We put together a special forum (subset of threads and posts) for a number of old argument topics, and make sure that it is readily accessible from the main page, or especially salient for new people. We have a norm there to (as much as possible) write out our points from scratch instead of using shorthand and links as we do in discussions between LW veterans.
Benefits:
It’s much less of a status threat to be told that one’s comment belongs in another thread than to have it dismissed as happened to adefmay.
Most of the trouble seems to happen when new people jump into a current thread and derail a conversation between LW veterans, who react brusquely as above. Separating the newest/most advanced conversations from the old objections should make everyone happier.
I find that the people who have been on LW for a few months have just the right kind of zeal for these newfound ideas that makes them eager and able to defend them against the newest people, who find them absurd. I think this would be a good thing for both groups of people, and I expect it to happen naturally should such a place be created.
So if we made some collection of “FAQ threads” and made a big, obvious, enticing link to them on either the front page or the account creation page (that is, we give them a list of counterintuitive things we believe or interesting questions we’ve tackled, in the hopes they head there first), we might avoid more of these unfortunate calamities in the future.
I’m not sure there needs to be more than one FAQ thread. But lets start by generating a list of frequently asked questions, coming up with answers with consensus support.
Why is almost everyone here an atheist?
What are the “points” on each comment?
Aren’t knowledge and truth subjective or undefinable?
Can you ever really prove anything?
What’s all this talk about probabilities and what is a Bayesian?
Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?
What are the moderation rules? What kind of comments will result in downvotes and what kind of comments could result in a ban?
Who are you people? (Demographics, and a statement to the effect of demographics don’t matter here. )
Basically, I think we need to do more for newcomers than just tell them to read a sequence; I mean, I think each of us had to actually argue out points we thought were obvious before we moved forward on these issues. Having a continuous open thread on such topics (including, of course, links to the relevant posts or Wiki entry) would be much better, IMO.
A monthly “Old Topics” thread, or a collection of them on various topics, would be great, although there ought to be a really obvious link directing people to it.
While I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a place to discuss those topics I think the first thing a newcomer sees should focus on epistemology, rationality and community norms of rationality.
1) This is still presumably what this site is about.
2) Once you get the right attitude and the right approach the other subjects don’t require patient explanation. A place to discuss those things is fine, but if the issue comes up elsewhere and a veteran does respond brusquely to a newcomer they can probably deal with it if they have internalized less wrong norms, traditional rationality and some of the Bayesian type stuff we do here.
3) There seems to be near universal agreement on the rationality stuff but I’m not sure that is the case with the other issues. I know I agree with the typical LW position on the first four of your questions, but I disagree on the last two. I suspect most people here don’t think cryonics will probably work (just that it working is likely enough to justify the cost). There are probably some determinists mixed in with a lot of compatibilists and there are definitely dissenters on theory of the mind stuff (I’m thinking of Michael Porter who otherwise appears to be a totally reasonable less wrong member). Check the survey results for more evidence of dissent. That there is still disagreement on these issues that is reason to keep discussing them. But I don’t know if we should present the majority views on all these issues as resolved to new users.
But I might just be privileging my own minority views. If the community wants these included I won’t object.
Good points, but I still think that these questions belong in some kind of “Old Topics” thread, because there’s already been a lot said about them, and because most new people will want to argue them anyway. Even if they’re not considered to be settled or to be conditions that define LW, I’d prefer if there’s a place for new people to start discussing them other than 2-year-old threads or tangential references in new posts.
Partial Fix #1:
We put together a special forum (subset of threads and posts) for a number of old argument topics, and make sure that it is readily accessible from the main page, or especially salient for new people. We have a norm there to (as much as possible) write out our points from scratch instead of using shorthand and links as we do in discussions between LW veterans.
Benefits:
It’s much less of a status threat to be told that one’s comment belongs in another thread than to have it dismissed as happened to adefmay.
Most of the trouble seems to happen when new people jump into a current thread and derail a conversation between LW veterans, who react brusquely as above. Separating the newest/most advanced conversations from the old objections should make everyone happier.
I find that the people who have been on LW for a few months have just the right kind of zeal for these newfound ideas that makes them eager and able to defend them against the newest people, who find them absurd. I think this would be a good thing for both groups of people, and I expect it to happen naturally should such a place be created.
So if we made some collection of “FAQ threads” and made a big, obvious, enticing link to them on either the front page or the account creation page (that is, we give them a list of counterintuitive things we believe or interesting questions we’ve tackled, in the hopes they head there first), we might avoid more of these unfortunate calamities in the future.
I’m not sure there needs to be more than one FAQ thread. But lets start by generating a list of frequently asked questions, coming up with answers with consensus support.
Why is almost everyone here an atheist?
What are the “points” on each comment?
Aren’t knowledge and truth subjective or undefinable?
Can you ever really prove anything?
What’s all this talk about probabilities and what is a Bayesian?
Why do you all agree on so much? Am I joining a cult?
What are the moderation rules? What kind of comments will result in downvotes and what kind of comments could result in a ban?
Who are you people? (Demographics, and a statement to the effect of demographics don’t matter here. )
What else? Anyone have drafts of answers?
More FAQ topics:
Why the MWI?
Why do you all think cryonics will probably work?
Why a computational theory of mind?
What about free will and consciousness?
What do you mean by “morality”, anyway?
Wait a sec. Torture over dust specks?!?
Basically, I think we need to do more for newcomers than just tell them to read a sequence; I mean, I think each of us had to actually argue out points we thought were obvious before we moved forward on these issues. Having a continuous open thread on such topics (including, of course, links to the relevant posts or Wiki entry) would be much better, IMO.
A monthly “Old Topics” thread, or a collection of them on various topics, would be great, although there ought to be a really obvious link directing people to it.
While I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a place to discuss those topics I think the first thing a newcomer sees should focus on epistemology, rationality and community norms of rationality.
1) This is still presumably what this site is about.
2) Once you get the right attitude and the right approach the other subjects don’t require patient explanation. A place to discuss those things is fine, but if the issue comes up elsewhere and a veteran does respond brusquely to a newcomer they can probably deal with it if they have internalized less wrong norms, traditional rationality and some of the Bayesian type stuff we do here.
3) There seems to be near universal agreement on the rationality stuff but I’m not sure that is the case with the other issues. I know I agree with the typical LW position on the first four of your questions, but I disagree on the last two. I suspect most people here don’t think cryonics will probably work (just that it working is likely enough to justify the cost). There are probably some determinists mixed in with a lot of compatibilists and there are definitely dissenters on theory of the mind stuff (I’m thinking of Michael Porter who otherwise appears to be a totally reasonable less wrong member). Check the survey results for more evidence of dissent. That there is still disagreement on these issues that is reason to keep discussing them. But I don’t know if we should present the majority views on all these issues as resolved to new users.
But I might just be privileging my own minority views. If the community wants these included I won’t object.
Good points, but I still think that these questions belong in some kind of “Old Topics” thread, because there’s already been a lot said about them, and because most new people will want to argue them anyway. Even if they’re not considered to be settled or to be conditions that define LW, I’d prefer if there’s a place for new people to start discussing them other than 2-year-old threads or tangential references in new posts.