= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
John_Maxwell_IV comments on New front page - 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 (55)
This is a poll to vote on whether we should emphasize linear, completionist reading of the sequences, or a "browse around and see what you like" approach that references sequence guides/summaries and emphasizes reading about the bugs your particular brain seems to suffer from.
Note that the next/previous links will stay in place regardless of either proposal, so linear reading will always be a strong option.
Vote this comment up if you're in favor of emphasizing linear reading.
I have argued somewhat that since the sequences are so badly organized, it's nearly impossible to understand them fully if they're not read in chronological order, and in that regard I think it's downright reprehensible to divide them into somewhat arbitrary "sequence" units, when the whole body of work is so interdependent.
It's been years since I've read some of this, but here are some posts that seem like they stand well on their own:
* http://lesswrong.com/lw/if/your_strength_as_a_rationalist/
* http://lesswrong.com/lw/iw/positive_bias_look_into_the_dark/
* http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/
* http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/
* http://lesswrong.com/lw/lw/reversed_stupidity_is_not_intelligence/
* http://lesswrong.com/lw/i3/making_beliefs_pay_rent_in_anticipated_experiences/
I haven't read the entire sequences; the portion I've actually read might actually be embarrassingly small if I tried to estimate it. It does seem pretty likely that there is stuff in there that has to be read in chronological order. But I think it's a bad idea to emphasize chronological order where it's nonessential.
You could think of me as something of a "concept collector". I really like reading about some new concept or argument that I can apply in lots of scenarios. Reversed stupidity not being intelligence is a good example. I don't always require a lot of reading to add a new concept to my collection; I remember I would frequently read the first four paragraphs or so of a sequence post, but lose interest because it seemed like the author was just emphasizing the same point over again. (Of course, my attention span is not the best either, so maybe there is some dishonesty here...)
Here's another list like mine:
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/User:Academian#Abridged_entry_to_the_LessWrong_community
Let's get down to brass tacks. What posts best exemplify the idea that you need to read every post that came before them in order for them to make sense?
And has anyone seriously tackled the problem of refactoring them to gauge how difficult it would be?
Even if the Sequences are linearly ordered, you can read them in any order, so linear ordering allows all readers to choose what they want.
On the other hand, if someone has decided to spend a lot of time reading it all, it is frustrating when the recommended reading order is not obvious. For example in the list of Sequences, major sequences are listed before minor sequences, but at the same time it is recommended to read "Map and Territory" (a minor sequence) first. So... why aren't these things just listed in the recommended reading order? The distinction between major and minor is either unnecessary, or could be shown e.g. using some icons near their titles.
Vote this comment up if you're in favor of emphasizing nonlinear reading methods.
The sequences are bigger than two copies of Lord Of The Rings. Expecting all new readers to study a million words of philosophy before proceeding strikes me as unrealistic.
Not necessarily expect them to read all of it, but the sequences are an excellent way to hook new readers. Plus, even reading some of it is probably the most efficient way to raise the sanity waterline.
Is there evidence for this? As far as I can tell, the only way to hook new readers that's made "excellent" is HPMOR.
Excellent in that I would suspect a large proportion of people who started reading Less Wrong did so from reading at least part of the sequences.
I do not have evidence for this, and it might be wrong, but I would be surprised if it were.
The sequence articles have so many links to other articles that it's impossible for me to read one without spawning five distantly related ones from different topics or sequences. Even if I wanted to be linear... (has no control when it comes to links)
Which makes reading them awesome. But patchwork-y