= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AdeleneDawner comments on Norms survey (dead) - 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 (71)
*looks*
The intentions of the various categories seem to have changed considerably in this version, which suggests that maybe we need to talk about what we want this list of norms to do before we figure out what subcategories it needs.
To that end, I see three obvious goals. In rough order of importance:
Codify skills, habits, and meta-beliefs that will help people be rational, e.g. rationalist taboo.
Codify norms of this group, to make it easy for people to join up - rather like Silas' 'signs about how things are done here' idea.
List useful, basically-settled beliefs for people to build on, e.g. Ocham's Razor or Bayseanism.
Would it be better to categorize them by goal, then?
That would suggest three levels of norms: core rational, social rational, and common knowledge.
The term "social rational" sounds like it would be used for core-type skills used for working in groups. "LW-specific norms" might work better for that one. Otherwise, yeah, sounds good to me.