I would suggest choosing a less grandiose topic. Something more specific; perhaps something that you know well. (“What is true of one apple may not be true of another apple; thus more can be said about a single apple than about all the apples in the world.”—source)
As a reader I prefer it when the posts are self-contained; when I get a value from the post even without clicking any of the links. The information linked should be optional to the experience.
Looking at the topics of my posts… books I have read (1, 2, 3), things happening in the rationality community (1, 2), some psychological things I have noticed (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), questions (1, 2, 3, 4), things that started like comments but turned out to be too long (1, 2, 3), playing with math (1, 2). There is no theory of everything, no proposal to fix humanity, etc.
Thanks for the advise. I see how the linked posts are a lot more specific than the one I made. I’ll try making some posts confined to specific domains of psychology, maybe in a very detailed & rational structure. Then maybe I can link to those posts in a larger post where I use those understandings/pieces of information to make a claim about a vehicle for using the information for practical change in the real world. I’m not sure I’m capable of giving up on macro-directional efforts like attempts to improve humanity as a whole, but I’ll try and change the way I structure writings to be self-contained and linked externally for supplemental information as opposed to the entire post being dependent on a linked doc.
Then maybe I can link to those posts in a larger post
Yes, this seems to me like a good strategy for posting on LW. Start with smaller, then generalize (and link to previous posts when needed).
One advantage is that when things go wrong—if one of the smaller articles is strongly rejected—it gives you an opportunity to stop and reflect. Maybe you were wrong, in which case it is good that you didn’t write the more general article (because it would be downvoted). Maybe the LW readers were wrong, but that still means that you should communicate your (smaller, specific) point better, before moving to more general claims.
Another advantage is that, if your circumstances or priorities change, and suddenly you don’t have time to write for LW anymore, the smaller self-contained articles still provide value.
I have seen people make a mistake of posting a long outline first (which sometimes even got lots of upvotes), and then part 2 got downvoted because readers fundamentally disagreed with it… and now what? If someone disagrees with the part 2, they probably won’t be happy about part 3 which builds upon the part 2, so now every part would get a downvote.
I would suggest choosing a less grandiose topic. Something more specific; perhaps something that you know well. (“What is true of one apple may not be true of another apple; thus more can be said about a single apple than about all the apples in the world.”—source)
As a reader I prefer it when the posts are self-contained; when I get a value from the post even without clicking any of the links. The information linked should be optional to the experience.
Looking at the topics of my posts… books I have read (1, 2, 3), things happening in the rationality community (1, 2), some psychological things I have noticed (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), questions (1, 2, 3, 4), things that started like comments but turned out to be too long (1, 2, 3), playing with math (1, 2). There is no theory of everything, no proposal to fix humanity, etc.
Thanks for the advise. I see how the linked posts are a lot more specific than the one I made. I’ll try making some posts confined to specific domains of psychology, maybe in a very detailed & rational structure. Then maybe I can link to those posts in a larger post where I use those understandings/pieces of information to make a claim about a vehicle for using the information for practical change in the real world. I’m not sure I’m capable of giving up on macro-directional efforts like attempts to improve humanity as a whole, but I’ll try and change the way I structure writings to be self-contained and linked externally for supplemental information as opposed to the entire post being dependent on a linked doc.
Yes, this seems to me like a good strategy for posting on LW. Start with smaller, then generalize (and link to previous posts when needed).
One advantage is that when things go wrong—if one of the smaller articles is strongly rejected—it gives you an opportunity to stop and reflect. Maybe you were wrong, in which case it is good that you didn’t write the more general article (because it would be downvoted). Maybe the LW readers were wrong, but that still means that you should communicate your (smaller, specific) point better, before moving to more general claims.
Another advantage is that, if your circumstances or priorities change, and suddenly you don’t have time to write for LW anymore, the smaller self-contained articles still provide value.
I have seen people make a mistake of posting a long outline first (which sometimes even got lots of upvotes), and then part 2 got downvoted because readers fundamentally disagreed with it… and now what? If someone disagrees with the part 2, they probably won’t be happy about part 3 which builds upon the part 2, so now every part would get a downvote.