Its interesting that LW was being cited as a valid authority to make deeper points like "probability is in the mind, not reality". I've never seen that tendency anywhere but here.
Anyone want to give odds on whether/when content from LW will start showing up as more authoritative than wikipedia when searching for standard terms like "cognitive bias"?
Or maybe a deeper question to motivate content generation and organization on our own part: what terms should eventually link to LW content? Any general terms like "Bayesian" or "Map vs Territory" or "Singularity"?
Type in "politics is the" and google suggests the following completions:
"...art of art the possible"
"...art of compromise"
"...art of art of looking for trouble"
Add an M with "politics is the m" and google changes to:
"...master science"
"...mind-killer"
"...master science aristotle"
"...management"
Just to clarify...
I didn't intend to link to LW as an authority on certain topics, but merely as a storehouse of well-written explanations for those topics.
Common Sense Atheism has recently had a string of fantastic introductory LessWrong related material. First easing its audience into the singularity, then summarising the sequences, yesterday affirming that Death is a Problem to be Solved, and finally today by presenting An Intuitive Explanation of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Intuitive Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem.
From the article:
It may be interesting if you want to do a review of Bayes' Theorem from a different perspective, or offer some introductory material for others. From a wider viewpoint, it's great to see a popular blog joining our cause for raising the sanity waterline.