Less Wrong is extremely intimidating to newcomers and as pointed out by Academian something that would help is a document in FAQ form intended for newcomers. Later we can decide how to best deliver that document to new Less Wrongers, but for now we can edit the existing (narrow) FAQ to make the site less scary and the standards more evident.
Go ahead and make bold edits to the FAQ wiki page or use this post to discuss possible FAQs and answers in agonizing detail.
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.
This is Eliezer's baby... but making the second question about him kind of screams "cult!" Objections to changing it?
Why is "claim an objective morality" on the list of things you shouldn't post against consensus about? I'm a moral realist; historically this has gotten me only slightly heckled, not decried as an obvious amateur.
"We need a FAQ" is solution language.
Why do we think we need one? What appears to be the problem?
What is the desired outcome?
Great idea, Kevin. I would also suggest adding the FAQ to the About page here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1/about_less_wrong/, to allow new users to find it more easily.
Just thought I'd jump in to say that, when I was a newcomer, the most confusing thing for me were constant references to AI and FAI. To be honest, I am still left puzzled by such discussions. I would suggest the FAQ contain a brief outline of what FAI is, and if anybody knows a basic-level post about it, I'd be personally obliged.
What tone do people think the FAQ should take? Right now it is pretty serious and straight forward, jokes would make us less intimidating. But maybe that is a bad idea.
How do I format my comments?
Instructions are provided from the "Help" link under each comment box. The usual things are as follows:
Quick aside: if your link URL has parentheses in them, you will need to "escape" the close-paren. Insert a backslash character ("\") into the URL in front of the close-paren.
More information about the Markdown syntax can be found at daringfireball.net.
It's an interesting question. The SEP link in Jack's comment actually gives Divine Command Theory as an example of non-relativistic subjectivism. It's subjectivist because what is moral depends on a mental fact about that god — namely, whether that god approves.
It's less clear whether cultural relativism is subjectivist. I'm inclined to think of culture as depending to a large extent on the minds of the people in that culture. (Different peoples whose mental content differed in the right way would have different cultures, even if their material conditions were otherwise identical.) This would make cultural relativism subjectivist as well.
Indeed, I was glossing over that distinction; if you think cultures or God have mental states, then that's a different story. There's also a question of how much "subjectivism" really depends on the relevant minds, and in what way.
I could construct further examples, but we already understand it's logically possible, so that would not be of any help if nobody is advocating them. I think the well has run dry on my end w.r.t examples of relativism in the wild.