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.

ChristianKl comments on Ideas on growth of the community - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Lu93 12 August 2015 06:45PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (85)

CC Licenced

Comments (85)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 August 2015 11:04:55AM 2 points [-]

Before wanting to grow "the community" it makes sense to ask what "the community" happens to be. You can count Scott's blog into the community or you can decide that the community is only what's branded as LW.

This community is some kind of organization, and it has a goal. To be precise, it probably has two goals, as I see it: to make existing members more rational to get more members.

I wouldn't consider that to be the main goals.

For me one of the most important goals is developing the "art of rationality". A lot of discussion on LW is not about simply applying existing techniques of how to be rational but to develop new concepts. A while ago someone complained that he read a LW post about how to estimate whether a woman will say yes when asked out for a date as probability.

If you think the goal is effective action, there are a lot of reasons why that's not a good way to approach the subject of asking out a woman. If you on the other hand care about how probability estimates are made in emotionally charged real life situations the inquiry is a lot more interesting.

When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity. At our Berlin LW meetup we could trivially increase the attendance by putting it on meetup.com. We don't and as a result have a meetup with the kind of people who find the event without having to check meetup.

I would STRONGLY encourage new topics

So, what's stopping you from posting new topics yourself?

Comment author: Lu93 13 August 2015 11:52:45AM 1 point [-]

When it comes to gathering new members quality is more important than quantity.

Exactly the reason why I posted. Nobody wants to make a big community by destroying the quality. That's the main topic of this course I recommended.

For me one of the most important goals is developing the "art of rationality". Would it be easier if there were 10 times more people like you, who want to do the same? Would it be easier if existing people were more rational? Your goal has nothing(or very little) to do with my goals, which is self- and world-improvement. So I would call your and my goals as subgoals with regard to community. If any of our goals would be main goal to the community, the other guy would not have interest to contribute. This is the reason i ask for separation of topics.

So, what's stopping you from posting new topics yourself? I just did, my friend. This topic is on growth of the community. What you want to say is "it's not the topic I'm interested in", and that's the reason I want separation of topics. So that I can speak about growth of the community without bothering you.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 August 2015 03:50:15PM * 1 point [-]

So, what's stopping you from posting new topics yourself? I just did, my friend. This topic is on growth of the community.

I don't think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward.

So that I can speak about growth of the community without bothering you.

I don't think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction. Especially for people with low karma.

Comment author: Lu93 14 August 2015 12:39:56PM -2 points [-]

I don't think that having more meta-threads on how the community can improved provides the kind of content that brings LW forward. I don't think that having an extra section for meta conversation about LW could be improved would be a move in the right direction.

Funny you say that. Because you want LW to go forward, no? I got that from your wording. However, you want to avoid talking about that, and you want to proceed doing what you feel you need to do, which is making posts on whatever you want to post about. You don't want to do it deliberately, and you want to let it happen on its own. I think that if you thought for 5 minutes on this topic (improvement of LW), you would not have this opinion.

Especially for people with low karma. Is this ad hominem? Better evaluate my arguments than my karma. And even if you want to evaluate me, having karma as only argument is pretty miserable.

I will continue with position you want LW to improve. Do you claim that staying the same will improve LW or its members? Do we agree LW has to change, as well as its members in order to improve? Do we agree change has to be deliberately chosen to be an improvement? Do you claim you can do it with your gut feeling? Do you claim that course I offered as a resource is false in any way? If so, please refer me to the counterargument. Do you claim organization of the site would not be good for its members? Do you claim segregation of topics would not organize this site? Do you claim this solution is not feasible?

I tried to be rigorous towards arguments you offered, and not harsh to you. I love you, and i hope this conversation will do good to both of us.

Comment author: Jiro 14 August 2015 02:36:42PM 4 points [-]

I love you

Please stop this. Unusual familiarity in the context of disagreeing with someone, is condescending and an insult. And no, it doesn't fool everyone, either.

Comment author: Lu93 comment score below threshold [+] (11 children)

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 15 August 2015 09:47:35AM 2 points [-]

Funny thing, the previous person with minimal earlier site presence who came in with "here's how to start properly growing Less Wrong" was also kind of tone-deaf and annoying.

Comment author: Lu93 15 August 2015 10:13:31AM -2 points [-]

You are just rude now. You just straight up try to insult and discredit me, you did not even try to hide it.

I never said "this is how to ..." I offered course specialized in that topic. I offered material. I don't own that course, i just thought it would be useful to people who try to get more members here (I met few of them, so i expect there are more). I properly separated what is my idea, from that course.

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 August 2015 12:39:00PM 1 point [-]

you did not even try to hide it.

LW doesn't have a culture where trying to hide what you want to communicate is valued.

Comment author: Jiro 15 August 2015 03:49:16PM * 0 points [-]

If i wanted to insult him, I would do that much simpler.

