= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
khafra comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - 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 (694)
Good idea, and a good set of questions. However, while I might say I'm fairly knowledgeable about a few topics anywhere else, the feeling of going far out of my depth is one I associate strongly with LW. As an example, I would expect the list of those who could hold a heavy AI discussion with LW's resident experts to be about 5 people.
Also, "exists" when referring to the entire observable universe, makes me a bit tense. In our past light cone? In our future light cone? In a spacelike interval? It makes a big difference.
I think the phrasing there will probably cause weird effects. For example, it seems most LWers have only vague ideas of biology and medicine, and I can talk confidently with a biology researcher or physician of average ability, so I felt happy checking that box. If everyone reasons like me, we’ll see lots of checks in that box, not because people here are expert in biology and medicine, but because we aren’t.
Good point. It's sort of like the "guess 2/3 of the average guess" game, confounded by whatever dunning-kruger effect we enjoy.
Also, heavy discussions online are less cognitively stressful than heavy discussions at, say, a LW meetup (which we should still do sometime).
Composed entirely of LW's resident experts?
Nah. It's not that hard to understand what's said and thus not be out of one's depth; much much easier than saying something original and correct, which I think they are capable of at times.
That ambiguity didn't even occur to me!