I have argued somewhat that since the sequences are so badly organized, it’s nearly impossible to understand them fully if they’re not read in chronological order, and in that regard I think it’s downright reprehensible to divide them into somewhat arbitrary “sequence” units, when the whole body of work is so interdependent.
I haven’t read the entire sequences; the portion I’ve actually read might actually be embarrassingly small if I tried to estimate it. It does seem pretty likely that there is stuff in there that has to be read in chronological order. But I think it’s a bad idea to emphasize chronological order where it’s nonessential.
You could think of me as something of a “concept collector”. I really like reading about some new concept or argument that I can apply in lots of scenarios. Reversed stupidity not being intelligence is a good example. I don’t always require a lot of reading to add a new concept to my collection; I remember I would frequently read the first four paragraphs or so of a sequence post, but lose interest because it seemed like the author was just emphasizing the same point over again. (Of course, my attention span is not the best either, so maybe there is some dishonesty here...)
Let’s get down to brass tacks. What posts best exemplify the idea that you need to read every post that came before them in order for them to make sense?
I have argued somewhat that since the sequences are so badly organized, it’s nearly impossible to understand them fully if they’re not read in chronological order, and in that regard I think it’s downright reprehensible to divide them into somewhat arbitrary “sequence” units, when the whole body of work is so interdependent.
It’s been years since I’ve read some of this, but here are some posts that seem like they stand well on their own:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/iw/positive_bias_look_into_the_dark/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lw/reversed_stupidity_is_not_intelligence/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/
I haven’t read the entire sequences; the portion I’ve actually read might actually be embarrassingly small if I tried to estimate it. It does seem pretty likely that there is stuff in there that has to be read in chronological order. But I think it’s a bad idea to emphasize chronological order where it’s nonessential.
You could think of me as something of a “concept collector”. I really like reading about some new concept or argument that I can apply in lots of scenarios. Reversed stupidity not being intelligence is a good example. I don’t always require a lot of reading to add a new concept to my collection; I remember I would frequently read the first four paragraphs or so of a sequence post, but lose interest because it seemed like the author was just emphasizing the same point over again. (Of course, my attention span is not the best either, so maybe there is some dishonesty here...)
Here’s another list like mine:
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/User:Academian#Abridged_entry_to_the_LessWrong_community
Let’s get down to brass tacks. What posts best exemplify the idea that you need to read every post that came before them in order for them to make sense?
And has anyone seriously tackled the problem of refactoring them to gauge how difficult it would be?