I've tried a few times to sit down and read the sequences, but I've never been able to, for the reason I think lukeprog's style is trying to address. There's only so much background information I can stand, especially if the writer isn't clear on where he's going. And this is coming from someone who sat down and read Mencius Moldbug. And some of Nietzsche. And read HPMOR in three days.
I'm still interested in LW, obviously, but for... other reasons.
(As for my own style: I hate writing anything longer than a comment, so when I do, I have to keep myself amused, which usually means Carlylean bombast.)
For a long time, Eliezer has been telling me I should write more like he does. I've mostly resisted, preferring instead to write like this:
At the recent Effective Altruism Summit I tried to figure out which personal features predicted writing style preference.
One hypothesis was that people who read lots of fiction (like Eliezer) will tend to prefer Eliezer's story-like style, while those who read almost exclusively non-fiction (like me) will tend to prefer my "just gimme the facts" style. This hypothesis didn't hold up well on my non-scientific survey of ~10 LW-reading effective altruists.
Another hypothesis was that most people would prefer Eliezer's more exciting posts, while people trained in the sciences or analytic philosophy (which insist on clear organization, definitions, references to related work, etc.) would prefer my posts. This hypothesis fared a bit better, but not by much.
Another hypothesis was that people who had acquired an epiphany addiction would prefer Eliezer's style, whereas those who just want to learn everything efficiently would prefer my style. But I didn't test this.
Another hypothesis that occurs to me is that people with short attention spans could prefer my more skimmable style. But I haven't tested this.
Perhaps the community would like to propose some hypotheses, and test them with LW polling?