= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AlexU comments on Mandatory Secret Identities - 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 (177)
That wasn't meant as a criticism of you specifically. I've just noticed that people on this site like to use equations to describe thought processes, some of which might be better communicated using everyday language. I'd argue Eliezer's post is an even worse example -- why not just say "the lesser of the two quantities" or something?
To be fair, for people who are used to thinking in math, pseudo-mathematical notation is as readable as English, with advantages of brevity and precision.
"People used to thinking in math" currently describes a large portion of users on this site. Use of gratuitous mathematical notion is likely to help keep it that way.
"Use of gratuitous mathematical notion is likely to help keep it that way."
Is that desirable? (Not saying you're implying it is.) The community could probably benefit from some smart humanities types.
I was actually trying to imply that it isn't desirable, so yes, I agree fully.
First post, so I'll be brief on my opinion. I would say "it depends". To communicate between people and even to clarify one's own thoughts, a formal language, with an appropriate lexicon and symbols, is a key facilitator.
As for desirability of audience, the About page says "Less Wrong is an online community for discussion of rationality", with nothing about exclusivity. I would suggest that if a topic is of the sort that newbies and lay people would read, then English is better; if more for the theorists, then math is fine.