Insults don't work that way. And I don't think you seriously believe that just because someone's insult could be simpler, it isn't an insult.

Besides, just because the explanation for an insult isn't simple doesn't mean the insult isn't simple.

I wanted to make an end to any idea of aggressiveness.

The only way you can end aggressiveness is by not being aggressive. You can't be aggressive and then add something at the end to make up for it.

Besides, it's not even a lie... I do feel some kind of brother or sister love towards everyone.

It has a meaning based on context, and the meaning based on context is not "I love all human beings". This ought to go in "geek social fallacies" if it isn't already; "it's literally true" is not an excuse. Words have connotations and implications, and it is your responsibility to understand them.

Comment author: Lu93 16 August 2015 12:02:09PM * 0 points [-]

Edit: I believe that if it is plain there is no intention of insult, insult does not exist.

I plainly said that I wasn't aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words "i love you".

I have positive record with that tactic, people have understood my attitude like that in the past, and I expected it to work again. It didn't, and that is fine. Maybe I need better technique to express myself, but that is different topic now, and not important since I expressed everything explicitly afterwards (and now again). Why are you still behaving like I wanted to insult him with these words? You clearly see I don't have that intention.

it is your responsibility to understand them.

Yeah, it is, but today i don't understand. The only thing i see is related to "mother love" and sounding like I am above him, but I can't make a clear case out of it. And understanding is not dirty dishes, I cannot just make a decision to understand them and do it in a few minutes. Maybe I'll read something on that topic this year. I think it's your responsibility that if you see what I expressed and what i wanted to express, you take what I wanted to express (you can even warn me that I expressed wrongly, if you feel so.)

Comment author: Jiro 16 August 2015 03:20:14PM 1 point [-]

I plainly said that I wasn't aggressive towards him, that i was afraid my words can be interpreted like that, and that i wanted to cut that possibility off with words "i love you".

You can't add a disclaimer "Don't interpret my words as aggressive" and then be able to say anything at all without it being interpreted as aggressive. After all, anyone who does have aggressive intentions and just wants to lie about it can use any disclaimer that you can use.
Even as a disclaimer, "I love you" is not very good.
The reason why it is insulting is that using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult. I'm sure I could find some explanation for it (sounding like you're above him is pretty close), but really, you just need to know that certain things are insults. Understanding why they are insults is less important than understanding that they are insults.

Comment author: Lu93 24 August 2015 10:23:51AM * 0 points [-]

You can't add a disclaimer "Don't interpret my words as aggressive"

Well, you can often interpret someone's words many ways. Just because you cannot see the person, and you cannot get information about their emotional state. So, i think you can write something that can be understood many ways, and add a disclaimer, "it's not the other thing".

Regarding

using excessive familiarity with an opponent is a type of insult

I never saw this. Maybe we are from different areas, and this could be explained through cultural difference. First, I am thought to never approach opponent as an enemy, and to always keep in mind they are like me (meaning they are humans, with feelings, with ideas, with goals, with hobbies, with experiences) and not empty, emotionless, evil, etc. Furthermore, I approach discussion as a cooperative activity, since its purpose is to improve both me and the guy I discuss with, and give us both insight in something new. That's why I never saw "familiarity" being looked upon, since that behavior highlights those two mindsets.

However, I acknowledge there are people with different background, who have different approach (different, not opposite). And now I acknowledge some people could perceive familiarity as insult. Would you mind explaining me how does that insult work? I don't even have a feeling for it. The closest I ever encountered was where middle-high-class-old-lady meets some homeless person who says something along the lines of "we are the same" and then she stops him to say they are not the same, etc, but that is pretty far from this case.

Edit: formatting and spelling.

continue this thread »

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 August 2015 12:57:03PM 0 points [-]

my rigorous attitude towards his arguments

You suggested that I likely haven't spend 5 minutes thinking about the subject which shows complete ignorance. That might be a honest belief but it certainly not rigorous.

Everybody regular of LW has thought about how to improve LW for more than 5 minutes. In my case I have even written tons of posts about the subject.

There are two ways to read this.
(1) You felt personally attacked and wanted to retaliate.
(2) You lack basic understanding.

It's very hard to read what you wrote and not come to the conclusion that (1) played at least a part.

I wanted to show open palms or something, but I cannot do that on keyboard.

And you failed. You communicated in a way that doesn't signal what you want to signal.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 August 2015 01:25:01PM 2 points [-]

Because you want LW to go forward, no?

It's interesting that you ask that question will ignoring my request to define what you mean with LW.

I think that if you thought for 5 minutes on this topic (improvement of LW), you would not have this opinion.

If you would search posts that I have written on the topic, would would see that I spent many hours thinking about this topic.

Basically the only way for you to hold this misconception is by being ignorant of prior discussions on the subject on LW. The fact that you haven't read them suggests to me that you have thought relatively little compared to the amount of thought I put into the subject.

