This post explicitly says that its aim is not to explain what it states. Instead, the author says that people can check sources etc “elsewhere”. Among the large number of claims and “principles” are, effectively, a call to “war” against US and international institutions, and a nonsensical claim about “governments most places”. And when curating the post, you tell people to “check claims for themselves”. We have discussed these or similar points with respect to previous covid-19 posts, so these norms on lesswrong are not surprising anymore, but they are disconcerting.
Instead, the author says that people can check sources etc “elsewhere”
That’s a misleading rephrase. The author that they have detailed their sources and reasoning extensively elsewhere in their own other writing, which I’ll add isn’t hard to find if you just click on the author’s profile. This post doesn’t repeat the reasoning and sources since it’s more of a summary post.
We have discussed these or similar points with respect to previous covid-19 posts, so these norms on lesswrong are not surprising anymore, but they are disconcerting.
Do you mean it’s disconcerting that this post was curated, or that the contents of the post are more broadly disconcerting just for appearing on LessWrong?
That’s a misleading rephrase. The author that they have detailed their sources and reasoning extensively elsewhere in their own other writing, which I’ll add isn’t hard to find if you just click on the author’s profile. This post doesn’t repeat the reasoning and sources since it’s more of a summary post.
So effectively, you say: These are not just claims, but you have to search for sources and other justifications somewhere in the author’s writings. This puts the burden completely on people who would dispute the claims or are skeptical about them. However, in his other writing, the author also makes several claims that are just claims without sources, in particular when they are claims about what some perceived other people (?) / “everyone” / the media (?) / “we” / [I can’t always say who he is referring to] thinks, says or does:
And no, I do not claim that I read all the posts or that I am representing all of Zvi’s posts or all of his answers to comments here. I read several of them, found that they contain useful assessments of the situation along with claims without sources, misrepresentations and rhetorics, and gave up on reading the rest because all of this makes it impossible to say what is true and what isn’t.
Do you mean it’s disconcerting that this post was curated, or that the contents of the post are more broadly disconcerting just for appearing on LessWrong?
have good context for ~all the high-level generalizations and institutional criticisms Zvi is bringing in, and why one might hold such views, from reading previous Zvi-posts, reading lots of discussion of COVID-19 over the last few months, and generally being exposed to lots of rationalist and tech-contrarian-libertarian arguments over the years, such that it doesn’t feel super confusing or novel as a package
This possibly also applies here. And that is strange for a showpiece text; it basically signals that exemplary posts are those that are immune to criticism because of the authority of the writer and because others know that the writer is right. Additionally, I do not see how the pitchfork rhetoric is justified; but I assume that at some degree of being an insider of the ‘rationalist community’ you just think that this normal or justified (that is just my impression of course).
Thanks for the elaboration, I think I know understand better where you’re coming from. Your quote from Rob Bensinger is well taken.
We (the mods) should perhaps be much more explicit and upfront about this, but Zvi’s Covid posts have been frontpaged and curated notwithstanding the harder-to-justify political content, because they have regularly been the best summary advice content available, and with Covid it’s seemed best to provide information to people that helps them orient as quickly as possible rather than wait for advice factored out from political opinion.
There’s actually a double suspension of regular norms here in that although usually Curation is for posts we think are exemplary and should be widely read for their timeless content, we’ve deemed it worth it during Covid times to broadcast certain information we think many readers would be grateful to have, e.g. guidance on how to relate to Omicron.
What would being explicit and upfront about this category of curated content look like?
To me it seems like that would require something like a disclaimer box at the top of the post:
“Note:
Lesswrong usually curates posts that embody the virtue of scholarship. This implies balanced, fact-based arguments in which the authors make their line of reasoning transparent, understandable and open to discussion. It excludes referring to the author’s authority as a substitute for an argument. It avoids the use of unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric, in particular based on false statements. This is particularly important in the context of politics discussions, not because these discussions need different rules of analysis on a theoretical level, but because experience suggests that the discussion of politics may be prone to inducing behavior like the disregard of rules of discussion and truth-seeking for only one side of the debate. It is important for LessWrong not to cultivate bias. However, for the present post the mods make an explicit exception and curate it because they want to increase its visibility. They think it is the best summary advice content available on the topic of covid-19. Even though the advice is not verifiable based on the post alone, the mods either believe its statements to be true because they read other texts by the same author that they found convincing, or because they trust the author for other reasons. Moreover, the mods do not endorse the political claims and the obviously false generalizations made in the post.”
This would obviously seem strange, but it is my impression of the reactions to discussions under these posts.
Yes, a disclaimer at the top is the kind of thing I was imagining. Yours is pretty good! Though I might personally refrain from evaluating the political content of the post.
This post has likely already had the bulk of traffic pass through, but for the next one, assuming there is, I’ll likely work on something like this.
I’m glad that you like the draft! I’d like to point out two things, however:
You already did evaluate the political content of the post by curating it. To any outside visitor to this site, from curious people lost in hyperspace to journalists or scientists, the stance that most governments are “Lying Liars With No Ability To Plan or Physically Reason”, that “we” are at “war” against WHO, CDC and FDA will be the political line of LessWrong, with all that this implies, in particular because you made an exception from curation criteria.
