= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Attention Less Wrong: We need an FAQ - 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 (108)
So, am I the only one who thinks new users shouldn't be expected to read the sequences before participating? There are works of brilliance there but there are also posts that are far from required reading.
I mean, if a cognitive psychologist shows up and wants to teach us about some cool bias why the hell would she need to read about many worlds or Eliezer's coming of age as a rationalist?
What the FAQ should do is say what topics we've covered, what we think about them and from there link to posts in the sequences where our positions on those topics are covered in more depth. So if someone shows up they can look over the material, decide they want to talk to us about physics and read the posts on physics, and then say what they want to say.
Besides, if someone is just reading the new posts as they come they'll eventually pick up most of what is in the sequences just from links and repetition.
In the current state of the FAQ as I read it, reading the sequences is a strong suggestion, and new users are warned that posting without reading the sequences first may result in downvotes and links to the relevant posts, if something is missed that we consider obvious.
That said, I think we should have a simple, short-inferential-distance version of the main points of the relevant sequences (ideally without distracting crosslinking) that someone could skim over to make sure there aren't any major gaps in knowledge to worry about.