These posts are about transformative psychological experiences that leave a person with a different sense of meaning in their lives, or ethics, or attitudes toward people / the world. That seems to me to be a real part of the world and human experience, and I think it’s worthwhile exploring it and trying to understand its causes and what implications it may have for ethics/meaning/etc.
I think it’s worth exploring religions as having been shaped substantially by some transformative psychological experiences, and purporting to bring them to adherents. It seems like a somewhat impoverished analysis of religions to think of this as the primary thing that they’re built around (e.g. memetic successfulness of the stories, political competence of the institutions, etc). These read to me like they’re quietly implying that this is the true core of them in a way that wants all religions to get along, and ignore a lot of what’s going on with religions.
That is a weakness, but I vote on posts for presence of strengths more than for absence of weaknesses.
I think it helps these accounts to have personal accounts of transformative psychological experiences in them. I kind of wish there was more of that, relatively.
The attempted translations in the sequel post didn’t help me much. Goodness of reality, karma, morality being clear / immorality being confusion, stuff about the afterlife… perhaps if someone else is attempting the project of analyzing religious messages this helped them, but I didn’t find it very insightful or helpful.
I think I’ll give this post a +3 and the sequel no vote (or +0).
I like the policy of voting on presence of strengths rather than absence of weaknesses, but disagree here because, as I said in my review, it’s valuable and in part pretty clearly correct, but even though ” it’s not overall completely off base… it does seem to go in the wrong direction, or at least fail to embody the virtues of rationality I think the best work on Lesswrong is suppose to uphold.”
(That said, I think this question is a more general Duncan-Sabien vs. Current Lesswrong policy question, as your reply about why you disagree makes clear—and I’m mostly on Duncan’s side about what standards we should have, or at least aspire to.)
I’m somewhat confused… which reply about why I disagree makes what clear?
Also, to repeat, I don’t see that many strengths—I only gave it +3. (And on reflection, I’d give the sequel a negative vote if it had been upvoted much in the first round of the review.)
You said, “I vote on posts for presence of strengths more than for absence of weaknesses.” I agree the post has strengths, but you agree that the problems are there as well; given the failings, I disagree with the claim that this contribution is net positive.
These posts are about transformative psychological experiences that leave a person with a different sense of meaning in their lives, or ethics, or attitudes toward people / the world. That seems to me to be a real part of the world and human experience, and I think it’s worthwhile exploring it and trying to understand its causes and what implications it may have for ethics/meaning/etc.
I think it’s worth exploring religions as having been shaped substantially by some transformative psychological experiences, and purporting to bring them to adherents. It seems like a somewhat impoverished analysis of religions to think of this as the primary thing that they’re built around (e.g. memetic successfulness of the stories, political competence of the institutions, etc). These read to me like they’re quietly implying that this is the true core of them in a way that wants all religions to get along, and ignore a lot of what’s going on with religions.
That is a weakness, but I vote on posts for presence of strengths more than for absence of weaknesses.
I think it helps these accounts to have personal accounts of transformative psychological experiences in them. I kind of wish there was more of that, relatively.
The attempted translations in the sequel post didn’t help me much. Goodness of reality, karma, morality being clear / immorality being confusion, stuff about the afterlife… perhaps if someone else is attempting the project of analyzing religious messages this helped them, but I didn’t find it very insightful or helpful.
I think I’ll give this post a +3 and the sequel no vote (or +0).
I like the policy of voting on presence of strengths rather than absence of weaknesses, but disagree here because, as I said in my review, it’s valuable and in part pretty clearly correct, but even though ” it’s not overall completely off base… it does seem to go in the wrong direction, or at least fail to embody the virtues of rationality I think the best work on Lesswrong is suppose to uphold.”
(That said, I think this question is a more general Duncan-Sabien vs. Current Lesswrong policy question, as your reply about why you disagree makes clear—and I’m mostly on Duncan’s side about what standards we should have, or at least aspire to.)
I’m somewhat confused… which reply about why I disagree makes what clear?
Also, to repeat, I don’t see that many strengths—I only gave it +3. (And on reflection, I’d give the sequel a negative vote if it had been upvoted much in the first round of the review.)
You said, “I vote on posts for presence of strengths more than for absence of weaknesses.” I agree the post has strengths, but you agree that the problems are there as well; given the failings, I disagree with the claim that this contribution is net positive.