lukeprog comments on Call For Agreement: Should LessWrong have better protection against cultural collapse? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Epiphany 03 September 2012 05:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 03 September 2012 01:16:11PM 5 points [-]

Claim: "Eternal September" is impossible to avoid.

The way "memetic movements" deal with Eternal September is one of the following:

(a) Dilute and die in the original sense (some of longer living meme complexes did this and are now "mainstream religions"). This might not be so bad. It may be that diluted/dead Christianity saved europe from collapse during the dark ages. In general I can think of many ways in which a counterfactual non-christian europe probably would have been much much worse off.

(b) Create an "inner school/outer school" division. This, again, is not so bad -- but you must give up the notion that everyone is helpable. The idea with (b) is there is only so much room on an "ark" and it is not economical to save everyone.

(c) Go secret and stop new users from coming in. This also is not so bad -- but you give up the goal of "raising the sanity waterline"/"worldwide baptism"/"nirvana for all sentient beings"/etc./etc.

Comment author: lukeprog 22 September 2012 02:03:25PM *  1 point [-]

Claim: "Eternal September" is impossible to avoid.

Maybe this mathematical approach would work. (h/t matt)

Comment author: Epiphany 01 October 2012 06:35:34AM *  0 points [-]

Sorry I didn't incorporate this into the solutions page sooner, Luke. I didn't check this thread for solutions. I will add this now. (I made a cliff notes version of the suggestions if you're interested). I question, though, whether changing the karma numbers on the comments and posts in any way would have a significant influence on behavior or a significant influence on who joins and stays. Firstly, votes may reward and punish but they don't instruct very well - unless people are very similar, they won't have accurate assumptions about what they did wrong. I also question whether having a significant influence on behavior would prevent a new majority from forming because these are different problems. The current users who are the right type may be both motivated and able to change, but future users of the wrong type may not care or may be incapable of changing. They may set a new precedent where there are a lot of people doing unpopular things so new people are more likely to ignore popularity. The technique uses math and the author claims that "the tweaks work" but I didn't see anything specific about what the author means by that nor evidence that this is true. So this looks good because it is mathematical, but it's less direct than other options so I'm questioning whether it would work.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 27 September 2012 07:30:07PM *  0 points [-]

Luke, I am not sure there are mathematical approaches to social problems. For the same reason you can't solve Google's problem with just the PageRank algorithm.