So my presumption is that 4 points means this article isn’t hopeless—it hasn’t attracted criticism, some people have upvoted it—but isn’t of a LW standard—it hasn’t been voted highly enough, there is only 1 comment engaging with the topic.
Is anyone able to give me a sense at to why it isn’t good enough? Should the topic necessarily be backed up by peer reviewed literature? Is it just not a big enough insight? Is it the writing? Is it the lack of specific examples noted by Gwern? Is it too similar to other ideas? And so on.
I hope I’m not bugging people by trying to figure it out but I’m trying to get better at writing posts without filling the main bit of less wrong with uninteresting stuff and this seemed like a less intrusive way to do this. I also feel like the best way to improve isn’t simply reading the posts but involves actually trying to write posts and (hopefully) getting feedback.
I tried composing a response a day or two ago, but had difficulty finding the words.
In a nutshell, I thought you should start with last two paragraphs, boil that down to a coherent and specific claim. Then write an entirely new essay that puts that claim at the top, in an introductory/summary paragraph. The rest of the post should be spent justifying and elaborating on the claim directly and clearly, without talking about gnomes or deploying the fallacy of equivocation on the sly, but hopefully with citation to peer reviewed evidence and/or more generally accessible works about reasoning (like from a book).
Thanks for the comment. That’s really helpful. So I should basically start with the idea, present it more clearly (no gnomes) and try to provide peer reviewed evidence or at least some support.
So my presumption is that 4 points means this article isn’t hopeless—it hasn’t attracted criticism, some people have upvoted it—but isn’t of a LW standard—it hasn’t been voted highly enough, there is only 1 comment engaging with the topic.
Is anyone able to give me a sense at to why it isn’t good enough? Should the topic necessarily be backed up by peer reviewed literature? Is it just not a big enough insight? Is it the writing? Is it the lack of specific examples noted by Gwern? Is it too similar to other ideas? And so on.
I hope I’m not bugging people by trying to figure it out but I’m trying to get better at writing posts without filling the main bit of less wrong with uninteresting stuff and this seemed like a less intrusive way to do this. I also feel like the best way to improve isn’t simply reading the posts but involves actually trying to write posts and (hopefully) getting feedback.
Thanks
I tried composing a response a day or two ago, but had difficulty finding the words.
In a nutshell, I thought you should start with last two paragraphs, boil that down to a coherent and specific claim. Then write an entirely new essay that puts that claim at the top, in an introductory/summary paragraph. The rest of the post should be spent justifying and elaborating on the claim directly and clearly, without talking about gnomes or deploying the fallacy of equivocation on the sly, but hopefully with citation to peer reviewed evidence and/or more generally accessible works about reasoning (like from a book).
Thanks for the comment. That’s really helpful. So I should basically start with the idea, present it more clearly (no gnomes) and try to provide peer reviewed evidence or at least some support.