To me, this is a clearly underappreciated post
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DyR4rn9HLDYvmyJnS/underappreciated-content-on-lesswrong
Well, what better way to illustrate the point of the post than to have it be an example of the class of posts it talks about?
Diagonal argument for the win.
Still an 80:20 on the whole project imo: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PBRWb2Em5SNeWYwwB/humans-are-not-automatically-strategic
Is this "things that are posted on LessWrong that don't get much engagement", or is this "topics that don't tend to be posted much on LessWrong because when they do they don't get much engagement"?
I suspect this question is asking the former; I think the latter is more of a problem.
I intended the question to be asking for the former. If you want to discuss the latter, you can do it in the comments section or I can open a new question for that purpose.
It's likely that there is some mismatch between your preferences and the preferences of the LessWrong community about which posts or comments are good or deserving of upvotes. In addition to these differences, good content sometimes doesn't receive much attention from the community because it's posted in times of high traffic (such as Good Hearts Week), because too much context is required to understand it, or just because of other sources of noise that we don't understand.
What are some pieces of content posted on LessWrong that you think more people should read but that didn't get much in the way of upvotes and engagement? Questions, personal blog posts, frontpage posts, and comments are all admissible responses.