I would turn this around- what core part of Less Wrong is actually novel? The sequences seem to be popularizations of various people’s work. The only thing unique to the site seems to be the eccentricity of its choice in topics/examples (most cog sci people probably don’t think many worlds quantum mechanics is pedagogically useful for teaching rationality).
There also appears to be an unspoken contempt for creating novel work. Lots of conjecture that such-and-such behavior may be signaling, and such-and-such belief is a result of such-and-such bias, with little discussion of how to formalize and test the idea.
Its this, and “where experience confuses physicists” that make me think that this sequence doesn’t succeed in its stated goal. As readers, we start by trying to come to grips with the idea that quantum mechanics shouldn’t be confusing, it should be normal and we should try and update our beliefs to make that happen. Confusion is in the mind, and all that.
Then we get to the end of the sequence, and we find the born probabilities are still somewhat confusing! Thats unfortunate- the evidence for quantum mechanics is entirely the born probabilities. How can gathering evidence cause us to update to a belief that leaves the evidence confusing? Whether collapse or many worlds, isn’t that the confusing thing about quantum mechanics?