You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nornagest comments on Open thread, 3-8 June 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: David_Gerard 03 June 2014 08:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 03 June 2014 09:25:12PM 14 points [-]

For all the emphasis on Slytherin-style interpersonal competence (not so much on the main site anymore, but it's easy to find in the archive and in Methods), LW's historically had a pretty serious blind spot when it comes to PR and other large-scale social phenomena. There's probably some basic typical-minding in this, but I'm inclined to treat it mostly as a subculture issue; American geek culture has a pretty solid exceptionalist streak to it, and treats outsiders with pity when it isn't treating them with contempt and suspicion. And we're very much tied to geek culture. I've talked to LWers who don't feel comfortable exercising because they feel like it's enemy clothing; if we can't handle something that superficial, how are we supposed to get into Joe Sixpack's head?

Ultimately I think we focus on contrarian technocrat types, consciously or not, because they're the people we know how to reach. I include myself in this, unfortunately.

Comment author: Punoxysm 04 June 2014 12:05:13AM 3 points [-]

A very fair assessment.

I would also note that often when people DO think about marketing LW, they speak about the act of marketing with outright contempt. Marketing is just a set of methodologies to draw attention to something. As a rationalist, one should embrace that tool for anything they care about rather than treating it as vulgar.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2014 01:17:23AM 2 points [-]

how are we supposed to get into Joe Sixpack's head?

A better question is what exactly we are supposed to do inside Joe Sixpack's head?

Make him less stupid? No one knows how. Give him practical advice so that he fails less epically? There are multiple shelves of self-help books at B&N, programs run by nonprofits and the government, classes at the local community college, etc. etc. Joe Sixpack shows very little interest in any of those I don't see why the Sequences or some distillation of them would do better.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 June 2014 02:27:02AM *  9 points [-]

Nice example of geek exceptionalism there, dude.

To be fair, it might have some merit if we were literally talking about the average person, though I'm far from certain; someone buys an awful lot of mass-market self-help books and I don't think it's exclusively Bay Aryans. But I was using "Joe Sixpack" there in the sense of "someone who is not a geek", or even "someone who isn't part of the specific cluster of techies that LW draws from", and there should be plenty of smart, motivated, growth-oriented people within that set. If we can't speak to them, that's entirely on us.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2014 04:57:50AM 1 point [-]

Nice example of geek exceptionalism there, dude.

Nah, just plain-vanilla arrogance :-D I am not quite sure I belong to the American geek culture, anyway.

But I was using "Joe Sixpack" there in the sense of "someone who is not a geek", or even "someone who isn't part of the specific cluster of techies that LW draws from"

Ah. I read "Joe Sixpack" as being slightly above "redneck" and slightly below "your average American with 2.2 children".

So do you mean people like engineers, financial quants, the Make community, bright-eyed humanities graduates? These people are generally not dumb. But I am still having trouble imagining what would you want to do inside their heads.

Comment author: Nornagest 04 June 2014 05:02:37AM *  5 points [-]

So do you mean people like engineers, financial quants, the Make community, bright-eyed humanities graduates? These people are generally not dumb. But I am still having trouble imagining what would you want to do inside their heads.

The first group of people I thought of was lawyers, who have both a higher-than-average baseline understanding of applied cognitive science and a strong built-in incentive to get better at it. I wouldn't stop there, of course; all sorts of people have reasons to improve their thinking and understanding, and even more have incentives to become more instrumentally effective.

As to what we'd do in their heads... same thing as we're trying to do in ours, of course.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 June 2014 05:11:10AM 0 points [-]

same thing as we're trying to do in ours, of course.

Um. Speaking for myself, what I'm trying to do in my own head doesn't really transfer to other heads, and I'm not trying to do anything (serious) inside other people's heads in general.