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.

Gleb_Tsipursky comments on Marketing Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion

28 Post author: Viliam 18 November 2015 01:43PM

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

Comments (220)

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

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 23 November 2015 06:26:12AM 2 points [-]

Thank you for actually engaging with the content.

Only if I know that lots of people think this is a likely net negative, and that they are also aware that this is the sentiment, does it make sense to be the spokesperson for that view. If I know about that dynamic, I can deliberately try to jumpstart the process by paying the costs of establishing common knowledge.

The same effect works if people think this is a net positive. Furthermore, Less Wrong is a quite critical community, with people much more likely to provide criticism than support, as the latter wins less social status points. This is not to cast aspersions on the community at all - there's a reason I participate actively. I like being challenged and updating my beliefs. But let's be honest, this is a community of challenge and debate, not warm fuzzies and kumbayah.

Now let's get to the meat of the matter.

I agree that it would be nice if the broader population knew more clear thinking techniques. It's not obvious to me that it would be nice if more of the broader population came to LW.

I agree that it would not be nice if more of the broader population came to LW, the inferential gap would be way too big, and Endless September sucks. I discuss more in my comment here how that is not the goal I am pursuing, together with other InIn participants. The goal is to simply convey more clear thinking techniques effectively to the broad audience and raise the sanity waterline. For a select few, as that comment describes, they can go up to LW, likely those with a significantly high IQ but lack of sufficient education about how their mind works.

To recklessly speculate on the underlying causes, I don't get the impression that you deeply respect or understand your audience

I am confused by this comment. If I didn't understand my audience, how come my articles are so successful with them? Believe me, I have extensively researched the audiences there, and how to engage them well. You fail at my mind if you think my writing would be only engaging to college professors. And please consider who you are talking to when you discuss writing advice. I have read many books about writing, and taught writing as part of my college teaching.

As proof, here is evidence. I have only started publishing on Lifehacker - published 3 so far - and my articles way outperform the average of being shared under 1K. This is the average for experienced and non-experienced writers alike. My articles have all been shared over 1K times, and some twice as much if not more. The fact that they are shared so widely is demonstrable evidence that I understand my audience and engage it well.

Has this caused you to update on any of your claims to any extent?

Comment author: Vaniver 23 November 2015 11:16:13PM 1 point [-]

Thank you for actually engaging with the content.

You're welcome! Thank you for continuing to be polite.

Has this caused you to update on any of your claims to any extent?

I was already aware of how many times your articles have been shared. I would not base my judgment of a painter's skill with the brush on how many books on painting they had read.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 24 November 2015 10:19:30PM 2 points [-]

I guess the metaphor I would take for the painter is how many of her paintings have sold. That's the appropriate metaphor for how many times the articles were shared. If the painter's goal is to sell paintings with specific content - as it is my goal to have articles shared with specific content not typically read by an ordinary person - then sharing of articles widely indicates success.