= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gimpf comments on Proposed New Features for Less Wrong - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (169)
One of the reasons LW is intimidating to new users is that some of them believe they need to read all the sequences before they post.
If there's a subset which would be generally considered to be enough, it should be posted.
A glossary would be nice, even if it consists of links to essays from the sequences.
I haven't seen evidence to support the "load of crackpots" theory, though I suppose tying improving the art of rationality to FAI could have that effect. So might putting effort into highly implausible scenarios, though I personally see that as philosophy geeking rather than crackpottery.
The general intimidation problem is hard because people aren't reliably good at evaluating their skill level.
Very tentatively offered: if we can define the skills needed to do valuable posts and comments, this might help some potential posters decide whether they want to dive in.
I read the replies to the "Attention Lurkers" post.
I was surprised at what a strong theme it was, since I don't think LW is intimidating.
I should have said earlier that I do think maintaining the high quality of LW is important, and the plus side of "intimidating" is having people focused on improving rationality and actually working on it.
When someone says they're afraid to post, it's hard to tell whether they have an accurate understanding that they don't know enough to contribute or are habitually cautious about speaking up even if they do have something to contribute..