I’m concerned with the overuse of the term “applause light” here.
An applause light is not as simple as “any statement that pleases an in-group”. The way I read it, a charge of applause lights requires all of the following to hold:
1) There are no supporting details to provide the statement with any substance.
3) The statement exists purely to curry favor with an in-group.
4) No policy recommendations follow from that statement.
I don’t see a bunch of applause lights when I read this post. I see a post overflowing with supporting details, policy recommendations, and the opposite of semantic stopsigns—Luke actually bent over backwards and went to the trouble of linking to as many useful posts on the topic as he could find. By doing so, he’s giving the curious reader a number of pointers to what others have said about the subject he’s discussing—so that they can go learn more if they’re actually curious.
Really, what more could he have done? How was he supposed to discuss the massive utility he’s gained from rationality without mentioning rationality? To make his post shorter, Luke had to use several terms that most people around here feel good about. Yay for Luke! He saved me from having to read a longer, less information-dense post by writing it this way. I understand the sanity benefits of guarding yourself against blatant applause lights, but at the same time, it would be rather perverse of me to automatically feel unhappy in response to Luke mentioning something that makes me happy.
It’s not an affective death spiral for me to feel happy when someone tells me an inspiring life-success story that involves terms that I happen to have a positive affect for. It’s having a reaction that fits the facts. I’m happy Luke is having a good life. It’s relevant for him to tell me about it here on Less Wrong because rationality played a big part in his success. And I’m even more overjoyed and grateful to Luke that he’s leaving a trail of sign-posts behind him, pointing the way forward as he levels up in rationality. Now is the time for him to be documenting this… while it’s still fresh… so that one day when he forgets how he got to where he is, there will still be an overly detailed record to point people to.
I agree. Whatever the reason is for me being annoyed or uncomfortable about lukeprog’s writing on occasion is probably not because it is Applause Lights. It may even be that he is following Best Practices and I should just adjust to it.
On the other hand, I think I get the feeling that when someone links to something external, they are trying to activate a cognitive shortcut. It’s like being fast-talked by a car salesman, I’m being given a reference instead of a whole concept. I’m afraid that I will accept something without actually forming a complete mental model of it. I get the same sensation when someone uses footnote references to something that is unexplained or not apparent.
That’s the problem with scholarship—it can be tricky to recreate an idea in the mind of another, because the other mind needs time to adjust to whatever you adjusted to. So if you dump something large and complex on someone it can end up seeming like an appeal to authority, even when there are good reasons—because a good reason usually needs time and deliberate attention to be understood.
Also, one has to keep in mind that having dependencies on many sources can make something less persuasive—say you have five sources that independently seem 90% persuasive—your result now only seems 59% persuasive.
On an unrelated note, it is kind of weird to me when people use lukeprog’s first name instead of complete username because it is also my first name (and a couple other LWers.) This may just be because Luke is a kind of uncommon name, and I have not previously had to get used to it referring to someone else.
Yes, I’d say there being 40 more common names in existence is enough to make it “kind of” uncommon. Certainly enough to explain why someone with a fairly small social group does not see it overlapping many times. I don’t contest that in a large group like LW (or a moderately large Facebook network) you would expect to see multiple Lukes, indeed that is the point of using usernames.
There is a user Luke who made a single comment a few years ago. That’s not intended to imply anything about what to call lukeprog, I just found it interesting
The fact that you know him personally makes it make more sense. I haven’t met any other LWers in person yet, sometimes I forget this isn’t only an online community. :)
I’m concerned with the overuse of the term “applause light” here.
An applause light is not as simple as “any statement that pleases an in-group”. The way I read it, a charge of applause lights requires all of the following to hold:
1) There are no supporting details to provide the statement with any substance.
2) The statement is a semantic stopsign.
3) The statement exists purely to curry favor with an in-group.
4) No policy recommendations follow from that statement.
I don’t see a bunch of applause lights when I read this post. I see a post overflowing with supporting details, policy recommendations, and the opposite of semantic stopsigns—Luke actually bent over backwards and went to the trouble of linking to as many useful posts on the topic as he could find. By doing so, he’s giving the curious reader a number of pointers to what others have said about the subject he’s discussing—so that they can go learn more if they’re actually curious.
Really, what more could he have done? How was he supposed to discuss the massive utility he’s gained from rationality without mentioning rationality? To make his post shorter, Luke had to use several terms that most people around here feel good about. Yay for Luke! He saved me from having to read a longer, less information-dense post by writing it this way. I understand the sanity benefits of guarding yourself against blatant applause lights, but at the same time, it would be rather perverse of me to automatically feel unhappy in response to Luke mentioning something that makes me happy.
It’s not an affective death spiral for me to feel happy when someone tells me an inspiring life-success story that involves terms that I happen to have a positive affect for. It’s having a reaction that fits the facts. I’m happy Luke is having a good life. It’s relevant for him to tell me about it here on Less Wrong because rationality played a big part in his success. And I’m even more overjoyed and grateful to Luke that he’s leaving a trail of sign-posts behind him, pointing the way forward as he levels up in rationality. Now is the time for him to be documenting this… while it’s still fresh… so that one day when he forgets how he got to where he is, there will still be an overly detailed record to point people to.
I agree. Whatever the reason is for me being annoyed or uncomfortable about lukeprog’s writing on occasion is probably not because it is Applause Lights. It may even be that he is following Best Practices and I should just adjust to it.
On the other hand, I think I get the feeling that when someone links to something external, they are trying to activate a cognitive shortcut. It’s like being fast-talked by a car salesman, I’m being given a reference instead of a whole concept. I’m afraid that I will accept something without actually forming a complete mental model of it. I get the same sensation when someone uses footnote references to something that is unexplained or not apparent.
That’s the problem with scholarship—it can be tricky to recreate an idea in the mind of another, because the other mind needs time to adjust to whatever you adjusted to. So if you dump something large and complex on someone it can end up seeming like an appeal to authority, even when there are good reasons—because a good reason usually needs time and deliberate attention to be understood.
Also, one has to keep in mind that having dependencies on many sources can make something less persuasive—say you have five sources that independently seem 90% persuasive—your result now only seems 59% persuasive.
On an unrelated note, it is kind of weird to me when people use lukeprog’s first name instead of complete username because it is also my first name (and a couple other LWers.) This may just be because Luke is a kind of uncommon name, and I have not previously had to get used to it referring to someone else.
Apparently, Luke is the 41st most common baby name. I know 5 Lukes, according to Facebook. Are you sure it’s that uncommon?
Yes, I’d say there being 40 more common names in existence is enough to make it “kind of” uncommon. Certainly enough to explain why someone with a fairly small social group does not see it overlapping many times. I don’t contest that in a large group like LW (or a moderately large Facebook network) you would expect to see multiple Lukes, indeed that is the point of using usernames.
I know lukeprog personally, but I suppose I should call him lukeprog on LW for other people’s benefit. Thanks for the reminder.
I know lukeprog personally and I call him lukeprog.
There is a user Luke who made a single comment a few years ago. That’s not intended to imply anything about what to call lukeprog, I just found it interesting
I think that was me. :)
The fact that you know him personally makes it make more sense. I haven’t met any other LWers in person yet, sometimes I forget this isn’t only an online community. :)