= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelVassar comments on Compartmentalization in epistemic and instrumental rationality - 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 (121)
After trying to figure out where the response would be best suited, I'm splitting the difference; I'll put a summary here, and if it's not obviously stupid and seems to garner comments, I'll post the full thing on its own.
I've read some of the sequences, but not all; I started to, and then wandered off. Here are my theories as to why, with brief explanations.
1) The minimum suggested reading is not just long, it's deceptively long.
The quantity by itself is a pretty big hurdle to someone who's only just developing an interest in its topics, and the way the sequences are indexed hides the actual amount of content behind categorized links. This is the wrong direction in which to surprise the would-be reader. And that's just talking about the core sequences.
2) Many of the sequences are either not interesting to me, or are presented in ways that make them appear not to be.
If the topic actually doesn't interest me, that's fine, because I presumably won't be trying to discuss it, either. But some of the sequence titles are more pithy than informative, and some of the introductory text is dissuasive where it tries to be inviting; few of them give a clear summary of what the subject is and who needs to read it.
3) Even the ones which are interesting to me contain way more information, or at least text, than I needed.
I don't think it's actually true that every new reader needs to read all of the sequences. I'm a bad example, because there's a lot in them I've never heard of or even thought about, but I don't think that's true of everyone who walks up to LW for the first time. On the other hand, just because I'd never heard of Bayes's Theorem by name doesn't mean that I need a huge missive to explain it to me. What I turned out to need was an example problem, the fact that the general form of the math I used to solve it is named after a guy called Bayes, and an explanation of how the term is used in prose. I was frustrated by having to go through a very long introduction in order to get those things (and I didn't entirely get the last one).
My proposal for addressing these is to create a single introductory page with inline links to glossary definitions, and from there to further reading. The idea is that more information is available up front and a new reader can more easily prioritize the articles based on their own knowledge and interest; it would also provide a general overview of the topics LW addresses. (The About page is a good introduction to the site, but not the subjects.) On a quick search, the glossary appears to have been suggested before but not yet exist--unless I just can't find it, in which case it's not doing much good. There are parts of this I'm not qualified to do, but I'd be happy to donate time to the ones that I am.
To be clear, do you actually think that time spent reading later posts has been more valuable than marginal time on the sequences would have been? To me that seems like reading Discover Magazine after dropping your intro to mechanics textbook because the later seems to just tell you thinks that are obvious.
I think some of my time spent reading articles in the sequences was well spent, and the rest was split between two alternatives: 1) in a minority of cases where the reading didn't feel useful, it was about something I already felt I understood, and 2) in a majority of such cases, it wasn't connected to something I was already curious about.
It's explained a bit better in the longer version of the above comment (which now appears to be homeless). But I think the sequences, or at least the admonition to read them all, are targeted at someone who has done some reading or at least thinking about their subjects before. Not because they demand prior knowledge, but because they demand prior interest. You may have underestimated how much of a newbie you have on your hands.
It's not that I'm claiming to be so smart that I can participate fully in the discussions without reading up on the fundamentals, it's that participating or even just watching the discussion is the thing that's piquing my interest in the subjects in the first place. It feels less like asking me to read about basic physics before trying to set up a physics experiment, and more like asking me to read about music theory without ever having heard any music. It's just not as meaningful before having observed what it's good for--and even a highly talented and technical musician would admit that attending a performance with other people is more interesting than doing theory homework, even if they have a very clever theory teacher who makes the lessons into little stories.
Just to put this into perspective, I don't think any of the above is nearly as significant to my reading habits as the simple amount of material in the sequences. I do keep reading bits and pieces, but how much time in a day I'm able or even willing to focus on it is finite. I've spent a lot of time this week reading LW when I could have been out getting vitamin D or practicing the guitar, and at the current rate it would still take me quite a while to get through all the sequences (less, but not a trivial amount, to get through just the core sequences). That's a time commitment it's difficult to justify if I'm to make it before being allowed to discuss the ideas with human beings in the current blog.
I guess there are two theses here: that the sequences are good at bestowing information, but the current posts are better at garnering interest in them; and that the latter is simply more enjoyable, because it's interactive. (I, like some other commenters here, read LW as play, not work; if it weren't fun I wouldn't be here.) If you want to convince people to read the sequences before participating, those are your obstacles.
I am struck by the inclusion of the seemingly unnecessary phrase "with other people", which suggests that your real interest is social in nature. And sure enough, you confirm this later in the comment:
and
It seems like an important point, and another argument in favor of additional (sub)forums. About that, I'm not sure what I think yet.
Incidentally, against the notion that attending performances is the most enjoyable part of the musical experience, here is Milton Babbitt on the subject:
Well, to say it's my "real" interest suggests that my interest in rationality is fake, which is false, but I am indeed a very social critter and a lot of the appeal of LW is being able to discuss, not just absorb. (I even get shiny karma points for doing it well!)
So, yes--and I was actually realizing that myself over the course of writing that comment (which necessarily involved thinking about why I'm here).
Despite the above, I'm not actually sure why it is.
Well, I voted for 'em, so it's good to hear that's consistent. :)
That quote is pretty funny. We clearly differ in at least these two ways: 1) I either don't know or don't care enough about music to be bothered by period distractions from it (I'm not sure how to tell the difference from inside my own head), and 2) I like the noisy hall.
He's right about the novel, though, that would be appalling. (Difference being that verbal language breaks down a lot faster if you miss a piece.)
Oh, my. Fiction put in a good effort, but truth pulls ahead as always:
Source; non-free, but includes a thorough abstract.
Thanks for a very thoughtful answer.
You're quite welcome. I appreciate how much thought and respect you're giving a newbie's opinion.
A clever point, but is it really useful to compare the sequences to a textbook? Maybe a textbook at some community college somewhere. I personally found the sequences to be overloaded with anecdote and motivation, and rather lacking in technical substance.
There is one thing that the post and comment part of this site has that the sequences do not have. Dialog. Posters and commenters are challenged to clarify their positions and to defend their arguments. In the sequences, on the other hand, it often seemed that Eliezer was either busy demolishing strawmen, or he was energetically proving some point which I had never really apprehended.
The "sequences" posts have comment sections too - no?
There are only a few posts with disabled comments - such as this one:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/
Evidently the definition of "rationality" is not up for debate. Perhaps it is the royal "we".
I think that's a bug, not a feature. I'll look into it.
Yes, but I don't think the discussion was all that vigorous. Eliezer was making a full size posting every day back then. He really didn't have the time to engage commenters, even if the commenters had tried to engage him.
Cute.
Pretty often, when a post has an obvious flaw, or attacks a straw man, that is pointed out in the comments.