What topics are appropriate for LessWrong?

tog

For example, what would be inappropriately off topic to post to LessWrong discussion about?

I couldn't find an answer in the FAQ. (Perhaps it'd be worth adding one.) The closest I could find was this:

What is Less Wrong?

Less Wrong is an online community for discussion of rationality. Topics of interest include decision theory, philosophy, self-improvement, cognitive science, psychology, artificial intelligence, game theory, metamathematics, logic, evolutionary psychology, economics, and the far future.

However "rationality" can be interpreted broadly enough that rational discussion of anything would count, and my experience reading LW is compatible with this interpretation being applied by posters. Indeed my experience seems to suggest that practically everything is on topic; political discussion of certain sorts is frowned upon, but not due to being off topic. People often post about things far removed from the topics of interest. And some of these topics are very broad: it seems that a lot of material about self-improvement is acceptable, for instance.

For example, what would be inappropriately off topic to post to LessWrong discussion about?

I couldn't find an answer in the FAQ. (Perhaps it'd be worth adding one.) The closest I could find was this:

What is Less Wrong?

Less Wrong is an online community for discussion of rationality. Topics of interest include decision theory, philosophy, self-improvement, cognitive science, psychology, artificial intelligence, game theory, metamathematics, logic, evolutionary psychology, economics, and the far future.

I quoted it accurately

Quoting something accurately means more than just that the words you typed appeared in the source in the right order. You selectively quoted it in a way that made it seem to support a claim that it wasn't really supporting.

Please say what claim I made it support it wasn't really supporting or retract your comment and any negative points you may have given me.

I'm quite curious to see what claim you think I made it support.

-2NatPhilosopher11y

It was 100% supporting the claim they didn't know the first thing about the toxicity of injected aluminum in neo-nates. What claim do you think I made it seem they were supporting? Here's how I summarized the quote. "Doctors had been injecting aluminum adjuvants into children for 70 years, committees of doctors and government officials had decided numerous times to inject more aluminum into younger children, but as late as 2002 nobody had empirical data on toxicities of injected aluminum [1]." I would say my quote was 100% accurate, not out of context, and I don't have a clue what claim you think I made it seem to support that it wasn't supporting.

12

What topics are appropriate for LessWrong?

12

12

12

What topics are appropriate for LessWrong?

12

12