handoflixue comments on Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves - Less Wrong

32 Post author: calcsam 10 May 2011 07:15AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (149)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 10 May 2011 06:41:29PM *  14 points [-]

The OP's previous post described a model of rationalist communities where you have "distillers" and "organizers" telling people to do stuff, some of which will be proselytizing. But I don't like being told what to do or telling others what to do, especially if it's proselytizing. So I would have no place in a such a community.

Also it seems to me that when a product needs to be resold by its consumers, like religion or Amway, that means the product probably isn't any good. Imagine Steve Jobs using MLM to sell the iPhone! If Eliezer's ideas about solving confusing problems actually helped, some of the many researchers who read LW would've found them useful and told us about it. And if the sequences were as useful in everyday life as they are well-written, a lot of people would have demonstrated that convincingly by now. In either case we would have an iPhone situation and would beat customers off with a stick, not struggle to attract them.

ETA: this comment is a joint reply to Vaniver, XFrequentist, fiddlemath and Davorak, because their questions were quite similar :-)

Comment author: handoflixue 12 May 2011 01:18:25AM 1 point [-]

I would think there is some fruitful discussion to be had about which of these techniques are considered valuable, and which would be potentially alienating. Are you objecting to ideas such as "using brief summaries to sell the ideas" as well as to the idea of rationalist communities organized that way?

I'd agree that I don't want to be part of such a rationalist community, but the idea of using brevity to help market seems useful.