= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nornagest comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - 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 (268)
Am I safe if I just maintain a level of skepticism in the presence of thought-experimental "evidence" for a conclusion?
You've mentioned the role of the Sequences in reference to teaching specific conclusions about things like AI, altruism, cryonics, I presume; that's a minority of the whole (in my reading, so far). Would you dispute them for their use in identifying reasoning flaws?
EDIT: I do appreciate your going further in your criticism of the LW mainstream than most (though I've appreciated that of others also). I take it as an invitation to greater care and skepticism.
Of course, you're familiar with "Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs," right?
Evaporative cooling is a concern, but it seems to me that it's a more directly relevant concern for moderators or other types of organizers than for individuals. For it to be driving a decision to leave or not to leave, you effectively have to value the group's well-being over your own, which is unlikely for a group you're considering leaving in the first place.