= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
igoresque comments on Building Communities vs. Being Rational - 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 (18)
The irony isn't very hard to spot here: writing about that which you don't want to read about? Reminds me of the dilemma: is it rational to complain about complaining?
I rather agree on the point being made. I also hope for more enthousiasm about rationality in all its forms.
The solution, I believe, is to invest in lesswrong.com wisely: read only the parts that are most interesting, avoid investing energy in side tracks. Please share your enthousiasm with us. I am sure the investment will pay off.
Yes, you would probably have got a greater effect in favour of what you want by posting a top-level article about what you do want to talk about.
These are both good points. Frankly I wasn't trying to rock the boat with my post, I was trying to find out if there was a group of disgruntled rationalists who hadn't liked the community posts and had kept silent. Had that been the case, this post would (I'm assuming) have helped to draw them out.
As for what I WOULD like to see, that's a tricky problem in that I am interested in Rationality topics that I know little to nothing about. The trouble is, right now I don't know what it is that I don't know.
Yes, this page is front-page-promotion worthy in terms of upvotes and writing quality, but promoting it seems distinctly self-contradictory.
EDIT: Voted down? Like, you really think that the best way I can help out those who think this is a problem, is to promote fully meta discussion of community discussion to the front page? That really did seem to me like it would be a slap in their face.
Well, that's just me. I've never been afraid of leaping feet-first into a paradox and seeing where that takes me. Which reminds me, maybe there's a post in that.
Are posts promoted because of their quality, or for another, specific purpose? I don't think the "About Us" link makes this property of lesswrong sufficiently clear.
If posts are promoted for reasons other than their inherent quality, I think this should be stated openly and the reasons made clear.
That's not the issue. Discussion about this problem is clearly undesirable from their perspective, but a better alternative than saying nothing and letting the problem worsen. Otherwise they wouldn't have written the post.
The downvote wasn't for failing to promote the post, but for viewing it as worthy of promotion (and openly stating so) while not doing so for an invalid reason.
So you're the one who decides what gets promoted?
Robin's also been known to promote a post or two, especially if I don't notice one for a while.