I’m the dumb kid on the block when it comes to less wrong. (If any of the census or my behavior in posting something that signals against the Less Wrong tribal stance are any indicators.)
I’m not (yet) a scientist, and I couldn’t find any studies on this. Take into account that less wrong is “heavier” in scientists than usual for an online community, and I hoped that it would be something someone would either know about or find interesting.
This is the discussion forum, and I was hoping that there might be just that, discussion.
You make hard statements like “35% of adults are on this level (The Self-Authoring Mind)” without indicating where the number comes from. Is this a number from a study based done in the US? Europe? Is the number simply made up?
Use of numbers like that is a mark of pseudoscience. It seems like you simply believe those numbers without critical reflection.
You find that there are well received posts on LW about psychological issues such as Brianne’s post What its like to notice things that are coming directly out of academic psychology and scientific studies. Posts like that are still welcome because they are based on Brianne’s own empiric experience. Brianne doesn’t try to put numbers on things that can’t be well supported.
There’s no use to talk about models that don’t have personal experience of the author that indicates the usefulness of the model or scientific experiments that back up the model.
Then why didn’t you look into the evidence for it before writing a post?
3 reasons:
I’m the dumb kid on the block when it comes to less wrong. (If any of the census or my behavior in posting something that signals against the Less Wrong tribal stance are any indicators.)
I’m not (yet) a scientist, and I couldn’t find any studies on this. Take into account that less wrong is “heavier” in scientists than usual for an online community, and I hoped that it would be something someone would either know about or find interesting.
This is the discussion forum, and I was hoping that there might be just that, discussion.
In this case, the problem is that you accept the theory based on it seeming reasonable and not based on it making any useful empiric predictions.
You also haven’t make another case for the usefulness of the model.
Beliefs have to pay rent and you haven’t demostrated how this model pays it’s rent.
You make hard statements like “35% of adults are on this level (The Self-Authoring Mind)” without indicating where the number comes from. Is this a number from a study based done in the US? Europe? Is the number simply made up?
Use of numbers like that is a mark of pseudoscience. It seems like you simply believe those numbers without critical reflection.
You find that there are well received posts on LW about psychological issues such as Brianne’s post What its like to notice things that are coming directly out of academic psychology and scientific studies. Posts like that are still welcome because they are based on Brianne’s own empiric experience. Brianne doesn’t try to put numbers on things that can’t be well supported.
There’s no use to talk about models that don’t have personal experience of the author that indicates the usefulness of the model or scientific experiments that back up the model.