One of the reasons LW is intimidating to new users is that some of them believe they need to read all the sequences before they post.
Yes, but this actually does not seem so wrong to me. It would surely be beneficial if there was a no-clutter version of the ideas and arguments from the sequences, but given the volume this is a daunting task.
However, LW discusses on “how to improve rationality”, which as about as much a niche as for instance, meta-programming with templates in C++ (with regard to knowledge one has to aquire). Knowledge in philosophy, computer science, cognitive sciences may help, but ultimately, it is a very small field compared with what is available to study.
And for such specialist topics, quite much of narrow domain knowledge has to be learned. I’m always suprised that LW-regulars discuss the karma system so often, as if it would be the end-all of all discussion issues. No, for LW to be LW one has to consider whether one has something worthwhile to post.
This is true for all specialist areas. You also cannot just jump right into comp.programming.threads, start discussing any lock-free-queue algorithm #32452, and think that you’ll do something even remotely senseful.
This is a property of the knowledge-area, not a property of LW as a software platform.
And, btw, I do not have the feeling that LW is extra-intimidating. Compared to other specialist-forums (c.l.l et cetera) the stream of new ideas and not-really-hardcore-posts seems on a healthy level.
Maybe, I should have phrased all this text in a simple, single, question:
Where do you all get the impression that LW is intimidating?
Where do you all get the impression that LW is intimidating?
I read the replies to the “Attention Lurkers” post.
I was surprised at what a strong theme it was, since I don’t think LW is intimidating.
I should have said earlier that I do think maintaining the high quality of LW is important, and the plus side of “intimidating” is having people focused on improving rationality and actually working on it.
When someone says they’re afraid to post, it’s hard to tell whether they have an accurate understanding that they don’t know enough to contribute or are habitually cautious about speaking up even if they do have something to contribute..
Yes, but this actually does not seem so wrong to me. It would surely be beneficial if there was a no-clutter version of the ideas and arguments from the sequences, but given the volume this is a daunting task.
However, LW discusses on “how to improve rationality”, which as about as much a niche as for instance, meta-programming with templates in C++ (with regard to knowledge one has to aquire). Knowledge in philosophy, computer science, cognitive sciences may help, but ultimately, it is a very small field compared with what is available to study.
And for such specialist topics, quite much of narrow domain knowledge has to be learned. I’m always suprised that LW-regulars discuss the karma system so often, as if it would be the end-all of all discussion issues. No, for LW to be LW one has to consider whether one has something worthwhile to post.
This is true for all specialist areas. You also cannot just jump right into comp.programming.threads, start discussing any lock-free-queue algorithm #32452, and think that you’ll do something even remotely senseful.
This is a property of the knowledge-area, not a property of LW as a software platform.
And, btw, I do not have the feeling that LW is extra-intimidating. Compared to other specialist-forums (c.l.l et cetera) the stream of new ideas and not-really-hardcore-posts seems on a healthy level.
Maybe, I should have phrased all this text in a simple, single, question: Where do you all get the impression that LW is intimidating?
What’s the evidence for that?
I read the replies to the “Attention Lurkers” post.
I was surprised at what a strong theme it was, since I don’t think LW is intimidating.
I should have said earlier that I do think maintaining the high quality of LW is important, and the plus side of “intimidating” is having people focused on improving rationality and actually working on it.
When someone says they’re afraid to post, it’s hard to tell whether they have an accurate understanding that they don’t know enough to contribute or are habitually cautious about speaking up even if they do have something to contribute..