastination. I don’t necessarily endorse it as the highest value activity, but if I’m going to be goofing off anyway it’s a relatively useful way to goof off, and sometimes it feels like my contributions are pretty valuable/I get valuable ideas from others. (I suspect the best forum writing is not only academically rigorous and innovative, but also entertaining to read, with clickbaity titles and interesting anecdotes and such, so you can capture the cognitive surplus of forum users as effectively as possible. Additionally, the best questions to ask forums are probably those that benefit from crowdsourcing/multiple perspectives/creativity/etc.)
Seems like the ideal is a balance between FP and scholarship. If you’re all FP, you’re likely just a clueless person spreading cluelessness. If you’re all scholarship, others don’t get to share in your wisdom much.
Right, I’m saying I started off con, you started off pro, and both of us nudged towards the other along the dimensions mentioned. I probably updated more than you.
John Maxwell and I went back and forth on this question a bunch. I was initially on the con side and updated in the direction that increasing lurker ratios and common knowledge generation are big enough considerations that forum participation is probably pretty good/helpful. He was initially on the pro side and I think updated in the direction that without an anchor of scholarship (textbooks, research review, and structured notes) and longer/more in depth conversations online activity can acquire a veneer of productivity that is harmful to both real productivity and mental health.
Can you summarize the evidence/arguments that were brought up during your discussions?
Maybe I remember the conversation differently than Romeo, because I remember being on the pro side.
Participation inequality is a thing. Here is one estimate for LW. Here is a thread from 2010 where Kevin asked people to delurk which has over 600 comments in it. Anecdotally, I’m no longer surprised by experiences like:
Friend I didn’t know very well recently came to visit. Says my ideas about AI are interesting. Friend is just learning to program. I didn’t even know they read LW, much less that they knew anything about my AI ideas.
Write a comment on the EA Forum. Go to an event that evening. I talk to someone and they’re like “oh I saw your comment on the EA Forum and it was good”.
I visited Europe and met an EA from the Czech Republic. He says: “I’ve probably read more words by you than by William MacAskill because you post to the EA Forum so much.”
My impression is this is a contrast to academia, where virtually no one reads most academic publications. I suspect acquiring an online following allows for greater total influence than ascending the academic ladder, though it’s probably a different kind of influence (people are less likely to cite your work years later? In the spirit of that, here is a LW thread from years ago on papers vs forums.)
However:
With great power comes great responsibility. If you are speaking to a big audience, spreading bad info is harmful. And debunking bad info is valuable.
I agree that the “anchor of scholarship” is valuable. I view FP as a guilty pleasure/structured procrastination. I don’t necessarily endorse it as the highest value activity, but if I’m going to be goofing off anyway it’s a relatively useful way to goof off, and sometimes it feels like my contributions are pretty valuable/I get valuable ideas from others. (I suspect the best forum writing is not only academically rigorous and innovative, but also entertaining to read, with clickbaity titles and interesting anecdotes and such, so you can capture the cognitive surplus of forum users as effectively as possible. Additionally, the best questions to ask forums are probably those that benefit from crowdsourcing/multiple perspectives/creativity/etc.)
Seems like the ideal is a balance between FP and scholarship. If you’re all FP, you’re likely just a clueless person spreading cluelessness. If you’re all scholarship, others don’t get to share in your wisdom much.
Right, I’m saying I started off con, you started off pro, and both of us nudged towards the other along the dimensions mentioned. I probably updated more than you.
Which is 100% how I initially read your comment, but if you look at your comment it actually says you were both con :-)
thanks!
This was more than 2 years ago so unfortunately I don’t recall.