Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


Our interests diverge (re: excessive). Interesting silliness, from my perspective. Both responses to my comments on this page imply I'm illiterate. I was interesting in probing the examples (just who isn't reading, generalized: LessWrong or?, etc - common). More broadly, I'm seeing if I can have fun.

Probably I should be clearer.

"LessWrong should have a one-page answer for the question: What part of the established literature are you building upon and what are you doing that is novel?"

is not even close to the same as

"suggests mentioning the most popular example of an idea in an article's um, history of an idea section" if you consider "Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning" to be "the first example of it"

Anyway, probably different in philosophy, so I'll retract my claim. I've never seen any good introduction from LessWrong and this is not a start. It's such a pre-start it implies the opposite ("I'm rich, I own my own car"), with a jab at the opposition ("Why don't they see I'm rich, I own my own car"). Anyway, that's my perception.

I have no idea what you mean to say, unless it is simply a way of saying I'm an idiot while muddying the discussion. Clearly there are two parts to your post. I am saying the underlying sentiments I attribute to you from that post are: self-aggrandizing, tribalistic, straw-manning

If you think that I am criticizing your exaggerating rherotical expression, you're mistaken. I think the underlying sentiment, stripped of rhetoric is: self-aggrandizing, tribalistic, straw-manning. I'm repeating for clarity.

Not only is no one accusing you of being nerds, it is not even a reasonably exaggeration of what anybody says about this place. You do know you' (Less Wrong) are perceived as crazy, right?

Socially helpful. For the rest, I'll claim you're making an error, although entirely my fault. I'm claiming there's a type of article you should be citing in your intros. Luke reads a summary of those articles and says, "Wow, do people think we're weird, we're so mainstream". I say "Most of you think you're weird, and you probably did too till recenrlt; it's on you to know where you're mainstream". You say "Dummy, he's clearly interested in that since he already mentioned the first example of it."

Fair description? No, of course not, Luke has read more than a summary. He's read stuff. Mainstream stuff?

Anyway, I shouldn't say I have a good knowledge of the precise thing i mean by "mainstream" in your field, but I meant something pretty specific:

Very recent Research article Not-self or buddies Not too general Not just "classic" Similar methodology or aims (I mean extremely similar except in a few ways) High impact one way or another

What if you're too novel for to come up with articles meeting all those criteria. There's an answer for that.

Incidentally, I approve of downvoting this comment for lack of a specific book recommendation. I have now read back through Grognor's comment history for a while. I lay upon you, Grognor of the "read the sequences or go somewhere else (*) but I didn't realize the sequences weren't unique; how was I to know?", the quest to improve LessWrong by reading Shepherd's "The Synaptic Organization of the Brain". Standard classic.


Real answer: Read a book.

Also, your comment still applies to the LessWrong community. The most interesting part of LukeProg's post is how he avoids realizing this is a problem with LessWrong despite having only appreciated the mainstream recently. I mean, really, horrible way to think. Was he the same dude I saw somewhere say intros were grant-filler? If so: Characteristic. Appreciating the mainstream is what intros are about, give or take. LessWrong should have a one-page answer for the question: What part of the established literature are you building upon and what are you doing that is novel? Motivation seems clear enough, though.


Self-aggrandizing tribalistic straw-manning. Currently upvoted to +5. If the upvotes are meant to be amusingly ironic, come home, all is forgiven.