That would (almost) ideally be the case, but there are of course many reasons which have little to do with the quality of the idea or the clarity of its presentation which determine how much attention is focused on it. Knowing whether an idea is good often(or always) requires engaging with it, so this can’t be a key criterion for engagement! I try to present ideas as clearly as possible, but often the nature of the idea itself imposes an upper bound on the clarity with which it can be presented. Additionally, all of these things require significant development of the idea within the mind proposing/describing it, but sometimes that development and depth of understanding is extremely difficult or even impossible for a human to achieve on their own, hence why I’m keen to know how to generate debate.
It seems like you haven’t been here very long. If you want to discuss things but haven’t developed your ideas far enough to easily attract discussion, start by reading for awhile and then writing thoughtful comments.
The problem is, from my perspective, the evidence is consistent with both me not having developed my ideas to a point at which others correctly assess them as valuable, and my ideas being sufficiently far removed from the “LessWrongian belief centroid” that the dynamics I discussed with GenericModel come into play.
Can you provide me with an argument or evidence that this remains true even when those unpopular beliefs stray far from the “centroid” in a way which wasn’t predetermined by the general trajectory of the evolution of the body of ideas found here?
That would (almost) ideally be the case, but there are of course many reasons which have little to do with the quality of the idea or the clarity of its presentation which determine how much attention is focused on it. Knowing whether an idea is good often(or always) requires engaging with it, so this can’t be a key criterion for engagement! I try to present ideas as clearly as possible, but often the nature of the idea itself imposes an upper bound on the clarity with which it can be presented. Additionally, all of these things require significant development of the idea within the mind proposing/describing it, but sometimes that development and depth of understanding is extremely difficult or even impossible for a human to achieve on their own, hence why I’m keen to know how to generate debate.
It seems like you haven’t been here very long. If you want to discuss things but haven’t developed your ideas far enough to easily attract discussion, start by reading for awhile and then writing thoughtful comments.
The problem is, from my perspective, the evidence is consistent with both me not having developed my ideas to a point at which others correctly assess them as valuable, and my ideas being sufficiently far removed from the “LessWrongian belief centroid” that the dynamics I discussed with GenericModel come into play.
I doubt the problem is the belief centroid thing, lesswrong loves well thought out but unpopular takes.
Can you provide me with an argument or evidence that this remains true even when those unpopular beliefs stray far from the “centroid” in a way which wasn’t predetermined by the general trajectory of the evolution of the body of ideas found here?