Could we improve the edited rationality materials link? Maybe it could link to the sequences, or a page with a name like “a field guide to the less wrong archives”? I don’t think it’s current target is very relevant to anyone but meetup group leaders.
For what it’s worth, I think our presentation of the sequences could also be improved a fair amount.
Some of the featured posts are not all that great, e.g. this is one I read recently. Could we ruthlessly pare the sequences down until only the most essential, insight-packed posts remain? The more dense they are with information, the more people will take the time to read them.
Suggest that it’s okay to just read summaries of the sequences, taking the time to read the full post if a concept doesn’t seem obvious from the summary. (I see reading about rationality as debugging one’s brain, and there isn’t much point in reading about bugs one doesn’t suffer from much.) The wiki has summaries, and there’s also the Reading Yudkowsky series on Common Sense Atheism. I can’t be the only one who thinks some of the sequence posts are a little wordy.
I recently proposed having a contest to rewrite the copy on the homepage on the wiki, but no one responded. Maybe this is a good place to ask?
Could we improve the edited rationality materials link? Maybe it could link to the sequences, or a page with a name like “a field guide to the less wrong archives”?
I agree that this is the wrong place for this link to go; instead of the sequences, though, what about the about page? That’s a much more gentle introduction than just the sequences index.
Or, alternatively, what about a new wiki page (much like the “field guide” you alluded to) with an a brief overview of LW topics and links to excellent articles by a variety of LW writers? There’s so much amazing content on this site that we could be showing off to new readers, and a lot of it isn’t in the sequences. Come to think of it, would anyone be interested in collaborating to make such a page? It seems like it’d be a fun community project. Leave a comment or send me a message if you’re interested.
This is a poll to vote on whether we should emphasize linear, completionist reading of the sequences, or a “browse around and see what you like” approach that references sequence guides/summaries and emphasizes reading about the bugs your particular brain seems to suffer from.
Note that the next/previous links will stay in place regardless of either proposal, so linear reading will always be a strong option.
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?
Even if the Sequences are linearly ordered, you can read them in any order, so linear ordering allows all readers to choose what they want.
On the other hand, if someone has decided to spend a lot of time reading it all, it is frustrating when the recommended reading order is not obvious. For example in the list of Sequences, major sequences are listed before minor sequences, but at the same time it is recommended to read “Map and Territory” (a minor sequence) first. So… why aren’t these things just listed in the recommended reading order? The distinction between major and minor is either unnecessary, or could be shown e.g. using some icons near their titles.
The sequences are bigger than two copies of Lord Of The Rings. Expecting all new readers to study a million words of philosophy before proceeding strikes me as unrealistic.
Not necessarily expect them to read all of it, but the sequences are an excellent way to hook new readers. Plus, even reading some of it is probably the most efficient way to raise the sanity waterline.
The sequence articles have so many links to other articles that it’s impossible for me to read one without spawning five distantly related ones from different topics or sequences. Even if I wanted to be linear… (has no control when it comes to links)
This is a poll to classify sequence post wiki pages into two categories: “key posts” and “subsidiary posts”. Categorization will be done based on judgment of wiki editors taking these factors into consideration:
Post score
Frequency with which post is linked to by other, later posts
Perceived importance of the ideas in the post
Perceived difficulty of understanding other, later posts without the context provided by this post
Thanks a lot for doing this!
Could we improve the edited rationality materials link? Maybe it could link to the sequences, or a page with a name like “a field guide to the less wrong archives”? I don’t think it’s current target is very relevant to anyone but meetup group leaders.
For what it’s worth, I think our presentation of the sequences could also be improved a fair amount.
Some of the featured posts are not all that great, e.g. this is one I read recently. Could we ruthlessly pare the sequences down until only the most essential, insight-packed posts remain? The more dense they are with information, the more people will take the time to read them.
Suggest that it’s okay to just read summaries of the sequences, taking the time to read the full post if a concept doesn’t seem obvious from the summary. (I see reading about rationality as debugging one’s brain, and there isn’t much point in reading about bugs one doesn’t suffer from much.) The wiki has summaries, and there’s also the Reading Yudkowsky series on Common Sense Atheism. I can’t be the only one who thinks some of the sequence posts are a little wordy.
I recently proposed having a contest to rewrite the copy on the homepage on the wiki, but no one responded. Maybe this is a good place to ask?
I agree that this is the wrong place for this link to go; instead of the sequences, though, what about the about page? That’s a much more gentle introduction than just the sequences index.
Or, alternatively, what about a new wiki page (much like the “field guide” you alluded to) with an a brief overview of LW topics and links to excellent articles by a variety of LW writers? There’s so much amazing content on this site that we could be showing off to new readers, and a lot of it isn’t in the sequences. Come to think of it, would anyone be interested in collaborating to make such a page? It seems like it’d be a fun community project. Leave a comment or send me a message if you’re interested.
We’d like to point that link to a better wiki page, or even a new, special, non-Wiki page. Would anyone like to write it?
I would. I’ll make a new wiki page, then link to it in a discussion post so that anyone who is interested can collaborate.
I was thinking that the page should look something like this. How similar is this blueprint to what you had in mind?
Edit: Discussion post link.
This is a poll to vote on whether we should emphasize linear, completionist reading of the sequences, or a “browse around and see what you like” approach that references sequence guides/summaries and emphasizes reading about the bugs your particular brain seems to suffer from.
Note that the next/previous links will stay in place regardless of either proposal, so linear reading will always be a strong option.
Vote this comment up if you’re in favor of emphasizing linear reading.
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?
Even if the Sequences are linearly ordered, you can read them in any order, so linear ordering allows all readers to choose what they want.
On the other hand, if someone has decided to spend a lot of time reading it all, it is frustrating when the recommended reading order is not obvious. For example in the list of Sequences, major sequences are listed before minor sequences, but at the same time it is recommended to read “Map and Territory” (a minor sequence) first. So… why aren’t these things just listed in the recommended reading order? The distinction between major and minor is either unnecessary, or could be shown e.g. using some icons near their titles.
Vote this comment up if you’re in favor of emphasizing nonlinear reading methods.
The sequences are bigger than two copies of Lord Of The Rings. Expecting all new readers to study a million words of philosophy before proceeding strikes me as unrealistic.
Not necessarily expect them to read all of it, but the sequences are an excellent way to hook new readers. Plus, even reading some of it is probably the most efficient way to raise the sanity waterline.
Is there evidence for this? As far as I can tell, the only way to hook new readers that’s made “excellent” is HPMOR.
Excellent in that I would suspect a large proportion of people who started reading Less Wrong did so from reading at least part of the sequences.
I do not have evidence for this, and it might be wrong, but I would be surprised if it were.
The sequence articles have so many links to other articles that it’s impossible for me to read one without spawning five distantly related ones from different topics or sequences. Even if I wanted to be linear… (has no control when it comes to links)
Which makes reading them awesome. But patchwork-y
Karma sink.
This is a poll to classify sequence post wiki pages into two categories: “key posts” and “subsidiary posts”. Categorization will be done based on judgment of wiki editors taking these factors into consideration:
Post score
Frequency with which post is linked to by other, later posts
Perceived importance of the ideas in the post
Perceived difficulty of understanding other, later posts without the context provided by this post
Overall perceived quality
Vote this comment up if you’re in favor of this proposal.
Vote this comment up if you’re against this proposal.
Karma sink.