More generally it would probably be worthwhile trying to rewrite what we think of as central LW insights without using LW-specific jargon, in fact using as little technical jargon at all as you can get away with.
I couldn’t agree more. The key phrase from Roko’s post is:
Linking to posts explaining jargon is NOT OK.
This is one of the main problems with the sequences: even posts that don’t use technical jargon often link to posts that do.
They don’t have to be standalone, but instead of links they could include short summaries of the ideas they depend upon so that the reader understands the relationship between concepts without breaking the “flow” of reading.
I doubt one can rewrite the entire sequences that way. Things do build.
However, could one write the basic insights that way? I strongly suspect so. (I may be cheating with my definition of “basic,” but I think if you put together a list of standalone ideas in the sequences, you would have a pretty good list of articles.)
You’d just have to target them more at people who are already well-versed in traditional academia, i.e. people who have degrees from top universities or PhDs or are in some equivalently intellectually demanding position (e.g. Investment banker, Lawyer, CEO, etc).
If you narrow the target audience you can assume more in terms of speed of uptake, and you can take as granted various norms of traditional rationality (such as what counts as a sound argument, the need for empiricism, the weight of peer-reviewed journal publications, etc) and perhaps even some domain knowledge of basic math and economics.
At the same time, you would want to frame the material in a more serious, less cranky, less jargon-y way.
Isn’t Eliezer writing a book?
I imagine that that would be closer to that. Like, while chapters/sections aren’t standalone the book is organized sequentially enough that each section only depends on the ones before it.
I couldn’t agree more. The key phrase from Roko’s post is:
This is one of the main problems with the sequences: even posts that don’t use technical jargon often link to posts that do.
Would it even be possible to rewrite the sequences so that every post is standalone? I don’t think so.
They don’t have to be standalone, but instead of links they could include short summaries of the ideas they depend upon so that the reader understands the relationship between concepts without breaking the “flow” of reading.
I doubt one can rewrite the entire sequences that way. Things do build.
However, could one write the basic insights that way? I strongly suspect so. (I may be cheating with my definition of “basic,” but I think if you put together a list of standalone ideas in the sequences, you would have a pretty good list of articles.)
It would, in fact, be possible.
You’d just have to target them more at people who are already well-versed in traditional academia, i.e. people who have degrees from top universities or PhDs or are in some equivalently intellectually demanding position (e.g. Investment banker, Lawyer, CEO, etc).
If you narrow the target audience you can assume more in terms of speed of uptake, and you can take as granted various norms of traditional rationality (such as what counts as a sound argument, the need for empiricism, the weight of peer-reviewed journal publications, etc) and perhaps even some domain knowledge of basic math and economics.
At the same time, you would want to frame the material in a more serious, less cranky, less jargon-y way.
Isn’t Eliezer writing a book? I imagine that that would be closer to that. Like, while chapters/sections aren’t standalone the book is organized sequentially enough that each section only depends on the ones before it.
That’s that case with the sequences too.