This is a FANTASTIC idea! Thanks so much for writing these!

Thanks!

It might be useful to give more examples of how cognitive biases can be used to improve their thinking

Got any specific ideas? (I already fished once, see http://lesswrong.com/lw/bfr/rationality_anecdotes_for_the_homepage/.)

In general, looking through the past few main and discussion posts, it doesn't look to me like either the current or proposed homepage text accurately summarizes most content.

Yeah, but it's only natural that we'll move beyond the basics. I figured I'd try to describe some foundational ideas. If you want to take your own stab, though, that sounds great.

It's "Bayes's Theorem," not "the Bayesian Theorem."

Looks like it's actually Bayes' theorem. Fixed.

I like your post summaries, but I'm not sure how you've divided them into general vs more meaty categories; also, I'm not sure if "meaty" is the right word to use. (More formalized isn't quite accurate with the lists you've generated, but I think it might be what you're trying to get at.)

Well, the first list is meant to be broadly appealing; the second list is meant to convince a hypothetical genius that LW is worth their time. Also, stuff in the second list was harder to come up with accurate one-sentence descriptions for.

I agree meaty isn't perfect, but I haven't come up with anything better.

I wouldn't put quotation remarks around "skeptics." I agree with the sentiment, but it's not very good signalling. (Also, it's literally true that they are being skeptical.)

Fixed.

I would say that LW sets "an extremely high standard" for conversation, instead of just a "high" standard.

I changed it to "very high standard", if that's alright.

I would suggest removing the brief definition of rationality from the top- it's explained later on as well, in greater depth.

Fixed.

The section "Reading an Study" has a lot of stuff in it- it may be worth putting something in, either at the start or by appending a question about whether or not all this material is necessary, that states that you don't necessarily need to read all of it in order to participate.

How's this?