= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rational_Brony comments on A place for casual, non-karmic discussion for lesswrongers? - 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 (88)
Help with the fact that, given how short twitter posts are, it is very difficult to talk about stuff at comfortable length. There isn't even the comfort of a linear or tree structure like in fora or reddits, and while you can stack them by topic you need to sacrifice characters to do so. You can link to longer posts in blogs and fora, but then why not talk there? Also, every time you post a link, it has to be tinyfied, which is a pain in the neck. And the briefness of the format forces to rely on tacit understanding and common priors, which oftentimes aren't there, so the risk of illusion of double transparency is very high. .
Bottom line for me: Twitter incentivizes good compression, vivid analogies, and a warmer, less standoffish atmosphere. Tacit understanding and common priors flourish in a less prescriptive environment if a certain root density can be established to prevent erosion -- which I'd argue has occurred within a certain cluster of feeds.
You've lost me from "if" onwards. What's root density? Erosion?
A bunch of people with good epistemic hygiene talking to each other; trusting each other enough to be really playful because the underlying agreement about how the world works is so strong.
Got any recommendations? Also, how to avoid an echo chamber effect (which is already enough of a problem here on LW, I'm afraid)?
Echoes are fine if they're true. I think the rationalist memplex loves to break ideas, so the ones that stick around are pretty unbreakable.
Here's the full list. Some good ones (in terms of quantity/quality/responsiveness) are sark, Rob Sica, Sister Y, Catharine G. Evans, Elizabeth, S.T. Rev, metafroth, and Michael Blume.
... I still find it kind of baffling.
And I didn't mean "echo chamber" in terms of ideas so much as in terms of habits, norms, etc. We're a rather different subculture, and it's really easy to lose track of how others thinks, a bias which may bite us in the ass later on.
Not that I understand normal people all that well, either, but huddling with my peers isn't going to help.
So follow people you disagree with. You should have no trouble finding them.
... The ideal would be to find people that I disagree with, who don't express their disagreeable opinions in a way that makes me reject them. Example; mormons, the nicer variety of zionists, anarchists, the nicer variety of randians...
But if I'm only willing to listen to people who express themselves nicely and politely and are civil about stuff, that's already a bias in itself, huh?
God isn't real. Anarchism and objectivism are tribal banners, not ways of knowing or doing. Am I missing something?