Did anyone reading this initially get the impression that Less Wrong was cultish when they first discovered it?
What do you mean, “initially” ? I am still getting that impression ! For example, just count the number of times Eliezer (who appears to only have a single name, like Prince or Jesus) is mentioned in the other comments on this post. And he’s usually mentioned in the context of, “As Eliezer says...”, as though the mere fact that it is Eliezer who says these things was enough.
The obvious counter-argument to the above is, “I like the things Eliezer says because they make sense, not because I worship him personally”, but… well… that’s what one would expect a cultist to say, no ?
Less Wrongers also seem to have their own vocabulary (“taboo that term or risk becoming mind-killed, which would be un-Bayesian”). We spend a lot of time worrying about doomsday events that most people would consider science-fictional (at best). We also cultivate a vaguely menacing air of superiority, as we talk about uplifting the ignorant masses by spreading our doctrine of rationality. As far as warning signs go, we’ve got it covered...
Specialized terminology is really irritating to me personally, and off-putting to most new visitors I would think. If you talk to any Objectivists or other cliques with their own internal vocabulary, it can be very bothersome. It also creates a sense that the group is insulated from the rest of the world, which adds to the perception of cultishness.
We also cultivate a vaguely menacing air of superiority, as we talk about uplifting the ignorant masses by spreading our doctrine of rationality
I think the phrase ‘raising the sanity waterline’ is a problem. As is the vaguely religious language, like ‘litany of Tarski’. I looked up the definiton of ‘litany’ to make sure I was picking up on a religious denotation and not a religious connotation, and here’s what I got:
A series of petitions for use in church services, usually recited by the clergy and responded to in a recurring formula by the people.
Not a great word, I think. Also ‘Bayesian Conspiracy.’ There’s no conspiracy, and there shouldn’t be.
This wording may lose a few people, but it probably helps for many people as well. The core subject matter of rationality could very easily be dull or dry or “academic”. The tounge-in-cheek and occasionally outright goofy humor makes the sequences a lot more fun to read.
The tone may have costs, but not being funny has costs too. If you think back to college, more professors have students tune out by being boring than by being esoteric.
One problem with such ironic usage is that people tend to joke about things that cause themselves stress, and that includes uncomfortable truths or things that are getting too close to the truth. It’s why it actually makes sense to detain people making bomb jokes in airports. So just because the words are used ironically doesn’t mean they can’t reasonably be taken as signs of a cult—even by people who recognize that they are being used ironically.
(Although this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that many cults won’t allow jokes about themselves at all.)
You’d have to be new to the entire internet to think those are being used seriously. And if you’re THAT new, there’s really very little that can be done to prevent misunderstanding no matter where you first land.
On top of that, it’s extremely unlikely someone very new to the internet would start their journey at LessWrong
What do you mean, “initially” ? I am still getting that impression ! For example, just count the number of times Eliezer (who appears to only have a single name, like Prince or Jesus) is mentioned in the other comments on this post. And he’s usually mentioned in the context of, “As Eliezer says...”, as though the mere fact that it is Eliezer who says these things was enough.
The obvious counter-argument to the above is, “I like the things Eliezer says because they make sense, not because I worship him personally”, but… well… that’s what one would expect a cultist to say, no ?
Less Wrongers also seem to have their own vocabulary (“taboo that term or risk becoming mind-killed, which would be un-Bayesian”). We spend a lot of time worrying about doomsday events that most people would consider science-fictional (at best). We also cultivate a vaguely menacing air of superiority, as we talk about uplifting the ignorant masses by spreading our doctrine of rationality. As far as warning signs go, we’ve got it covered...
Specialized terminology is really irritating to me personally, and off-putting to most new visitors I would think. If you talk to any Objectivists or other cliques with their own internal vocabulary, it can be very bothersome. It also creates a sense that the group is insulated from the rest of the world, which adds to the perception of cultishness.
I think the phrase ‘raising the sanity waterline’ is a problem. As is the vaguely religious language, like ‘litany of Tarski’. I looked up the definiton of ‘litany’ to make sure I was picking up on a religious denotation and not a religious connotation, and here’s what I got:
Not a great word, I think. Also ‘Bayesian Conspiracy.’ There’s no conspiracy, and there shouldn’t be.
Agreed. I realize that the words like “litany” and “conspiracy” are used semi-ironically, but a newcomer to the site might not.
This wording may lose a few people, but it probably helps for many people as well. The core subject matter of rationality could very easily be dull or dry or “academic”. The tounge-in-cheek and occasionally outright goofy humor makes the sequences a lot more fun to read.
The tone may have costs, but not being funny has costs too. If you think back to college, more professors have students tune out by being boring than by being esoteric.
(Responding to old post.)
One problem with such ironic usage is that people tend to joke about things that cause themselves stress, and that includes uncomfortable truths or things that are getting too close to the truth. It’s why it actually makes sense to detain people making bomb jokes in airports. So just because the words are used ironically doesn’t mean they can’t reasonably be taken as signs of a cult—even by people who recognize that they are being used ironically.
(Although this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that many cults won’t allow jokes about themselves at all.)
You’d have to be new to the entire internet to think those are being used seriously. And if you’re THAT new, there’s really very little that can be done to prevent misunderstanding no matter where you first land.
On top of that, it’s extremely unlikely someone very new to the internet would start their journey at LessWrong
Mr. Jesus H. Christ is a bad example. Also there’s this.