All of Horatio Von Becker's Comments + Replies

Hi! I'm Helaman Wilson, I'm living in New Zealand with my physicist father, almost-graduated-molecular-biologist mother, and six of my seven siblings.

I've been homeschooled as in "given support, guidance, and library access" for essentially my entire life, which currently clocks in at nearly twenty two years from birth. I've also been raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and, having done my best to honestly weigh the evidence for its' doctrine-as-I-understand-it, find myself a firm believer.

I found the Rational meta-community via the ... (read more)

4CraigMichael
I share this concern, but am also at a loss for what might be better. I thought, briefly, of Slashdot's system where there are various reasons for upvotes (funny, insightful, etc), but that always turned out to be a bit messy.  I've suggested before that when someone downvotes it might prompt to enter a reason, which is what I'm more curious about.  I've also wondered before if I could get admin feedback on why something wasn't (or was) Frontpaged.  But, as if they were reading my mind, that feature like that launched this week. :) 
5Charlie Steiner
Karma for most things is just pretend points (a perk of our small size), so don't feel too stressed. For new-ish posts, though, votes should be primarily interpreted as voting on what you want to appear highly when people look at the front page

I  think we need an actual style guide, and it needs to be prominent, properly maintained, and right here.

If it's not obvious why, and I weakly presume it isn't, it's because linguistic standardization seems like the obvious group-context form of linguistic precision, which seems like an obvious rationality virtue.

Thoughts?

5ryan_b
Welcome to LessWrong! We find ourselves in a perpetual tug-of-war between a desire for more reliable, higher quality posts and the ability of people to engage and contribute at all. The trade-off is this: * The higher the standard, whether style or rigor, the fewer people will write posts. To our dismay, this includes people who would actually meet the standards but fear that they would not beforehand. Naturally the potential contributions from people below the requirements are lost. * While this makes each post more productive to read, it also means that each post is higher-effort to read, which to our dismay often means posts stop being engaged with; we run the risk of churning out a small amount of posts which are very high quality but very poorly read. So striking that balance prevents us from setting much in the way of style standards; we usually prefer to let the community speak which rewards multiple styles. I myself am on the write early, write often side of the fence. The mods may have a more nuanced and up-to-date opinion with respect to meta information like writing guides.
8Ruby
There's something of a style guide for wiki-tagging (see the FAQ). For the site more broadly, I fear that any explicit style guide it would be possible to write would be too prescriptive and narrow. There's a wide variety of styles that suitable for the site, albeit that there's an even wider variety that isn't. In the practice, the best style guide are the great posts already on LessWrong. That's why we encourage new users to read quite a bit before posting. By reading, you get a sense of the LW discourse style.

I can see where you're coming from, but tracing every connection is very difficult, because beliefs/heuristics are based on whole networks of data, which I think are stored as smaller heuristics. Efficiency demands that I not explain more than I must to get my point across. Not just on my end, either. This is why target audience is useful.

...Thinking about it, I should see if I can optimize the site-intro stuff. A proper style guide for posting and reading seem like they'd have big advantages, although they would obviously need justification.

4JBlack
Efficiency demands that you actually get your point across, otherwise your efficiency is zero points-got-across per thousand words.

I was going for a style of writing I'm familiar with in explaining useful things - question to conclusion, I don't know the formal name for it - and then I wrote the title last, so that people who already knew the core point wouldn't need to waste time getting the evidence.

I'm not sure excluding this style from LessWrong actually improves Less Wrong's efficiency at sharing useful knowledge? Tagging it better would be good, of course.

2Pattern
So the style is based around making assertions, and if people don't think the point is obvious, they ask for evidence/ask what you mean? Do you have any (other) examples of the style?

Ah, language difficulties. Sorry. Will update for 'extremely literate crowd, even for nerds' then.

Why do you think it's ignored here? Just so widely accepted as to be invisible, or?

1TAG
No. The Gigerenzer approach was never promoted by Yudkowsky, so it isn't "there" as far as his followers are concerned.

Perhaps the problem is that my writing style is kind of intense, and thus reads as persuasion-coded rather than explanation-coded to this audience? I'd be happy to fix that, but I'll need a guide if it's going to happen any time soon.

(Relatedly, does anyone have a good guide for 'subtext in general'? Connotation varies even more than denotation, of course, but just really diving in to exploring connotations would be nice. Twig was valuable to me for that reason, even if it's hard to recommend on other counts.)

7lsusr
We like intense. Persuasion is bad, but that's not the problem. The problem is that your post is incoherent. It lacks a central thesis. [Meta: I wrote this comment because you specifically requested more negative feedback.]
4Said Achmiz
Seconding that this post seems incoherent, kind of like a half-baked shower thought.
6JBlack
It doesn't read as persuasion-coded to me. In fact it reads as stream-of-consciousness musing that defeats its own opening point. You're wondering what if everyone has perfect expertise with the universe we live in? Furthermore this is somehow linked to fake praise, your strong distrust for authority figures who tell you things without explaining their reasoning, and the idea that muscle-tension works as a variably-obvious signalling mechanism to yourself as well as to others? Well maybe this makes internal sense to you, but it looks incoherent to me.

Hm. Gotta say, I'm disappointed with how inarticulate the criticism has been here. Perhaps it's because Karma is supposed to be defined elsewhere, but if so, that seems like an issue with the Karma system.

3Horatio Von Becker
Perhaps the problem is that my writing style is kind of intense, and thus reads as persuasion-coded rather than explanation-coded to this audience? I'd be happy to fix that, but I'll need a guide if it's going to happen any time soon. (Relatedly, does anyone have a good guide for 'subtext in general'? Connotation varies even more than denotation, of course, but just really diving in to exploring connotations would be nice. Twig was valuable to me for that reason, even if it's hard to recommend on other counts.)

The who?

One thing I think this community may not realize, is that "religion" - and indeed "Christianity" - is too broad a term to be useful without further definition. People have been fighting over what defines a True Christian for hundreds - and, if you include the Old Testament era, thousands - of years. Characterizing us as all equivalent to some prominently bad examples is, well, quite fallacious.

That said:

I do remember a story from the Old Testament where the Moabites were, according to the standard translation, supposed to all be killed. But then Sa... (read more)

I thought it was odd that I couldn't find the general tag, and that's why I gave it the 'Should Possibly Be Merged' flag. I'm pretty sure I used the tagsearch before creating a new one, though, so this might be a coding issue.

So much of mapping reality is figuring out what the pieces are, and how they overlap and don't overlap, that defining terms is arguably the only product of thinking.

I'd really like to crowdsource this, as it's an extremely strong claim.

3Yoav Ravid
We already have a Definitions tag. I don't see why we need this one too.

This should probably be applied to all archived Bragging Threads, since it's how this forum implements thread-series. Also, a description that acknowledges that active/archive role is probably worthwhile? I got tired, though, and I think this is mostly scraperbot work.

Thanks. I'm also having account troubles, which will hopefully be sorted by then. (How'd you find the August 2021 thread, by the way? Latest I could find was July for some reason.)

2rossry
The actual algorithm I followed was remembering that habryka posts them and going to his page to find the one he posted most recently. Not sure what the most principled way to find it is, though...

The 'latest welcome thread' link should be updated to target the tag, since somehow that bit of automation didn't get pushed back here.

3Ruby
Good suggestion! Done.