Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Pimgd 17 May 2016 02:55:51PM *  1 point [-]

This adds so much more to my LW experience. Reading open threads just became doable, rather than an exercise in trying to remember what parts of the discussion I've already seen and which ones I hadn't. ... Although I'm not seeing everything with a pink border whenever I look at an old page, so I think that part of the explanation is false. That, or there is a bug somewhere...

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 May 2016 04:17:28PM 3 points [-]

The first time you look at a page (no matter how old it is) , you don't get any pink borders.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 May 2016 02:06:37PM 3 points [-]

Comments use Markdown, not html. The Show Help button at the lower right of of a comment box will give you details. As I recall, two spaces at the end of a line are a hard return-- it's been a while since I had to wrestle with how a list or a poem would appear.

Articles use html, sort of. There's an html button at the top. If you copy and paste from a word processor, you might get inconvenient formatting.

I don't like this system, but the only thing worse than this system is having to try to guess how it works.

[comment score below threshold] I think that's anything with -3 karma. You can see the article/thread for free by clicking on the link, but if you reply to anything on that thread, you lose 5 points.

[continue this thread]-- LW has limited nesting of comments, so this link will start a new window. You will lose your pink borders on the old window if you left click, so I recommend using a new tab for continuing threads. You get the option of a new tab by right-clicking on the link.

Comment author: Pimgd 17 May 2016 12:32:19PM 2 points [-]

Something which wasn't clear to me after looking around a bit - it seems the recent comments in the bar at the right is cached, and I saw some comments with a pink border. Does the pink border mean they're new?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 May 2016 01:46:44PM 4 points [-]

Comments with a pink border are new since the last time you (that is, your account) refreshed the page. They might be years old, but they're new to you.

Comment author: Viliam 10 May 2016 11:44:49AM 2 points [-]

Quoting Eliezer2009:

Yet there is, I think, more absent than present in this "art of rationality"—defeating akrasia and coordinating groups are two of the deficits I feel most keenly. I've concentrated more heavily on epistemic rationality than instrumental rationality, in general. And then there's training, teaching, verification, and becoming a proper experimental science based on that. And if you generalize a bit further, then building the Art could also be taken to include issues like developing better introductory literature, developing better slogans for public relations, establishing common cause with other Enlightenment subtasks, analyzing and addressing the gender imbalance problem...

There were a few articles about akrasia; and CFAR is working on a curriculum for teaching rationality.

I have an idea about a sequence I would love to see, but only if it is written well (because it would be very easy and tempting!!! to make it wrong in various ways): Starting with scientifically describing human emotions, social behavior, and sexual behavior. Progressing to social skills. And culminating with community building.

I believe that these issues are so interconnected that it is almost meaningless trying to discuss them separately. They also happen to be places where the popular stereotypes say the nerds have blind spots. I suspect these may be areas where being "half correct" may harm you a lot. Which poses a problem because non-nerds usually don't care much about their maps matching the territory, and nerds talking about these topics will probably suffer from the curse of Dunning and Kruger; so we need to be extra careful here. However, without mastering this part of Art we will never achieve larger-scale rationalist communities.

(My beliefs here are a result of many pieces of evidence coming from different sources, so I am not able to disentangle them all within a comment. But generally, there are two levels here: The more superficial is that people are naturally drawn towards attractive people, and repelled from "creepy" people. This is a strong force to be ignored only at one's own peril, and it's even more true on the community level; even the wannabe rationalists are no exception to this. Some degree of social savviness is necessary for merely not having a group fall apart; even higher level is required to attract new members. These skills are learnable, but the fresh students tend to be overconfident and creepy. We also need communication skills and norms that are conductive to solving problems, because sooner or later the problems will appear. On a deeper level, many uniquely human skills are probably a result of sexual selection, even if they are not consciouslly connected. Understanding this may help to better understand "prestige", which is a required component for social success. Yeah, am I aware that this explanation is probably not very helpful.)

Another thing, we need some good introduction for newbies. At this moment, giving them Rationality: from AI to Zombies is my favorite choice, but something shorter and easier to read would be even better. I imagine 50-100 pages of text written for a above-average-IQ high-school audience. (At the end, the text should point them towards further literature, including the Rationality, but also many other books. Simply imagine that you are looking at a smart high-school bookworm who is going to read 20 or 50 books in the following years anyway; if your only influence on their life would be replacing their reading list, which specific books would you recommend?) This shorter text could then be printed and distributed among the smart high-school or college students.

In response to comment by Viliam on May Outreach Thread
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 10 May 2016 04:39:40PM 1 point [-]

My notion for outreach is to start with the planning fallacy because it's straightforward and something a lot of people have experience with, and see how much can be built from there.

In response to comment by tut on May Outreach Thread
Comment author: Viliam 09 May 2016 10:59:43AM 2 points [-]

And are we sure that it is a good idea to do a lot of outreach when the majority of discussion on the site is about why LW sucks?

Yeah, at this moment I would rather tell people to download and read Rationality: from AI to Zombies.

In response to comment by Viliam on May Outreach Thread
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 09 May 2016 06:20:58PM 1 point [-]

We're still up against the challenge of finding interesting things to write about.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 07 May 2016 02:47:18PM 8 points [-]

There are a bunch of "comment score below threshold" comments on this thread. Those comments are reasonable polite comments, mostly about the current difficulties with karma abuse here.

I hope to eventually prevent karma abuse, and finding out who's been downvoting discussion of karma abuse should be part of the process.

Comment author: gjm 06 May 2016 07:23:54PM -2 points [-]

If other people make the necessary tools, are they willing to deploy them?

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 07 May 2016 05:25:18AM -2 points [-]

I've asked tech about this.

Comment author: gjm 06 May 2016 09:12:41AM -2 points [-]

I think you're correct, but it may be more accurate to say that the technical support of LW doesn't give a fuck about LW generally. My vague memory is that they are doing this for free, which is nice for them but doesn't exactly give them a lot of motivation to keep things running well.

Suppose Eugine is destructive enough that everyone gives up on LW and they close it down. For LW tech support, that's a successful outcome: they don't have to bother with it any more.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 May 2016 06:46:32PM -2 points [-]

I think that's nastier than necessary-- tech support has been giving some help. The problem is that they aren't willing to develop new tools.

Comment author: Viliam 06 May 2016 08:00:04AM -2 points [-]

This is rude to say, but I honestly believe that the technical support of LW does not give a fuck about Eugine, and their cooperation is lukewarm at best. Otherwise the problem would be already solved years ago.

Really, how difficult it would be create a script that would revert all Eugine's votes? Let's suppose it would take a week of work. So? More than hundred weeks have already passed, and nothing happened.

Without cooperation of the technical support, there is not much a moderator could do, other than playing whack-a-mole with the new accounts. Which, as we see, does not work, because Eugine just creates new accounts, and the downvotes made by the old ones stay there.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 May 2016 06:45:08PM -2 points [-]

For what it's worth, I think tech support cares somewhat, but not enough for a gung ho effort.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 06 May 2016 09:03:50AM *  6 points [-]

As far as I know, it actually wasn't done,

I am almost sure that Nancy Lebovitz shadow-banned The_Lion at some point, as his comments showed up on his user page but not in their context (including my inbox).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 May 2016 06:42:40PM *  -2 points [-]

No, I didn't. I've got a comment somewhere that I didn't think shadow-banning would work on anyone who was paying attention.

Also, I don't have the tools needed for shadow-banning.

View more: Next