Ben Hoffman, Solve your problems by fantasizing
The problem with most goal-driven plans is that most goals are fake, and so are most plans. One way to fix this is to fantasize.
[Meta]
Update: I've received feedback, and I won't be posting links to TFP in this thread, or others, on LW.
Would it be below the bar for no-politics to post one or more links in this thread from The Future Primaeval (TFP)? Some of their posts are more overtly political or controversial than others, and the only ones posts from the site I'd link here are ones which make more direct reference to, e.g., the rationality community, metacognition, strategic thinking, etc., rather than having something to do with sociopolitics. Note: I'd prefer if those hostile to TFP links of LW would reply to this comment rather than downvoting it, but, that stated, downvotes without clarification will be treated as a negative response to my above question.
I'm not familiar with TFP. My gut reaction is that I'd consider links to non-political articles from them to be fine.
Posting links to TFP and having Eugine downvote by sockpuppets everyone who provides a different opinion... I guess it would be time for all non-NR LessWrong readers (approximately 99% of them) to finally pack their bags and leave. :(
I spent what felt like a long time (actually: maybe 15 seconds) trying to figure out what sequence of real-world events the "Mike Mulligan" thing was satirizing, before reading the comments and discovering what it was actually referencing. I mention this just in case anyone else has the same knowledge gap (presumably because of being outside the US or not having had small children).
People often run into problems where their "good enough to post" threshold creeps up and up. (...) Sometimes people handle this by dividing their writing into a formal blog and something casual.
Seems to me the best solution would be to have two blogs, post everything on the first one, and later repost/rewrite the most successful posts to the second one.
Probably depends on whether you want to have a discussion below your articles, because this strategy could mess with the discussion flow. However, I am personally quite scared of the idea of having to moderate comments on my blog; if my blog would accidentally happen to be super popular, the moderation could become a nightmare. I would probably go with the "only approved comments are displayed" approach, which slows down the discussion a lot.
With the suggested approach (repost top posts on the other blog), people who regularly read the first blog would probably not visit the second one. But it would be a good starting point for new readers, and a good place for readers who do not want to read the blog regularly.
(I think the same approach could work for LW, to make "Main" the subset of "Discussion", but I don't know how much work this would be technically.)
An article on Psychology Today on map and terriotry and fundamental attribution error, and another one on false consensus effect.
Guidelines: Top-level comments here should be links to things written by members of the rationalist community, preferably that have some particular interest to this community. Self-promotion is totally fine. Including a brief summary or excerpt is great, but not required. Generally stick to one link per top-level comment, so they can be voted on individually. Recent links are preferred.
Rule: Do not link to anyone who does not want to be linked to. In particular, Scott Alexander has asked people to get his permission, before linking to specific posts on his tumblr or in other out-of-the-way places.