Do you claim segregation of topics would not organize this site?

I think having too much segregation of topic is one of the reasons why the QS forum doesn't work (where I'm a moderator but lost this argument).

I say that as someone who did moderate a big personal development forum for 4 years and who has been asked for advice by other people starting personal development forums.

How much experience do you have in shaping online communities?

Do we agree change has to be deliberately chosen to be an improvement?

No, I don't believe in intelligent design.

On LW everybody is free to start a new threads without having a debate about starting it. Karma votes then either show that the community likes the new thread or that it doesn't like it. It sometimes worthwhile to express arguments for why you vote the way you do, but no group design progress is needed at the start.

Do-ocracy is a decent organisational concept.

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 August 2015 01:37:12PM 0 points [-]

Especially for people with low karma. Is this ad hominem? Better evaluate my arguments than my karma.

Karma shows to what extend people contribute to this community. People who don't contribute to this community don't have the same standing to tell other people on LW to do things to change LW than people who contribute.

Goals of a community aren't supposed to be set by outsiders.

It says on the top of the page that this community exists for refining the art of rationality. You don't care for that goal. You also don't care for the AI discussions with are a main reason for which LW was founded.

If you want to have something different than what this community is about then why don't you start something different?

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 August 2015 03:56:00PM 0 points [-]

Would it be easier if there were 10 times more people like you, who want to do the same?

Everyone who's like me already knows that LW exists.

Comment author: Lu93 14 August 2015 12:06:18PM -1 points [-]

Do you want to bet?

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 August 2015 12:56:40PM 1 point [-]

It's hard to define the terms of that bet. What am I pointing towards:

I did hear of LW in multiple different contexts online.

I heard it recommended at a CCC event.

I know two people who attended local LW meetups who I meet at QS events.

The week before the first LW Community camp a 99% match turned up on OkCupid. It was a woman who was in Berlin for the LW Community camp. If I wouldn't have known about LW that's also an event that would have made me check out LW.

Not having heard of LW would mean that I would have quite different ways to consume information and hang out with people.

Comment author: Lu93 comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: ChristianKl 14 August 2015 01:50:14PM 0 points [-]

You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.

That's arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.

there are lot of people on this world

A person who lives in a village in Africa, might have similar genes as I have but they don't live in the same culture as I. The fact that I discovered LW is a function of the culture to which I'm exposed.

LW is not the only source of rationality).

Rationality isn't the only think that make a person like me, to be like me.

Comment author: Lu93 15 August 2015 09:38:05AM * -2 points [-]

You still need only one man outside LW to be like you to be wrong.

That's arguing with semantics instead of arguing with substance.

That is arguing with substance. Say there is probability x someone is like you. Talking about your personality, not genes. N is number of people outside LW. In the first approximation, where "person is a member of LW" is independant of "person is like you." you have (1-x)^N to be right. I have 1-(1-x)^N to be right. If N is big, my probability goes to 1, your goes to 0.

Now, you can say, my approximation is false, which it is. LW influenced you, etc, so there is a correlation. However, unless correlation is 1, there is still a probability for someone to be outside of LW and like you, and if there is a large number N, my probability is still going to 1 and yours is still approaching 0. Exponentially. Now, you can narrow the choice by demanding more similarities, and then this growth would not be strong enough to make up for the smallness of x. But we are talking about someone who could give equal contribution to LW as you(edit: and who would like to develop art of rationality), you can't diminish x too much.

It is pretty shitty someone is down-voting you, you are just making a very common mistake of underestimating exponential growth. They could at least tell you what mistake did you make.

Comment author: ChristianKl 15 August 2015 12:36:03PM 1 point [-]

That is arguing with substance. Say there is probability x someone is like you.

The problem is that you don't focus on the intent of the statement. You try to find a meaning in the statement that's wrong and then focus on that. That goes against the idea of "refuting the central point". Instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from you assume that I haven't thought about what I'm saying.

"Like you" is a very vague category.

There a good chance that you engage in the typical mind fallacy. Your personality is more or less normal and therefore there are a lot of people like you outside.

My own personality is not normal but shaped in contexts. It's shaped by things like doing QS community building where I explained to journalist why QS is the new thing. It's also shaped by Danis Bois perceptive pedagogy.

But we are talking about someone who could give equal contribution to LW as you

That's not what "like me" means. A professor of psychology is in many ways not like me but he might still contribute to developing the art of rationality.

Now, you can say, my approximation is false, which it is. LW influenced you, etc, so there is a correlation.

My argument doesn't rest on the fact that LW influenced me. The QS community is not the LW community even when it's no accident that I meet.

It is pretty shitty someone is down-voting you, you are just making a very common mistake of underestimating exponential growth. They could at least tell you what mistake did you make.

That's still the kind of passive aggressive communication that Jiro complained about.

ChristianKl comments on Ideas on growth of the community - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (85)

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 (85)

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