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.

Clarity comments on Lesswrong, Effective Altruism Forum and Slate Star Codex: Harm Reduction - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: diegocaleiro 08 June 2015 04:37PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (150)

CC Licenced

Comments (150)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 09 June 2015 07:50:01PM * 6 points [-]

I think "LW type" rationalists should learn to be colleagues rather than friends. In other words, I think the win condition is if you agree on the ideals, but possibly bicker on a personal level (successful academic communities are often like this).

Comment author: Clarity comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 10 June 2015 01:22:31PM * 3 points [-]

There are brain-imposed bounds on movement growth if you insist on staying in your cuddle pile.

Why conflate your personal social goals, and general movement goals?

Comment author: Clarity 11 June 2015 02:43:43PM * 1 point [-]

sorry, this was an unhelpful comment that is now gone :)

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 11 June 2015 11:03:27PM * 2 points [-]

I don't see why personal social goals and general movement goals should be necessarily mutually exclusive.

They are not necessarily, but they are in this case. I think Scott once mentioned that BA rationalists can't grow beyond about 150. 150 is a magic number, and is suggestive of what the problem might be.

"Cuddle pile" is my slightly unkind shorthand for the kinds of social peculiarities rationalists, imo, should leave behind if they want the ideas to become more mainstream.

Metacomment: "it is not necessarily the case that X" is almost always true for interesting X.

Comment author: Nornagest 16 June 2015 08:50:52PM 3 points [-]

I suspect most rationalists will turn out to care more about their cuddle piles than about their ideas becoming mainstream. There's always been a rather unhealthy interaction between community goals and the community's social quirks (we want to raise the sanity waterline -> we are saner -> our quirks should be evangelized), and we don't really have a working way to sort out what actually comes with increased rationality and what's just a founder effect.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 16 June 2015 08:54:07PM * 3 points [-]

I agree. And that's too bad.

I have been trying to serve as a bit of a "loyal opposition" re: separating rationality from social effects. But I am just one dude, and I am biased, too. Plus, I am an outsider, and my opinions don't really carry a lot of weight outside my area of expertise, around here.

The community itself has to want it, on some level.

Clarity comments on Lesswrong, Effective Altruism Forum and Slate Star Codex: Harm Reduction - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (150)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (150)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login