= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
John_Maxwell_IV comments on Goals for which Less Wrong does (and doesn't) help - 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 (101)
It doesn't seem obvious to me that reading about solved problems in computer programming and theoretical physics would develop one's rationality faster than reading a blog that purportedly develops rationality techniques.
And addition to the time costs of an activity there are also willpower costs. If my primary goal is to chill out in the evening after a day of school and software development, reading a difficult textbook may not help me achieve that goal. Skimming Less Wrong may help me achieve that goal and also gain me side benefits.
"Carefully working through" is much different than "reading".
Most of the time spent "carefully working through" is spent solving problems - both the ones inline in the text, and additional ones that you spontaneously think of when doing that kind of work.
Indeed. Just reading The Art of Computer Programming would be a pointless task. Incidentally, this wisdom is so obvious in academia that when people say "I read X" they really mean something like "I took notes and worked out most of the exercises". When they want to convey that they just read the text, they say "I looked at X". This language definitely misled me when I was an undergrad.
I do not disagree with you at all. My point is not that the criticism of LessWrong as "shiny" is accurate, merely giving my take on the viewpoint this criticism comes from.