- Don't have a leader
Leaders are useful. Pretty much every cause/movement/group has leadership of some kind.
- Don''t have a gospel
I'm not really sure how the sequences map onto the Christian Gospel. A catechism, maybe.
- Don't have a dogma
Assuming we don't excommunicate people for disagreeing with it (politely), I'm not sure why not. I mean, we mostly agree that there's no God, for example; rationality should, presumably, move us closer to the correct position, and if most of us agree that we've probably found it, why shouldn't we assume members agree unless they indicate otherwise?
Or did you have a different meaning of "dogma" in mind?
- Don't have quasi-religious "meetups"
Because meeting people with similar interests and goals is only done via religion.
- Don't have quasi-religious rituals (!)
Has anyone who's not a member of this site actually used those rituals as evidence of phygishness? Genuinely asking here.
- Don't have an eschatology
Because any idea that predicts the end of the world must be discarded a priori?
- Don't have a God.
Because any idea you place in the reference class "god" must be discarded a priori?
- WELCOME CRITIICISM AND DISSENT
An excellent suggestion! In theory, we already do (we could probably do better on this.) Trolling, however, is not generally considered part of that.
- Be the opposite of a religion.
I'm not even going to bother linking to the appropriate truism, but reversed stupidity etc.
EDIT: dammit stupid karma toll cutting off my discussions.
Leaders are useful.
Leaders cause people to lapse into thinking "The Guru has an answer, even if I don't understand it". This is aready happening in LW.
I'm not really sure how the sequences map onto the Christian Gospel
People say "The answer is in the Sequencess" without bothering to check that it is.
...,Assuming we don't excommunicate people for disagreeing it (politely), I'm not sure why not. I mean, we mostly agree that there's no God, for example; rationality should, presumably, move us closer to the correct position, and if mo
I have several questions related to this:
If you visit any Less Wrong page for the first time in a cookies-free browsing mode, you'll see this message for new users:
Here are the worst violators I see on that about page:
And on the sequences page:
This seems obviously false to me.
These may not seem like cultish statements to you, but keep in mind that you are one of the ones who decided to stick around. The typical mind fallacy may be at work. Clearly there is some population that thinks Less Wrong seems cultish, as evidenced by Google's autocomplete, and these look like good candidates for things that makes them think this.
We can fix this stuff easily, since they're both wiki pages, but I thought they were examples worth discussing.
In general, I think we could stand more community effort being put into improving our about page, which you can do now here. It's not that visible to veteran users, but it is very visible to newcomers. Note that it looks as though you'll have to click the little "Force reload from wiki" button on the about page itself for your changes to be published.