= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lsparrish comments on A possible example of failure to apply lessons from Less Wrong - 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 (17)
Yes. Even if, as is the case, RW loves LW really.
(I'm somewhat disconcerted that this quickly dashed off comment is so popular, given the several comments I made yesterday that I thought were quite important and worked hard on. Goldman's Law applies.)
It is possible LessWrong is feeling the effects of too little outside feedback. The HP:MOR readers are drifting in. Would a publicity push for LessWrong be appropriate, to get it better feedback and make the Wikipedia link not just a redirect to EY's article? What approach would best refine the art of human rationality?
(Related exercise for Wikipedians reading: WIkipedia put pretty much no effort into publicity or popularity, stumbled along with little or no outside feedback and suddenly found itself ridiculously famous and, indeed, mainstream. Was developing for a few years with no feedback a good idea? Should LessWrong ignore outside discussion in the same manner? Are there approaches Wikipedia could have reasonably taken that would have arguably worked out better? I've been in the guts of Wikipedia since 2004 and I have no damn idea. Over to you.)
Weird how hastily dashed off comments and posts frequently end up making more sense to more people than ones you put a lot of thought into.
One explanation that leaps to mind for this would be inferential distance. More time spent composing it could mean you are following more inferential links, some of which are unfamiliar or have a weaker relationship in the mind of the audience. Quickly made posts would tend to have shorter chains of reasoning, hence seem immediately stronger.
That sounds a bit just-so. Looking back through my comments, the "important" ones seem to have ended up grammatically contorted by the quest for robust precision.
Answer: work out how to write better.
Sure, but points involving longer inferential chains would be harder to write as succinctly. It could be that the problem isn't writing skill, just the thoughts aren't as easy to write.