Eugine_Nier comments on Things you are supposed to like - Less Wrong

68 Post author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2011 02:04AM

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

Comments (367)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 October 2011 03:51:54AM 15 points [-]

It is a runaway peacock's-tail phenomenon: Someone made something that stood out in some way, and it got attention; and people learned to like things like that, and so others made things that stood out more in the same way, until we ended up with Alban Berg.

As people learn more about an art form, they can more-easily predict it, and need more and more novelty to keep them interested;

I suspect Methods of Rationality may be the end product of a similar phenomenon with respect to a number of trends in speculative fiction, e.g., of putting in more and more elaborate Xanatos Gambits and more and more subtle pop culture references.

Or as Eliezer put it:

it's hard to beat the Algorithm of Awesome, which works as follows:

First, know the overarching direction in which your fic is going. Then, think of possible events that move in this direction. If they are awesome, add them to the plot. If they are not awesome, leave them out.

Try looking at the above quote while tabooing the word "awesome", or better yet replace it with a word that has a similar meaning to an art movement you aren't involved in e.g., "groovy" for psychedelic, "transgresive" for modern art, etc.

Comment author: khafra 21 October 2011 01:29:51PM 7 points [-]

"minimalist"

Comment author: pedanterrific 21 October 2011 04:59:16AM 13 points [-]

it's hard to beat the Algorithm of [Applause Light], which works as follows:

First, know the overarching direction in which your fic is going. Then, think of possible events that move in this direction. If they are [applause light], add them to the plot. If they are not [applause light], leave them out.

Comment author: [deleted] 21 October 2011 06:04:47AM 2 points [-]

Clever, but are you implying that a good story is essentially wireheading?

Comment author: pedanterrific 22 October 2011 12:45:45AM 4 points [-]

I wouldn't go quite that far. Maybe affective death spirals are attractors in designspace, though.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 22 October 2011 03:19:38AM 2 points [-]

I read that in a kind of stern, commanding voice, which makes it sounds really silly with the word "groovy" in it. Much sillier than with "awesome", for some reason.

This makes me realize that the voice is nothing like Eliezer's.

It's hard to beat the Algorithm of Groovy.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 October 2011 04:46:47AM 4 points [-]

Who knows, maybe is a couple decades describing something as "awesome" will sound as silly and passe as describing something as "groovy" or "funky" does today.

Comment author: Mercy 27 October 2011 03:12:04PM *  3 points [-]

Doesn't it already? Presumably it depends on the level of exposure to the "awesome" cluster of tropes, but I think comics are the ground zero of the trend and the backlash is well underway. What passes for tastemakers in that medium are pretty down on the cluster - if you describe a Grant Morrison or Tsutomu Nihei piece as awesome they'll say they see where you are coming from, but it's a good comic too! And to dismiss a work as "awesome" is to suggest it's written for the blurb. Relevant

Comment author: Mercy 27 October 2011 03:05:32PM *  0 points [-]

Doesn't it already? Well presumably it depends on the level of exposure to the "awesome" cluster of tropes. I think comics are the ground zero of the trend, and what passes for tastemakers in that medium are pretty down on that cluster - if you describe a Grant Morrison or Tsutomu Nihei piece as awesome they'll say they see where you are coming from, but it's a good comic too! To dismiss a work as "awesome" is to suggest it's written for the blurb. Relevant

Comment author: pedanterrific 22 October 2011 03:33:21AM *  1 point [-]