From glancing at your profile it seems like you’re not actually being downvoted that much, except for the first post which is at −13. I didn’t downvote it but I found the post not especially well written, and rather light on details. It felt like a politician’s speech and I was hoping for more concrete proposals? (tbf I didn’t read the linked doc).
Thanks for the advice. I want to learn how to make better posts in the future so I’ll try to figure out how to improve.
Should I not have began by talking about background information & explaining my beliefs? - Should I have the audience had contextual awareness and gone right into talking about solutions?
Or was the problem more along the lines of writing quality, tone, or style? - What type of post do you like reading? - Would it be alright if I asked for an example so that I could read it?
Also you’re right. Looking back that post was the only one that received a lot of downvotes. I must’ve gained an inaccurate perception of what the reality was because I initially made a major mistake when I first made the post. And the feeling of a lack of concrete proposals was definitely a major fault on my part since I initially didn’t properly link the doc
But do you think was there something else I could’ve done so that you would have been more interested in reading the linked doc? Maybe if I’d made it as part of the same post? Or linked to a Lesswrong post instead of a google doc?
I recommend you find a post you like that was well received and copy its format.
I agree with datawitch that your post “felt like a politician’s speech”. Your post contains vague grandiose claims, but is lacking on specific factual claims. While that kind of writing does occasionally succeed on this website if you pander hard enough, I recommend against it. Good writing on this website tends to be specific, concrete and objective.
I notice you use creative writing styles. While there is value in that, I don’t think that’s a good way for you, personally, to begin writing on this website. I recommend you learn to write in a more detached, factual style first, before embellishing it in that way. That’s because poetic writing can too easily hide unclear thinking.
• What type of post do you like reading? • Would it be alright if I asked for an example so that I could read it?
Just look at the karma number next to each post. Ignore any post with less than 50 karma. Pay special attention to any post with more than 100 karma. That will show you more-or-less-objectively what people on this website like reading. If you want to read the best of the best, check out curated.
But do you think was there something else I could’ve done so that you would have been more interested in reading the linked doc?
In this context, there are two good uses of links:
Linking to a definition of a term, so that people who don’t know the term can find it and people who do know the term don’t have to read the definition.
Linking to supplemental information for people that really liked your post and who want to read more.
I recommend you do not link to a doc expecting people to read it. People will read a linked document only after they trust you a lot. The best source of trust is “What I just read was really worthwhile”. If the first thing you write is “go read this other doc”, then you have failed to establish the prerequisite trust.
Thank you for the advise. I’ll switch my writing style to be more objective & I’ll try to remember to avoid ineffective pandering/creative styles. I’ll continue linking at the end of posts when necessary, but I’ll try to make sure my initial post provides value to readers.
Thanks for including the link. I’ll read through these and use the posts to further my understanding of the community.
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.
Should I not have began by talking about background information & explaining my beliefs?
Should I have the audience had contextual awareness and gone right into talking about solutions?
Or was the problem more along the lines of writing quality, tone, or style?
What type of post do you like reading?
Would it be alright if I asked for an example so that I could read it?
This is a completely wrong way to think about it, imo. A post isn’t this thing with inherent terminal value that you can optimize for regardless of content.
If you think you have an insight that the remaining LW community doesn’t have, then and only then[1] should you consider writing a post. Then the questions become is the insight actually valid, and did I communicate it properly. And yes, the second one is huge topic—so if in fact you have something value to say, then sure you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to do that, and what e.g. Lsuser said is fine advise. But first you need to actually have something valuable to say. If you don’t, then the only good action is to not write a post. Starting off by just wanting to write something is bound to be not-fruitful.
Sounds like you’re speaking from a set of fundamental different beliefs than I’m used to. I’ve trained myself to write assuming that the audience is uninformed about the topic I’m writing about. But it sounds like you’re writing from the perspective of the LW community being more informed than I can properly understand or conceptualize. How can I gain more information on the flow of information in the Lesswrong community? I assumed any insights I’ve arrived at as a consequence of my own thinking & conclusions I’ve reached from various unconnected sources would likely be insights specific to me, but maybe I’m wrong. But yeah, I agree with you just wanting to write something does not sound like a good place to start to be value-additive to this community. I’ll remember to only post when I believe I have valuable and unique insights to share.
I don’t really have an opinion on the first two questions.
I usually don’t read AI posts (especially technical or alignment ones, I’m not an ML engineer and usually struggle to follow them), I read like… stories, everything zvi writes, posts my friends make, things that catch my interest...
Those five are sampled from the last two weeks. I also read literally everything zvi posts. I always sort globally by new and then just click on whatever looks interesting
Your post had typos and I didn’t really like the style but it’s hard to point to any one thing. And that’s not a crux; if I thought it was valuable I wouldn’t really care. My top suggestion is literally just to have put the Google doc in the post.
