= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on What topics are appropriate for LessWrong? - 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 (107)
"Above-average" is really not a very high bar to clear, and any discussion about which nothing more positive could be said than "it's above average relative to the general population baseline" would be a sad thing indeed to see on LW.
No doubt. (Though, as it happens, I am perfectly happy to discuss many of the topics FrameBenignly listed, so suggesting that some people on LW might want to avoid them because "above average" doesn't satisfy them doesn't seem likely to be motivated by self-flattery.)
That isn't why I (or many people, I'd guess) signed up here. I don't mean that there's anything wrong with having conversations for those purposes; I do it too. But that isn't what LW is for, and I hope it will stay that way.
It was clear in the context that I meant "however high above average that you're willing to imagine". I was describing a lower bound on the quality (i.e. I'm not expecting it to go to average and below), not an upper bound. Why even treat it as a comment on the upper bound?
That's true. But I was referring to real life, because that's where most such conversations take place.