Speaking about it would undermine your reputation through signaling. A true rationalist has no need for humility, sentimental empathy, or the absurdity heuristic.

Under your judgement your plan can self-modify in the future to overcome its flaws. Become an optimization process; shut up and calculate.

Considering the problems you bring up, I think Less Wrong may benefit from increased categorization of thought by adding new levels other than Main and Discussion. And considering your advice, I'll try not to be overly humble/nice about it.

How wide of a net does Discussion have to cover?

This part of the site is for the discussion of topics not yet ready or not suitable for normal top-level posts. Votes are only worth ±1 point here. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

That's a very inclusive category. But there is a large difference between "not yet ready" and "not suitable" for normal top level posts. Does it feel like that belongs in the same category and we shouldn't break it down more?

Less Wrong is supposed to be about refining the art of human rationality. Imagine if I said the following flawed argument about a steel refinery.

"Well, at the steel refinery we have refined steel, and then there's everything else that not yet ready or not suitable for steel. If we apply the Bessemer process to everything else that not yet ready or not suitable for steel, we get refined steel."

To say this is not the most effective way to think about refining is a huge understatement. This doesn't distinguish between carbon, iron, roofs, toilet paper, concrete building blocks, safety gear, or anything else that might be a useful component of a steel mill.

If we want to build a better mill to refine rationality, maybe we should have better topic labels than Refined Rationality and Everything Else.