I agree with pretty much all of this. This is slightly off-topic, but:
I don’t just think we should be discussing new arguments that fall within our cluster of topics—IMO, we should be branching out even more. For a while now, a handful of LWers have been arguing in comments like this one that we need a much wider range of scholarship, and that subjects outside of LW’s typical math/science cluster—yes, even those icky-looking liberal artsy ones—are worth studying. This seems like a pretty reasonable suggestion. After all, the site is overwhelmingly male, white, atheist, young, consequentialist (or wannabe-consequentialist), transhumanist and heavily math/science focused. Heck, that’s a near-perfect description of me. As a result, there’s a natural tendency for us to be ignorant of certain subjects, and consequently to discount them. E.g., for me, subjects like anthropology are unknown unknowns: I don’t know what the field is even about or how relevant it is to LW-style rationality topics.
Trouble is, we run the risk of falling into the typical autodidact failure mode of being recklessly overconfident about these topics after reading introductory material or opinion pieces on each subject. Personally, I have no idea how to go about studying something like history, and I’d most likely step on an intellectual land mine. What would be really awesome is if people on LW with expertise could point us towards appropriate introductory texts, answer questions, or even teach other LWers.
Trouble is, we run the risk of falling into the typical autodidact failure mode of being recklessly overconfident about these topics after reading introductory material or opinion pieces on each subject.
My impression is that LW is well off the cliff already, given the replies to posts by or links to the AI researchers who are skeptical of the UFAI issue. The quantum physics reaction is no better. There is a lot of noise here from the well-meaning and overconfident amateurs who refuse to identify as such.
The fact that the sequence you are referring to is known as the “Quantum Mechanics” sequence is evidence of the failure of that sequence to achieve its goal.
If I write a book with the primary goal of teaching calculus, then spend 2⁄3 of the book arguing that Leibniz invented calculus before Newton, I’m likely to fail at teaching calculus.
If I title the book, “Leibniz was Right,” I’m just compounding the error, right?
My impression is that LW is well off the cliff already
You could be right. We are beyond hope. You should abandon us and leave us to our abysmal failure and move on to other communities where you don’t feel the need to constantly insult everyone. All will benefit!
I don’t just think we should be discussing new arguments that fall within our cluster of topics—IMO, we should be branching out even more. For a while now, a handful of LWers have been arguing in comments like this one that we need a much wider range of scholarship, and that subjects outside of LW’s typical math/science cluster—yes, even those icky-looking liberal artsy ones—are worth studying.
I’ve noticed this when reading certain things. Half-formed thoughts like “huh this might make a good LW article if I compared it to Sequences Lesson #452”, usually followed by “but it doesn’t have enough math” or “it’s not rigorous enough” or something similar.
This is a good inclination. But myy personal take, having written many many research papers for students of the humanities, is that most of it is fairly worthless dreck. The humanities have been strongly influenced by critical theory, to their detriment.
While my primary concern is with the community not updating on good ideas from outside on the stuff we are already interested in, so this is a bit OT but don’t worry because yours is a related concern and something I think worth attention.
I agree with pretty much all of this. This is slightly off-topic, but:
I don’t just think we should be discussing new arguments that fall within our cluster of topics—IMO, we should be branching out even more. For a while now, a handful of LWers have been arguing in comments like this one that we need a much wider range of scholarship, and that subjects outside of LW’s typical math/science cluster—yes, even those icky-looking liberal artsy ones—are worth studying. This seems like a pretty reasonable suggestion. After all, the site is overwhelmingly male, white, atheist, young, consequentialist (or wannabe-consequentialist), transhumanist and heavily math/science focused. Heck, that’s a near-perfect description of me. As a result, there’s a natural tendency for us to be ignorant of certain subjects, and consequently to discount them. E.g., for me, subjects like anthropology are unknown unknowns: I don’t know what the field is even about or how relevant it is to LW-style rationality topics.
Trouble is, we run the risk of falling into the typical autodidact failure mode of being recklessly overconfident about these topics after reading introductory material or opinion pieces on each subject. Personally, I have no idea how to go about studying something like history, and I’d most likely step on an intellectual land mine. What would be really awesome is if people on LW with expertise could point us towards appropriate introductory texts, answer questions, or even teach other LWers.
My impression is that LW is well off the cliff already, given the replies to posts by or links to the AI researchers who are skeptical of the UFAI issue. The quantum physics reaction is no better. There is a lot of noise here from the well-meaning and overconfident amateurs who refuse to identify as such.
The fact that the sequence you are referring to is known as the “Quantum Mechanics” sequence is evidence of the failure of that sequence to achieve its goal.
It was called that by its author, wasn’t it?
If I write a book with the primary goal of teaching calculus, then spend 2⁄3 of the book arguing that Leibniz invented calculus before Newton, I’m likely to fail at teaching calculus.
If I title the book, “Leibniz was Right,” I’m just compounding the error, right?
You could be right. We are beyond hope. You should abandon us and leave us to our abysmal failure and move on to other communities where you don’t feel the need to constantly insult everyone. All will benefit!
I’ve noticed this when reading certain things. Half-formed thoughts like “huh this might make a good LW article if I compared it to Sequences Lesson #452”, usually followed by “but it doesn’t have enough math” or “it’s not rigorous enough” or something similar.
This is a good inclination. But myy personal take, having written many many research papers for students of the humanities, is that most of it is fairly worthless dreck. The humanities have been strongly influenced by critical theory, to their detriment.
Most of critical theory is dreck. But most dreck is not critical theory.
While my primary concern is with the community not updating on good ideas from outside on the stuff we are already interested in, so this is a bit OT but don’t worry because yours is a related concern and something I think worth attention.