A curation is (also) intended to make sure that the curated post will continue to get traffic.
This post explicitly says that its aim is not to explain what it states. Instead, the author says that people can check sources etc “elsewhere”. Among the large number of claims and “principles” are, effectively, a call to “war” against US and international institutions, and a nonsensical claim about “governments most places”. And when curating the post, you tell people to “check claims for themselves”. We have discussed these or similar points with respect to previous covid-19 posts, so these norms on lesswrong are not surprising anymore, but they are disconcerting.
That’s a misleading rephrase. The author that they have detailed their sources and reasoning extensively elsewhere in their own other writing, which I’ll add isn’t hard to find if you just click on the author’s profile. This post doesn’t repeat the reasoning and sources since it’s more of a summary post.
Do you mean it’s disconcerting that this post was curated, or that the contents of the post are more broadly disconcerting just for appearing on LessWrong?
So effectively, you say: These are not just claims, but you have to search for sources and other justifications somewhere in the author’s writings. This puts the burden completely on people who would dispute the claims or are skeptical about them. However, in his other writing, the author also makes several claims that are just claims without sources, in particular when they are claims about what some perceived other people (?) / “everyone” / the media (?) / “we” / [I can’t always say who he is referring to] thinks, says or does:
“Naturally, the public-facing articles all seem to quote the 83%, and ignore the 95% and 99%.”, “because again everyone is on the ‘make the vaccines look unsafe’ team”, “The second we is also everyone collectively, inside the belief system of those who hold this religious model, which I think is roughly half the country”. There are also other misleading or exaggerated claims like “Certainly our vaccine policy has given little or no thought to getting doses for the third world”. Asking for sources or explanations of claims leads to non-answers.
And no, I do not claim that I read all the posts or that I am representing all of Zvi’s posts or all of his answers to comments here. I read several of them, found that they contain useful assessments of the situation along with claims without sources, misrepresentations and rhetorics, and gave up on reading the rest because all of this makes it impossible to say what is true and what isn’t.
The former.
With respect to a the original “my current model” post, someone who was enthusiastic about the content suggested that you need to
This possibly also applies here. And that is strange for a showpiece text; it basically signals that exemplary posts are those that are immune to criticism because of the authority of the writer and because others know that the writer is right. Additionally, I do not see how the pitchfork rhetoric is justified; but I assume that at some degree of being an insider of the ‘rationalist community’ you just think that this normal or justified (that is just my impression of course).
Thanks for the elaboration, I think I know understand better where you’re coming from. Your quote from Rob Bensinger is well taken.
We (the mods) should perhaps be much more explicit and upfront about this, but Zvi’s Covid posts have been frontpaged and curated notwithstanding the harder-to-justify political content, because they have regularly been the best summary advice content available, and with Covid it’s seemed best to provide information to people that helps them orient as quickly as possible rather than wait for advice factored out from political opinion.
There’s actually a double suspension of regular norms here in that although usually Curation is for posts we think are exemplary and should be widely read for their timeless content, we’ve deemed it worth it during Covid times to broadcast certain information we think many readers would be grateful to have, e.g. guidance on how to relate to Omicron.
Thank you for your reply, Ruby.
What would being explicit and upfront about this category of curated content look like?
To me it seems like that would require something like a disclaimer box at the top of the post:
“Note: Lesswrong usually curates posts that embody the virtue of scholarship. This implies balanced, fact-based arguments in which the authors make their line of reasoning transparent, understandable and open to discussion. It excludes referring to the author’s authority as a substitute for an argument. It avoids the use of unnecessarily aggressive rhetoric, in particular based on false statements. This is particularly important in the context of politics discussions, not because these discussions need different rules of analysis on a theoretical level, but because experience suggests that the discussion of politics may be prone to inducing behavior like the disregard of rules of discussion and truth-seeking for only one side of the debate. It is important for LessWrong not to cultivate bias. However, for the present post the mods make an explicit exception and curate it because they want to increase its visibility. They think it is the best summary advice content available on the topic of covid-19. Even though the advice is not verifiable based on the post alone, the mods either believe its statements to be true because they read other texts by the same author that they found convincing, or because they trust the author for other reasons. Moreover, the mods do not endorse the political claims and the obviously false generalizations made in the post.”
This would obviously seem strange, but it is my impression of the reactions to discussions under these posts.
Yes, a disclaimer at the top is the kind of thing I was imagining. Yours is pretty good! Though I might personally refrain from evaluating the political content of the post.
This post has likely already had the bulk of traffic pass through, but for the next one, assuming there is, I’ll likely work on something like this.
I’m glad that you like the draft! I’d like to point out two things, however:
You already did evaluate the political content of the post by curating it. To any outside visitor to this site, from curious people lost in hyperspace to journalists or scientists, the stance that most governments are “Lying Liars With No Ability To Plan or Physically Reason”, that “we” are at “war” against WHO, CDC and FDA will be the political line of LessWrong, with all that this implies, in particular because you made an exception from curation criteria.
A curation is (also) intended to make sure that the curated post will continue to get traffic.