Instead, I hoped to encourage people to name things that break the rationalist community’s Overton window, so that others read them and think “Whoopsie, things like that can actually be said here?!”
Is it really the case that such things are outside the Overton Window, though? We’ve had both well-received posts discussing how to incorporate goo-y stuff before [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] as well as various posts expressing things in pretty goo-y terms [e.g. 1, 2, 3,4, 5]. I don’t think LW at least has any taboo against saying these kinds of things; writing in an unusual style might invite some extra scrutiny, but generally the posts will still be received well as long as they’re reasonable and well-argued.
It seems to me that there are discussions around the term energy that are blocked by being outside of the Overton Window. I think I had two discussions with Severin in which I needed the concept because it was lifting weights and in both, there was a sense of anxiousness about breaking out of the Overton Window.
How to learn soft skills(first on your list) seems like the perfect example. It uses the term energy once but it does so in a pretty Straussian manner.
Is it really the case that such things are outside the Overton Window, though? We’ve had both well-received posts discussing how to incorporate goo-y stuff before [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] as well as various posts expressing things in pretty goo-y terms [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. I don’t think LW at least has any taboo against saying these kinds of things; writing in an unusual style might invite some extra scrutiny, but generally the posts will still be received well as long as they’re reasonable and well-argued.
It seems to me that there are discussions around the term energy that are blocked by being outside of the Overton Window. I think I had two discussions with Severin in which I needed the concept because it was lifting weights and in both, there was a sense of anxiousness about breaking out of the Overton Window.
How to learn soft skills(first on your list) seems like the perfect example. It uses the term energy once but it does so in a pretty Straussian manner.