That was... surprisingly surprising. Thank you.

For reasons like those you listed, and also out of some unverbalized frustration, in the last week I've been thinking pretty seriously whether I should leave LW and start hanging out somewhere else online. I'm not really interested in the Singularity, existential risks, cognitive biases, cryonics, un/Friendly AI, quantum physics or even decision theory. But I do like the quality of discussions here sometimes, and the mathematical interests of LW overlap a little with mine: people around here enjoy game theory and computability theory, though sadly not nearly as much as I do.

What other places on the Net are there for someone like me? Hacker News and Reddit look like dumbed-down versions of LW, so let's not talk about those. I solved a good bit of Project Euler once, the place is tremendously enjoyable but quite narrow-focused. The n-Category Cafe is, sadly, coming to a halt. Math Overflow looks wonderful and this question by Scott Aaronson nearly convinced me to drop everything and move there permanently. The Polymath blog is another fascinating place that is so high above LW that I feel completely underqualified to join. Unfortunately, none of these are really conducive to posting new results, and moving into academia IRL is not something I'd like to do (I've been there, thanks).

Any other links? Any advice? And please, please, nobody take this comment as a denigration of LW or a foot-stomping threat. I love you all.

I found this amusing because by those standards, cults are everywhere. For example, I run a professional Magic: The Gathering team and am pretty sure I'm not a cult leader. Although that does sound kind of neat. Observe:

Eileen Barker: 1. When events are close we spend a lot of time socially seperate from others so as to develop and protect our research. On occasion 'Magic colonies' form for a few weeks. It's not substantially less isolating than what SIAI dos. Check. 2. I have imparted huge amounts of belief about a large subset of our world, albeit a smaller one than Eliezer is working on. Partial Check. 3. I make reasonably import, on the level of the Cryonics decision if Cryonics isn't worthwhile, decisions for my teammates and do what I need to do to make sure they follow them far more than they would without me. Check. 4. We identify other teams as 'them' reasonably often, and certain other groups are certainly viewed as the enemy. Check. 5. Nope, even fainter argument than Eliezer. 6. Again, yes, obviously.

Shirley Harrison: 1. I claim a special mission that I am uniquely qualified to fufill. Not as important of one, but still. Check. 2. My writings count at least as much as the sequences. Check. 3. Not intentionally, but often new recruits have little idea what to expect. Check plus. 4. Totalitarian rules structure, and those who game too much often alienate friends and family. I've seen it many times, and far less of a cheat than saying that you'll be alienated from them when they are all dead and you're not because you got frozen. Check. 5. I make people believe what I want with the exact same techniques we use here. If anything, I'm willing to use slightly darker arts. Check. 6. We make the lower level people do the grunt work, sure. Check. 7. Based on some of the deals I've made, one looking to demonize could make a weak claim. Check plus. 8. Exclusivity. In spades. Check.

I'd also note that the exercise left to the reader is much harder, because the other checklists are far harder to fudge.

On Eileen Barker:

Much like in 2 above, many people have chosen to sign up for cryonics based on advice from the likes of Eliezer and Robin; indeed, Eliezer has advised that anyone not smart enough to do the math should just trust him on this.

I believe that most LW posters are not signed up for cryonics (myself included), and there is substantial disagreement about whether it's a good idea. And that disagreement has been well received by the "cult", judging by the karma scores involved.

Several us/them distinctions have been made and are not open for discussion. For example, theism is a common whipping-boy, and posts discussing the virtues of theism are generally not welcome.

Theism has been discussed. It is wrong. But Robert Aumann's work is still considered very important; theists are hardly dismissed as "satanic," to use Barker's word.

Of Barker's criteria, 2-4 of 6 apply to the LessWrong community, and only one ("Leaders and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal") applies strongly.

On Shirley Harrison:

I'm not sure if 'from above' qualifies, but Eliezer thinks he has a special mission that he is uniquely qualified to fulfill.

I can't speak for Eliezer, but I suspect that if there were a person who was obviously more qualified than him to tackle some aspect of FAI, he would acknowledge it and welcome their contributions.

While 'revealed' is not necessarily accurate in some senses, the "Sequences" are quite long and anyone who tries to argue is told to "read the Sequences". Anyone who disagrees even after reading the Sequences is often considered too stupid to understand them.

No. The sequences are not infallible, they have never been claimed as such, and intelligent disagreement is generally well received.

Many people here develop feelings of superiority over their families and/or friends, and are asked to imagine a future where they are alienated from family and friends due to their not having signed up for cryonics.

What you describe is a prosperous exaggeration, not "[t]otalitarianism and alienation of members from their families and/or friends."

There is volunteer effort at Lw, and posts on Lw are promoted to direct volunteer effort towards SIAI. Some of the effort of SIAI goes to paying Eliezer.

Any person who promotes a charity at which they work is pushing a cult, by this interpretation. Eliezer isn't "lining his own pockets"; if someone digs up the numbers, I'll donate $50 to a charity of your choice if it turns out that SIAI pays him a salary disproportionally greater (2 sigmas?) than the average for researchers at comparable non-profits.

So that's 2-6 of Harrison's checklist items for LessWrong, none of them particularly strong.

My filters would drop LessWrong in the "probably not a cult" category, based off of those two standards.

the "Sequences" are quite long and anyone who tries to argue is told to "read the Sequences". Anyone who disagrees even after reading the Sequences is often considered too stupid to understand them.

I have to disagree that this "smugness" even remotely reaches the level that is characteristic of a cult.

As someone who has frequently expressed disagreement with the "doctrine" here, I have occasionally encountered both reactions that you mention. But those sporadic reactions are not much of a barrier to criticism - any critic who persists here will eventually be engaged intelligently and respectfully, assuming that the critic tries to achieve a modicum of respect and intelligence on his own part. Furthermore, if the critic really engages with what his interlocutors here are saying, he will receive enough upvotes to more than repair the initial damage to his karma

This would be easier to parse if you quoted the individual criteria you are evaluating right before the evaluation, eg:

1.

A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or socially;

It would be hard to make a case for this one; a tendency to congregate geographically (many people joining the SIAI visiting fellows, and having meetups) is hardly cutting oneself off from others; however, there is certainly some tendency to cut ourselves off socially - note for example the many instances of folks worrying they will not be able to find a sufficiently "rationalist" significant other.

Anyone who disagrees even after reading the Sequences is often considered too stupid to understand them.

I've not seen this happening - examples?