From glancing at your profile it seems like you’re not actually being downvoted that much, except for the first post which is at −13. I didn’t downvote it but I found the post not especially well written, and rather light on details. It felt like a politician’s speech and I was hoping for more concrete proposals? (tbf I didn’t read the linked doc).
Thanks for the advice. I want to learn how to make better posts in the future so I’ll try to figure out how to improve.
Should I not have began by talking about background information & explaining my beliefs?
- Should I have the audience had contextual awareness and gone right into talking about solutions?
Or was the problem more along the lines of writing quality, tone, or style?
- What type of post do you like reading?
- Would it be alright if I asked for an example so that I could read it?
Also you’re right. Looking back that post was the only one that received a lot of downvotes. I must’ve gained an inaccurate perception of what the reality was because I initially made a major mistake when I first made the post. And the feeling of a lack of concrete proposals was definitely a major fault on my part since I initially didn’t properly link the doc
But do you think was there something else I could’ve done so that you would have been more interested in reading the linked doc? Maybe if I’d made it as part of the same post? Or linked to a Lesswrong post instead of a google doc?
I recommend you find a post you like that was well received and copy its format.
I agree with datawitch that your post “felt like a politician’s speech”. Your post contains vague grandiose claims, but is lacking on specific factual claims. While that kind of writing does occasionally succeed on this website if you pander hard enough, I recommend against it. Good writing on this website tends to be specific, concrete and objective.
I notice you use creative writing styles. While there is value in that, I don’t think that’s a good way for you, personally, to begin writing on this website. I recommend you learn to write in a more detached, factual style first, before embellishing it in that way. That’s because poetic writing can too easily hide unclear thinking.
Just look at the karma number next to each post. Ignore any post with less than 50 karma. Pay special attention to any post with more than 100 karma. That will show you more-or-less-objectively what people on this website like reading. If you want to read the best of the best, check out curated.
In this context, there are two good uses of links:
Linking to a definition of a term, so that people who don’t know the term can find it and people who do know the term don’t have to read the definition.
Linking to supplemental information for people that really liked your post and who want to read more.
I recommend you do not link to a doc expecting people to read it. People will read a linked document only after they trust you a lot. The best source of trust is “What I just read was really worthwhile”. If the first thing you write is “go read this other doc”, then you have failed to establish the prerequisite trust.
Thank you for the advise. I’ll switch my writing style to be more objective & I’ll try to remember to avoid ineffective pandering/creative styles. I’ll continue linking at the end of posts when necessary, but I’ll try to make sure my initial post provides value to readers.
Thanks for including the link. I’ll read through these and use the posts to further my understanding of the community.
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.
This is a completely wrong way to think about it, imo. A post isn’t this thing with inherent terminal value that you can optimize for regardless of content.
If you think you have an insight that the remaining LW community doesn’t have, then and only then[1] should you consider writing a post. Then the questions become is the insight actually valid, and did I communicate it properly. And yes, the second one is huge topic—so if in fact you have something value to say, then sure you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to do that, and what e.g. Lsuser said is fine advise. But first you need to actually have something valuable to say. If you don’t, then the only good action is to not write a post. Starting off by just wanting to write something is bound to be not-fruitful.
yes technically there can be other goals of a post (like if it’s fiction), but this is the central case
Sounds like you’re speaking from a set of fundamental different beliefs than I’m used to. I’ve trained myself to write assuming that the audience is uninformed about the topic I’m writing about. But it sounds like you’re writing from the perspective of the LW community being more informed than I can properly understand or conceptualize. How can I gain more information on the flow of information in the Lesswrong community? I assumed any insights I’ve arrived at as a consequence of my own thinking & conclusions I’ve reached from various unconnected sources would likely be insights specific to me, but maybe I’m wrong. But yeah, I agree with you just wanting to write something does not sound like a good place to start to be value-additive to this community. I’ll remember to only post when I believe I have valuable and unique insights to share.
I don’t really have an opinion on the first two questions.
I usually don’t read AI posts (especially technical or alignment ones, I’m not an ML engineer and usually struggle to follow them), I read like… stories, everything zvi writes, posts my friends make, things that catch my interest...
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KeczXRDcHKjPBQfz2/against-yudkowsky-s-evolution-analogy-for-ai-x-risk
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Q3qoy8DFnkMij4xzC/ai-108-straight-line-on-a-graph
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D82drnrhJEmPpoSEG/counting-objections-to-housing
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PaL38q9a4e8Bzsh3S/elon-musk-may-be-transitioning-to-bipolar-type-i
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DCcaNPfoJj4LWyihA/weirdness-points-1
Those five are sampled from the last two weeks. I also read literally everything zvi posts. I always sort globally by new and then just click on whatever looks interesting
Your post had typos and I didn’t really like the style but it’s hard to point to any one thing. And that’s not a crux; if I thought it was valuable I wouldn’t really care. My top suggestion is literally just to have put the Google doc in the post.