Thanks a lot for this! I will check both your links. Getting overviews of concepts rather than deep research makes a lot of sense.
I was curious about a more balanced rationalist perspective that LW may be good at, if writers here took an interest.
Getting raw data about people's experiences is difficult, getting the data into the public domain so common knowledge can be built over it is difficult, getting takes that are not polarised (to being either pro or anti solving trauma) is difficult, building spaces where this stuff can be discussed and debated is difficult.
I would for example be interested in reading a conversation where two psychologists actively debate each other because their raw data (different clients they see) is different and leading them to different conclusions, rather than just a psychologist repeating their textbook knowledge.
Thanks a lot for this! I will check both your links. Getting overviews of concepts rather than deep research makes a lot of sense.
I was curious about a more balanced rationalist perspective that LW may be good at, if writers here took an interest.
Getting raw data about people's experiences is difficult, getting the data into the public domain so common knowledge can be built over it is difficult, getting takes that are not polarised (to being either pro or anti solving trauma) is difficult, building spaces where this stuff can be discussed and debated is difficult.
I would for example be interested in reading a conversation where two psychologists actively debate each other because their raw data (different clients they see) is different and leading them to different conclusions, rather than just a psychologist repeating their textbook knowledge.