FWIW, I would be willing to cut it, if it makes the cut overall, such that the essay is shorter and primarily about the core concept and includes only enough Duncan-specific stuff to get that core concept across.
(I strong upvoted this comment because it is wise.)
This largely rings true to me but is missing one (in my opinion) absolutely crucial caveat/complication:Most people (including, as experience has repeatedly confirmed, the vast majority of rationalists/LWers) will do "Ask what physical process generated the words. Where did they come from? Why these particular words at this particular time?" wrong, by virtue of being far too confident in the first answer that their stereotype centers generate, and not accounting for other-people's-minds-and-culture-being-quite-different-from-their-own.
As for the Understanding Shoulds section, that's another example of the document being tailor-made for a specific target audience; most people are indeed "taking far too seriously" their "utterly useless shoulds," but the CFAR workshop audience was largely one pendulum swing ahead of that state, and needing the next round of iterated advice.
Emailing CFAR is the best way to find out; previously the question wasn't considered in depth because "well, we're not selling it, and we're also not sharing it." Now, the state is "well, they're not selling it, but they are sharing it," so it's unclear.
(Things like the XKCD comic being uncited came about because in context, something like 95% of participants recognized XKCD immediately and the other 5% were told in person when lecturers said stuff like "If you'll look at the XKCD comic on page whatever..." In other words, it was treated much more like an internal handout shared among a narrowly selected, high-context group, than as product that needed to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's. I agree that Randall Munroe deserves credit for his work, and that future edits would likely correct things like that.)
Emailing people at CFAR directly is the best way to find out, I think (I dunno how many of them are checking this thread).
Note that this handbook covers maybe only about 2/3 of the progress made in that private beta branch, with the remaining third divided into "happened while I was there but hasn't been written up (hopefully 'yet')" and "happened since my departure, and unclear whether anyone will have the time and priority to export it."
I don't know the answer; the team made their decision and then checked to see if I was okay with it; I wasn't a part of any deliberations or discussions.
What I meant by the word "our" was "the broader context culture-at-large," not Less Wrong or my own personal home culture or anything like that. Apologies, that could've been clearer.
I think there's another point on the spectrum (plane?) that's neither "overt anti-intellectualism" nor "It seems to me that engaging with you will be unproductive and I should disengage." That point being something like, "It's reasonable and justified to conclude that this questioning isn't going to be productive to the overall goal of the discussion, and is either motivated-by or will-result-in some other effect entirely."
Something stronger than "I'm disengaging according to my own boundaries" and more like "this is subtly but significantly transgressive, by abusing structures that are in place for epistemic inquiry."
If the term "sealioning" is too tainted by connotation to serve, then it's clearly the wrong word to use; TIL. But I disagree that we don't need or shouldn't have any short, simple handle in this concept space; it still seems useful to me to be able to label the hypothesis without (as Oliver did) having to write words and words and words and words. The analogy to the usefulness of the term "witchhunt" was carefully chosen; it's the sort of thing that's hard to see at first, and once you've put forth the effort to see it, it's worth ... idk, cacheing or something?
I agree that you've said this multiple times, in multiple places; I wanted you to be able to say it shortly and simply. To be able to do something analogous to saying "from where I'm currently standing, this looks to me like a witchhunt" rather than having to spell out, in many different sentences, what a witchhunt is and why it's bad and how this situation resembles that one.
My caveats and hedges were mainly not wanting to be seen as putting words in your mouth, or presupposing your endorsement of the particular short sentence I proposed.