In theory, I’d agree with you. That’s how lesswrong presents itself: truth-seeking above credentials. But in practice, that’s not what I’ve experienced. And that’s not just my experience, it’s also what LW has a reputation for. I don’t take reputations at face value, but lived experience tends to bring them into sharp focus.
If someone without status writes something long, unfamiliar, or culturally out-of-sync with LW norms—even if the logic is sound—it gets downvoted or dismissed as “political,” “entry-level,” or “not useful.” Meanwhile, posts by established names or well-known insiders get far more patience and engagement, even when the content overlaps.
You say a self-taught blogger would be trusted if they’re good at presenting ideas persuasively. But that’s exactly the issue—truth is supposed to matter more than form. Ideas stand on their own merit, not on an appeal to authority. And yet persuasion, style, tone, and in-group fluency still dominate the reception. That’s not rationalism. That’s social filtering.
So while I appreciate the ideal, I think it’s important to distinguish it from the reality. The gap between the two is part of what my post is addressing.
In theory, I’d agree with you. That’s how lesswrong presents itself: truth-seeking above credentials. But in practice, that’s not what I’ve experienced. And that’s not just my experience, it’s also what LW has a reputation for. I don’t take reputations at face value, but lived experience tends to bring them into sharp focus.
If someone without status writes something long, unfamiliar, or culturally out-of-sync with LW norms—even if the logic is sound—it gets downvoted or dismissed as “political,” “entry-level,” or “not useful.” Meanwhile, posts by established names or well-known insiders get far more patience and engagement, even when the content overlaps.
You say a self-taught blogger would be trusted if they’re good at presenting ideas persuasively. But that’s exactly the issue—truth is supposed to matter more than form. Ideas stand on their own merit, not on an appeal to authority. And yet persuasion, style, tone, and in-group fluency still dominate the reception. That’s not rationalism. That’s social filtering.
So while I appreciate the ideal, I think it’s important to distinguish it from the reality. The gap between the two is part of what my post is addressing.