= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on How to improve the public perception of the SIAI and LW? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (35)
Advertising for LessWrong is plausible. I just got a £75 Google AdWords voucher in the post ...
(£75 is approximately nothing - a decent taster campaign is at least £300. But I have no use for it and LW is welcome to it ...)
You talk about "making people read the sequences". I suggest that "making" people to do anything doesn't work. You have to pull them. This means you need them to think there's something good there they want to have.
(You want to herd cats, you need to work out the local value of tuna.)
How about some advertising taglines? The current tagline is excellent, for example. But why would people want that? What can they get here they don't have now?
People want to WIN.
Most people don't feel like winners.
etc. Any others? Other ideas of things that will pull people towards LW?
Edit: And why has HP:MoR lured people in? What kept them here? How many came here from HP:MoR and did not stay? Why not? Etc.
The public mind now associates "WINNING" with Sheentology.
Does it? That connection didn't even occur to me until you pointed it out here. (I might be less in tune with pop culture than others though.)
Yes, this is an unfortunate turn of events. I'll also note that 'winning' is a term that Scientologists use constantly, in the same way that Sheen uses it.
(splutter) It'll pass :-)
These both sound like "The Secret"-esque crank taglines, which will drive off the intended audience.
It is unfortunate that this method has been applied to things with no substance at all, like The Secret. However, it certainly would not on any level be deceptive or promise anything it couldn't deliver.
People want to win. That's what LW rationality is for. That is, in point of fact, what we promise. You seem to be objecting to saying so upfront.
Is it worth introducing simple rationality tools to people who would otherwise think The Secret was a good idea? Or is that something you think should be avoided in general?
Using it as the only hook possibly wouldn't be good and might lead to the effect you describe. However, brainstorming is cheap. What I'm saying is "ideas, ideas, please come up with lots."
I think part of what attracted people about HPMoR is that it showed Harry being successful for distinct, comprehensible, imitable reasons, which people wanted to learn more about, but more of it was a feeling that "this Eliezer guy writes some funny, interesting stuff, I want to check out more of what he's written."
Which works :-) But I'm quite interested to know about the experience of those who read MoR, looked at LessWrong and went away never to return. I don't know if they can even be estimated, let alone counted, surveyed and analysed, but I suspect they're important - look at the evidence that would refute your hypothesis (in this case, that MoR is good for LW), not just that which confirms it.
I haven't hypothesized that MoR is good for LW. I haven't bothered to track the contributions of the people who arrived from MoR, so I don't have much of a sense of what they're bringing to the community. I'm just aware that there seem to be a considerable number of members who've come here through MoR.
I would be very surprised though, if more karma-positive members are leaving Less Wrong due to MoR than are arriving because of it.
I didn't say you did, but many others have.
Edit: I did say "you". I meant a general "you" (one's hypothesis), not anything you i particular said. Sorry!