Well, maybe uncalibrated, totally made-up percentages aren't a good way to communicate this.
I didn't even know what consequentialism or utilitarianism meant
Yeah, so you'd have to formally learn philosophy to know what those things mean. But that doesn't mean you were at 0% philosophy. Human beings instinctively engage in philosophy.
Can you construct a sound logical argument? Will you reconsider if someone points out an inconsistency or logical fallacy in your argument? That alone brings you up to 40% on my totally made up scale.
Did you ever feel there was something weird about free will? Did you believe in souls? Did you know where morality comes from? Did you intuitively grasp the notion that simpler explanations are better? Did you strongly feel that beliefs must be based in evidence, and did you understand what constituted good evidence?
My sense is that most people reading LW passed one or more of these basic milestones well before they finished high school, before doing any formal training or reading in philosophy. In my arbitrary scale, merely putting thought into these things puts you at 70% and solving all of them puts you around 80%.
On my scale, 0% implies you're likely suffering some sort of mental illness.
And I'm arguing that LW isn't accessible to your average undergrad. The average undergrad is probably below 75% on this scale. I'm an undergrad, and the vast majority of people I know don't care about these things.
Can you construct a sound logical argument? Will you reconsider if someone points out an inconsistency or logical fallacy in your argument?
Yes to both.
Did you ever feel there was something weird about free will? Did you believe in souls? Did you know where morality comes from? Did you intuitively grasp the notion that simpler explanations are better?
Hadn't thought about any of those things.
Did you strongly feel that beliefs must be based in evidence, and did you understand what constituted good evidence?
Yes and yes.
Compared to many of the people reading this, I've not participated extensively on LessWrong. In fact, I created my account only about a week ago. That said, I have read many LessWrong articles by contributors such as Eliezer, Jonah, Yvain, Gwern, and many others (if I missed you, my apologies). I wouldn't say it was a huge transformative experience. But I have probably learned a bit more from LessWrong than I learned sitting in on a class by Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker on human capital (without formally registering for the class or doing the coursework). I've learned more of value from LessWrong than all the MIT OpenCourseWare lectures I've consumed. There are a few online experiences, such as reading EconLog, that have been more educational for me than LessWrong, but I can count these on the fingers of one hand.
Some of my friends have claimed that reading LessWrong systematically (and perhaps participating in the comments and attempting to write posts) would generate more value for an undergraduate than a typical core college class (with the possible exception of technical classes specific to the person's major or area of specialization). I'm curious about whether readers agree with this assessment. Do you feel, for instance, that LessWrong provided you with more valuable human capital than your introductory general chemistry sequence? What about comparing LessWrong with an undergraduate "intro to philosophy" class? Or an undergraduate intro class on the history of economic thought? At what percentile would you rank LessWrong relative to your college classes?
A second related question is whether there's a possibility of building a college course -- or college-like course, perhaps a MOOC -- specifically revolving around mastery of the content in LessWrong (perhaps starting with the Sequences). Would such a college course be possible to design in principle? How would such a college course compare with core requirements for undergraduates today?