= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on Intellectual insularity and productivity - 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 (169)
I concur. I read the sequences, then I read every post from the end of the sequences until that time (May 2011). I was amazed just how little seemed to have been taken in even from the posts on LW since the end of the sequences.
I have faint hopes the Center for Modern Rationality can seed a new set of community norms.
Hm. Now you say it, I think I've definitely read some excellent non-Elizier articles on Less Wrong. But not as systematically. Are they collated together ("The further sequences") anywhere? I mean, in some sense, "all promoted articles" is supposed to serve that function, but I'm not sure that's the best way to start reading. And there are some good "collections of best articles". But they don't seem as promoted as the sequences.
If there's not already, maybe there should be a bit of work in collecting the best articles by theme, and seeing which of them could do with some revising to make whatever the (in retrospect) best point more clear. Preferably enough bit of revising (or just disclaimers) to make it clear that they're not the the Word of God, but not so much they become bland.
People have indeed started on this, but we could probably do with more. Go for it :-)
Where?
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences#Sequences_by_Others
What are some examples? Which posts from your reading have you noticed in particular that haven't been absorbed sufficiently as subcultural memes? What is it that I may have missed and could be benefited by going back and reviewing?
Luke lists some recent ones here.
I'm confused; is your criticism that posts after the sequences failed to introduce new ideas the way the sequences did or didn't stick in the community's collective memory?
They introduced new ideas and failed to stick in the community memory. Why is not clear. (I could easily come up with just-so stories to retrospectively explain it, of course.)
One just-so story: The sequences are mentioned everywhere as The Way To Read Less Wrong; random archive posts are not. Therefore a larger fraction of LW has read the sequences.
Yeah, that's the one that occurred to me too. The site is stuck in 2008. Even Eliezer doesn't necessarily think the stuff he wrote word for word there any more.
Also the sequences are permalinked, one click away from the front page.