http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/a/schedules.htm
You cannot impose a reward schedule on yourself...
http://psychology.about.com/od/behavioralpsychology/a/schedules.htm
You cannot impose a reward schedule on yourself...
This reads more like you're using my comment as an excuse to talk more about what you want to talk about than that you're responding in any meaningful sense to the actual content of my comment.
The first 2 sentences address what you said. The rest is a massive tangent because staying on the same train of thought is hard for me. Also I was too lazy to go through the nesting to post that in a better spot.
Alicorn again is a perfect of example of someone who clearly wanted to be socialized.
And notice how she's mostly absent on LW preferring instead to plan and arrange her dinner parties... :-P
If you say so, I barely come on here much. Today is the most active I've been in months.
Dinner parties are extraordinarily useful social tools. There's a -reason- upper middle class people do them.
The causal relationship between "Being the sort of person to host dinner parties" and "Being upper middle class" doesn't flow in only one direction.
Yes but it underlines what I was saying about "Morp." And it also addresses people who were asking why I singled out Alicorn.
Whenever someone tells me I'm only doing something for attention or that I only hate on certain things because I'm excluded then I say: "Thanks Captain Obvious." It throws them off a lot. People who are different are different not by choice but by force. Conventional social norms exert a massive pressure on every individual even ones with non-conforming parents/siblings/peers/teachers and the only reason why it doesn't work is because an equal or greater pressure is going the other way.
So many groups, including Less Wrong, are full of so much, conscious or subconscious, self signalling and it destroys their ability to understand their own motivations or those of similar people.
The original post is all uptight about content, but content doesn't matter. Socializing matters. No amount of actually thought provoking content is going to save LessWrong unless the community improves. But the communities own standards won't allow it to improve because you aren't properly regulating who is allowed to stay, among other issues, including the aforementioned issue of the community and not the content being the problem. Creating a surviving discussion website is not the same as creating a growing discussion website.
I won't get into the drama that will develop if I explain what I mean about regulating who can post since you wouldn't implement my suggestion anyways. But I think many people know what I mean even if they don't agree, and we'll leave it at that.
This is undiplomatically expressed but may contain an important seed of useful information for anyone who would like to recentralize rationalism: meeting people's normal, boring, apey social needs is important for retention, especially at scale when it seems more tempting to split off with your favorite small percentage of the group and not put in the effort with the rest.
Indeed. Especially if the point of LW is to socialize newcomers to rationality, well, socializing newcomers is hard and not particularly glamorous work, and we're (to some extent) selecting for people who don't want to be socialized!
That's clearly not true. Alicorn again is a perfect of example of someone who clearly wanted to be socialized. I mean... dinner parties. Yes, I cannot get over the whole dinner party thing, get over it.
More on point though, centralization is the ultimate bug bear of the left/progressive/radicals/w.e. Look at the internecine wars of feminism or socialism or atheism. Furthermore everyone wants to address their local personal issues first and also divides who is allowed to interfere in problems among demographic or identity lines.
The success of a revolutionary movement, various religions being examples, requires both that it be more correct than what came before and that it be either equally or more satisfying. One should be careful though of copying the old systems too closely. Ethical Humanist solstice parties? Good lord what a terrible idea.
This is undiplomatically expressed but may contain an important seed of useful information for anyone who would like to recentralize rationalism: meeting people's normal, boring, apey social needs is important for retention, especially at scale when it seems more tempting to split off with your favorite small percentage of the group and not put in the effort with the rest. If you want people to post on Less Wrong, what's in it for them, anymore?
(I understand the desire to scare-quote the interestingness of my dinner parties but they are, in fact, parties at which dinner is served, in the most literal possible sense.)
I scare quoted dinner parties because they are the most ridiculously conventional upper middle class thing of all time. Even more than Valium.
I think this post misses a lot of the scope and timing of the Less Wrong diaspora. A lot of us are on Tumblr now; I've made a few blog posts at the much more open group blog Carcinisation, there's a presence on Twitter, and a lot of us just have made social friendships with enough other rationalists that the urge to post for strangers has a pressure release valve in the form of discussing whatever ideas with the contents of one's living room or one's Facebook friends.
The suggestions you list amount to "ask Scott to give up his private resource for a public good, even though if what he wanted to do was post on a group blog he still has a LW handle", "somehow by magic increase readership of the EA forum", and "restructure LW to entice the old guard back, even though past attempts have disintegrated into bikeshedding and a low level of technical assistance from the people behind the website's actual specs". These aren't really "solutions".
