= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on Open Thread March 21 - March 27, 2016 - 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 (160)
The differences are rather stark.
The ones you're not paying turn up because they have some specific thing to say that they think will be interesting (e.g., about the relationship between religion and rationality). They behave more or less like typical Less Wrong participants.
The ones you're paying turn up to gush in the comments to your articles about how wonderful the articles are, and how great Intentional Insights is, and how excited they are to be growing in rationality (without any specifics about what they've actually learned and how it's helping them). They behave more or less like typical blog comment spammers.
Like I said, it's not surprising that they expressed enthusiasm about the idea and content of Intentional Insights. They found out about rationality from InIn, and are volunteering about 2/3 of their time on average, because they're enthusiastic about this topic.
Blog comment spammers usually promote something with a link attached. These people involved with InIn take the time to introduce themselves and describe their perspectives, and do not post links.
More broadly, like I said earlier, InIn is an outward-facing arm of the rationality movement, not an inward-facing one. There's no need or interest for InIn to promote its content to LWs.