= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I was very unclear in what I wrote. I also find what you wrote less than perfectly clear. Efficient Scholarship will not equip one to do research in many fields but in many fields given a narrow enough goal you'd be the equal of an average maters student.
"suggests mentioning the most popular example of an idea in an article's um, history of an idea section" if you consider "Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning" to be "the first example of it"
(This comment precedes my edit) abovementioned lukeprog comment makes the point that Luke is an academic in his weighting of priority over exposure when discussing the genealogy of an idea. Apologies for my previous lack of clarity.
The overwhelming majority of LW lurkers will have barely dipped their toes in the Sequences. The more committed commenters have certainly not universally read them all. Luke has read dozens of books on rationality alone.
Upon reflection we probably disagree on very little seeing as you were originally addressing an average LW reader's view on the origins of the ideas LW talks about, not a specific person's. If you could expand upon your last paragraph I'd be grateful. The article (and as of writing, the comments) do not mention philosophy (by name) at all.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Welp, that was impossible to parse.
Something dumb people say an awful lot: If only you read blank, you'd agree with me.
It's also something LessWrongians say a lot. Even the better breed of cat hereabouts has this tendency. The top post is something of an example, without the usual implied normative: If only other people read LessWrong more closely, they'd realize it's mainstream (in parts). Luke, kindly, places the onus on himself, doubtless as an act of (instrumentally rational) noblesse oblige.
That's background. I feel it is background most LessWrongians are somewhat aware of. I feel Luke's attitude in the top post (placing the onus on himself) is an extension of the principle that lightly or easily telling people to read the sequences is dopey.
So, now to the converation.
Romeo: People are idiots. Me: You're an idiot. Romeo: You can't read. Me: Just who isn't reading, you or me? Or more generally, LessWrong or the rest of the world? Seems like a common problem.
I enjoyed casting myself in the part of "the rest of the world".