Lumifer comments on LessWrong 2.0 - LessWrong

89 Post author: Vaniver 09 December 2015 06:59PM

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

Comments (312)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 23 December 2015 04:18:34PM 1 point [-]

by someone who understands them better than I do

Why would such a someone commit to spending a considerable amount of time predigesting papers for your convenience?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2015 12:21:42PM 1 point [-]

Explaining something to someone else is a good way to understand and remember it better.

Comment author: MaximumLiberty 23 December 2015 10:58:29PM *  0 points [-]

I think the key part of that sentence was "I'd like ..."

I can think of several reasons why someone might want to do such a thing.

  • They want to begin or enhance a reputation for being an authority in the field.
  • They want the organization that they represent to begin or enhance its reputation in the field and to popularize the particular spin that their organization places on such information.
  • They are studying the field anyway, so the investment is essentially prettying up their own precis of materials they are reading anyway.
  • They want to help the LW community and this is the way they choose to contribute. (For example, if there was interest in the field of law in which I specialize, I'd do the same, but I can;t see that fitting in here.)

Then, empirically, I note that people (who know these fields better than I) do actually post this kind of content here. But I don't see the karma system recognizing them for that contribution as much as being the "editor" of the whatever section would recognize them.

(Subsequently edited for terrible formatting)

Comment author: polymathwannabe 23 December 2015 06:27:57PM -1 points [-]

Upon realizing this, the entire profession of journalism disappeared.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 23 December 2015 07:28:46PM 2 points [-]

Journalists are not qualified to read papers, generally. As the state of science reporting should tell you.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 December 2015 06:42:58PM *  2 points [-]

It's disappearing anyway :-P

But journalism is certainly not about "summaries of recent [academic] articles by someone who understands them".