We can make an analogy with science here: scientists come from a wide range of cultural, political, and religious backgrounds.
I’m not persuaded that this is substantially more true of scientists than people in the LW community.
Notably, the range of different kinds of expertise that one finds on LW is much broader than that of a typical academic department (see “Profession” section here).
They come together to do science, and are selected on their ability to do science, not their desire to fit into a subculture.
I don’t think people usually become scientists unless they like the culture of academic science.
I’d like to see lesswrong 2.0 to be more like this, i.e. an intellectual community rather than a subculture.
I think “intellectual communities” are just a high-status kind of subculture. “Be more high status” is usually not useful advice.
I think it might make sense to see academic science as a culture that’s optimized for receiving grant money. Insofar as it is bland and respectable, that could be why.
If you feel that receiving grant money and accumulating prestige is the most important thing, then you probably also don’t endorse spending a lot of time on internet fora. Internet fora have basically never been a good way to do either of those things.
The core of my argument is: try to select as much as possible on what you care about (ability and desire to contribute and learn from lesswrong 2.0) and as little as possible on stuff that’s not so important (e.g. do they get references to hpmor). And do testing to work out how best to achieve this.
By intellectual community I wasn’t meaning ‘high status subculture’, I was trying to get across the idea of a community that selects on people’s ability to make intellectual contributions, rather than fit in to a culture. Science is somewhat like this, although as you say there is a culture of academic science which makes it more subculture-like. stackoverflow might be a better example.
I’m not hoping that lesswrong 2.0 will accumulate money and prestige, I’m hoping that it will make intellectual progress needed for solving the world’s most important problems. But I think this aim would be better served if it attracted a wide range of people who are both capable and aligned with its aims.
I’m not persuaded that this is substantially more true of scientists than people in the LW community.
Notably, the range of different kinds of expertise that one finds on LW is much broader than that of a typical academic department (see “Profession” section here).
I don’t think people usually become scientists unless they like the culture of academic science.
I think “intellectual communities” are just a high-status kind of subculture. “Be more high status” is usually not useful advice.
I think it might make sense to see academic science as a culture that’s optimized for receiving grant money. Insofar as it is bland and respectable, that could be why.
If you feel that receiving grant money and accumulating prestige is the most important thing, then you probably also don’t endorse spending a lot of time on internet fora. Internet fora have basically never been a good way to do either of those things.
The core of my argument is: try to select as much as possible on what you care about (ability and desire to contribute and learn from lesswrong 2.0) and as little as possible on stuff that’s not so important (e.g. do they get references to hpmor). And do testing to work out how best to achieve this.
By intellectual community I wasn’t meaning ‘high status subculture’, I was trying to get across the idea of a community that selects on people’s ability to make intellectual contributions, rather than fit in to a culture. Science is somewhat like this, although as you say there is a culture of academic science which makes it more subculture-like. stackoverflow might be a better example.
I’m not hoping that lesswrong 2.0 will accumulate money and prestige, I’m hoping that it will make intellectual progress needed for solving the world’s most important problems. But I think this aim would be better served if it attracted a wide range of people who are both capable and aligned with its aims.