cousin_it comments on Elitism isn't necessary for refining rationality. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
I don't think the beginner / advanced distinction covers why many here are fine with being called "elitist" (I know I am!). There's also a good attitude / bad attitude distinction. If someone is intellectually lazy , or only wants to rant about one topic (politics or racism or open source or religion ...), or enjoys getting into fights, or just wants to make dumb jokes, then I'd rather they go post somewhere else. And yes, such people will invariably complain about elitism when made felt unwelcome, so the mere presence of accusations of elitism doesn't carry much information about whether the community's standards are really too high.
We already do something like that, but instead of having explicitly different sections, individual posts are of different levels, some are advanced technical discussions, some are intros for beginners. You're proposing that we replace this informal distinction with a formal, explicit one. The problems with doing that are:
That's a fair point, but I don't see many people on LW who are productive in math discussions but trollish in psychology discussions, or vice versa. Poster quality may be multidimensional, but seems to have a strong primary component.
I pretty much agree (though am a bit surprised by your use of "trollish" - I don't think we would want trollish comments in any section, "advanced" or "beginner").
The problem might not be trollishness, it might be that if there's are sections based on level of difficulty, then people will be reluctant to read and/or comment outside their self-perceived level (which might be too high or too low).