From time to time I hear LW or the x-rationalist culture criticised for overusing jargon. It is true that, all else being equal, introducing jargon that creates barriers to entry is undesirable. But generally not all else is equal, and it raises a red flag to me that those who make this criticism rarely give examples of bad core LW jargon or do much beyond pay lipservice to the potential benefits of jargon. It is easy to appear Wise and Above It All by alluding to something like, “Ha ha! Silly nerds! They overuse jargon and alienate people,” or a contrarian “Here’s something LW does that is unusual, and the broader effects of which they’re oblivious to, and this is a stereotypical failure mode,” without actually addressing the object-level analysis of whether the alleged problem is actually a net-negative thing or where its optimal amount of usage lies. This isn’t necessarily what’s taking place, but the aforementioned red flag is evidence of this.
From time to time I hear LW or the x-rationalist culture criticised for overusing jargon. It is true that, all else being equal, introducing jargon that creates barriers to entry is undesirable. But generally not all else is equal, and it raises a red flag to me that those who make this criticism rarely give examples of bad core LW jargon or do much beyond pay lipservice to the potential benefits of jargon. It is easy to appear Wise and Above It All by alluding to something like, “Ha ha! Silly nerds! They overuse jargon and alienate people,” or a contrarian “Here’s something LW does that is unusual, and the broader effects of which they’re oblivious to, and this is a stereotypical failure mode,” without actually addressing the object-level analysis of whether the alleged problem is actually a net-negative thing or where its optimal amount of usage lies. This isn’t necessarily what’s taking place, but the aforementioned red flag is evidence of this.
Related.