I rarely bother to comment on this site but this is important meta information. Many outsider groups and rationalists in particular seem to dissolve the moment their exclusion from standard social systems is removed. The most dumbed down example I have, and I specifically desire to post as low brow and example as possible, is the episode of Malcom In The Middle titled "Morp." Its prom backwards in case you missed that. The outsider group starts an anti-prom where they do everything ironically, and amusingly have all the same status bullshit problems over who is in charge or what should even be done as the normal kids prom. Then when some random dumb popular girls come down, feel upper class girl pity, and invite them to real prom everyone but Malcolm goes.
Less Wrong and its specific section of the rationalist community has approached this same singularity. It was all about getting enough like-minded and conveniently located people to form your own samesy, dull, cookie cutter clique just like normal people. Alicorn is a prime example of posts that expose this issue, although that whole cuddle pile bullshit is a more general example.
Much like say Atheism+, the OB/LW community has exploded into a million uncoordinated fragments merely seeking to satisfy their standard social needs. Meanwhile each of these shards has the same number of useless, weird, counterproductive group beliefs as mainstream Christians. And they've accomplished almost nothing except maybe funding the useless MIRI, if one even considers that an accomplishment. EA people even came and said MIRI doesn't qualify for GiveWell.
Indeed I feel my comparison to A+ is quite apt. So much bullshit spewed about improving stuff, raising the sanity waterline vs inclusive atheism but each group did essentially the opposite of their goal.
As per my title and associated duties I here mark the collapse of "internet rationalists" as a cohesive, viable, or at all productive group. Scott has a popular blog, Elie has a full time job wasting his life but gets paid good money, and Alicorn can now throw "interesting" "dinner parties." Also innumerable Tumblr related bullshit storms. Well, some movements accomplished less.
Adieu.
The big cryonics story of the week, about the Thai toddler Matheryn Naovaratpong:
The Girl Who Would Live Forever
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-girl-who-would-live-forever
Two-year-old cryogenically frozen by parents
http://www.cnet.com/news/two-year-old-cryogenically-frozen-by-parents/
The girl who could come back from the dead: Toddler who died from a brain tumour is FROZEN by parents who hope she can one day be revived by medical advances
PZ Myers weighs in. I guess he got bored with inflicting damage on communion wafers and accusing Michael Shermer of sexually assaulting women, and now he wants to pick on cryonicists:
How to live forever
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/16/how-to-live-forever/
You know what he does for a living don't you?
I wasnt ever going to post on this account but since I am forced to finish HPMOR, despite the massive decline in quality once it moved from rationalist to the Eliezer is obsessed with death theme, due to a quirk in my mind where I must finish reading any story I start. I saw the requests to be put into contact with official Harry Potter type people. I have done the opposite, more or less.
I have passed on a message to JK Rowling that she should stay as far away from HPMOR as possible and certainly not allow a bookish form, even for charity, to be published.
I have my reasons which would take pages to put down all of, lets just start with the fact that while the first section of the story was fabulous and actually in the same vein as the original goal wise, even if the lessons passed on were pretty different, the only thing more detestable than the evolution of Rowling's theme is the evolution of Eliezer's. As soon as both authors because to move into the great final lesson phase, their respective HP stories went to shit.
Plus, to be associated with certain large factions of posters on this site is to endure a fate worse than death.
View more: Next
No, we do not.
You understand wrong. Ask and Guess Cultures are two different styles of communication. Within both styles it's possible to be open and honest or to be closed and manipulative.
People from Ask Culture tend to perceive Guess Culture style as opaque and misleading because it's not their culture and they don't know how to operate in it. If you don't understand how it works, of course it doesn't look "open" to you.
Ask Culture interactions tend to be simpler, but the loss of complexity is not necessarily an advantage. I'll take flirting over "wanna fuck?" any day.
This is an ignorant assertion. Just because you call something a "style" doesn't immunize it from criticism. Guess culture is an irrational method of communication driven by a bias to avoiding emotional pain or manipulating ambiguity to manipulate a person. Its impossible to reconcile Guess Culture with the rationality promoted by this site. You can UNDERSTAND it, but its incredibly hypocritical to ADVOCATE for communication based on cognitive bias while maintaining consistency with even the broadest ideology of this site.
As far as Ask Culture, again your substituting your anecdotal feelings for an argument. You were socialized to prefer a specific kind of interaction but that doesn't mean its superior. Ask Culture is not synonymous with radical honesty with a question attached as you are implying.
Tell culture is indisputably the superior method of communication if you take away your personal bias. I can operate perfectly well under guess or ask culture since that's your favorite excuse for people who prefer tell culture.
Democratic Socialism is superior to American Capitalism. Immediately pressing for a shift between the systems may not be feasible, as operating effectively in society on pure tell culture is not a super good strategy, but DS is still objectively superior to AC and the same for TC>AC>GC.