I believe that if Less Wrong users changed the posts they made and the posts/comments they upvoted to try and “confront wrongness wherever it appears,” as you suggest, that the value of Less Wrong to human society would be significantly increased.
Contrary to the principles behind Less Wrong (or what I perceive to be the principles behind Less Wrong), I doubt that most Less Wrong users can get anywhere near as much value by thinking about being rational for a minute as they could by applying their rationality for a minute. Trying to develop consensus among Less Wrong users on difficult issues seems like it is almost certainly the most effective way we can apply our rationality in the context of making posts on Less Wrong, because consensus among Less Wrong users is a valuable thing to reference when making decisions which are actually important about issues which are not, strictly speaking, relevant topics for Less Wrong.
Whether the correct response is to stop reading/posting on Less Wrong or to confront wrongness on Less Wrong is unclear (you can tell from my post count what I have done in the past).
[In general I enjoy Less Wrong and believe its existence is good, but I also tend to agree with some recent posts that for most people it is a distraction rather than a resource and should be treated as such.]
doubt that most Less Wrong users can get anywhere near as much value by thinking about being rational for a minute as they could by applying their rationality for a minute
I believe that if Less Wrong users changed the posts they made and the posts/comments they upvoted to try and “confront wrongness wherever it appears,” as you suggest, that the value of Less Wrong to human society would be significantly increased.
Contrary to the principles behind Less Wrong (or what I perceive to be the principles behind Less Wrong), I doubt that most Less Wrong users can get anywhere near as much value by thinking about being rational for a minute as they could by applying their rationality for a minute. Trying to develop consensus among Less Wrong users on difficult issues seems like it is almost certainly the most effective way we can apply our rationality in the context of making posts on Less Wrong, because consensus among Less Wrong users is a valuable thing to reference when making decisions which are actually important about issues which are not, strictly speaking, relevant topics for Less Wrong.
Whether the correct response is to stop reading/posting on Less Wrong or to confront wrongness on Less Wrong is unclear (you can tell from my post count what I have done in the past).
[In general I enjoy Less Wrong and believe its existence is good, but I also tend to agree with some recent posts that for most people it is a distraction rather than a resource and should be treated as such.]
This.