Big fan. The universe is weird and scary. Rationality tends to help you to feel this more deeply than you would otherwise.
Well, this is only an introductory part. The glyphs are to be described later, and they stand for the meaning of the intense emotion. Much like the idol symbolizes the emotion as a whole, the glyphs on it are specks which may be analyzed.
So I’m not exactly sure what the literary goal of this piece is. If you’re writing to give people an understanding of something to people, it’s good form to sign-post things that will be important later as things that will be important later—otherwise readers will just blow past them and get confused later on when they come up again.
Stuff like this sometimes works in fiction (ie Chekhov’s Guns) but isn’t optimal for helping people understanding things
Also, meta-point (Note—I’m not a moderator, I’m just some guy):
This isn’t a big deal but, in general, Less Wrong is about exploring an understanding of rationality and rationality-adjacent things and given the three observations below--
1. We, as a community, have a pretty deep game-theoretic understanding of why people feel motivated to engage in vengeance—and this piece doesn’t really go there
2. This piece isn’t really optimized for clearly conveying the conclusions in your summary—so if someone is reading this piece for insight, it’s hard for them to figure out if what the piece is saying is something they already know
3. This piece is making a request of readers to review it and give feedback
This post in general is alright but you are making a request of Less Wrong users that isn’t particularly well-aligned with community interests. And, consequently (I think), this post has a pretty low response rate. If you’d like to get a more positive response/more feedback on Less Wrong in the future, I suggest that you do some number of the following things
Incorporate the Less Wrong corpus of knowledge on the topic you’re discussing into your discussion of the topic
Provide a summary of the claims made in your writing piece prior to the piece itself (this will help readers both give feedback and decide more quickly about whether they want to read it)
Link your writing to other relevant pieces of your writing (for instance, Word-Idols is a clearly relevant piece in understanding this text and you don’t do anything to connect the two)
Big fan. The universe is weird and scary. Rationality tends to help you to feel this more deeply than you would otherwise.
So I’m not exactly sure what the literary goal of this piece is. If you’re writing to give people an understanding of something to people, it’s good form to sign-post things that will be important later as things that will be important later—otherwise readers will just blow past them and get confused later on when they come up again.
Stuff like this sometimes works in fiction (ie Chekhov’s Guns) but isn’t optimal for helping people understanding things
Also, meta-point (Note—I’m not a moderator, I’m just some guy):
This isn’t a big deal but, in general, Less Wrong is about exploring an understanding of rationality and rationality-adjacent things and given the three observations below--
1. We, as a community, have a pretty deep game-theoretic understanding of why people feel motivated to engage in vengeance—and this piece doesn’t really go there
2. This piece isn’t really optimized for clearly conveying the conclusions in your summary—so if someone is reading this piece for insight, it’s hard for them to figure out if what the piece is saying is something they already know
3. This piece is making a request of readers to review it and give feedback
This post in general is alright but you are making a request of Less Wrong users that isn’t particularly well-aligned with community interests. And, consequently (I think), this post has a pretty low response rate. If you’d like to get a more positive response/more feedback on Less Wrong in the future, I suggest that you do some number of the following things
Incorporate the Less Wrong corpus of knowledge on the topic you’re discussing into your discussion of the topic
Provide a summary of the claims made in your writing piece prior to the piece itself (this will help readers both give feedback and decide more quickly about whether they want to read it)
Link your writing to other relevant pieces of your writing (for instance, Word-Idols is a clearly relevant piece in understanding this text and you don’t do anything to connect the two)
Hope you find this helpful.