What do you think of LessWrong?

Because there seem to be detractors.

Several of them. What's even weirder is that many of them aren't even religious.

What's going on here?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I don't even know what it is.

I think it's mostly backlash against people who would rather just post a link to one of EY's posts than type an actual response. They're not that common, but they do present a certain image.

I don't mind the site, but I do mind the sheer number of people that just link to a really freaking large article without making any attempt to summarize or point out the important parts and expect us to read through it for them. They have great arguments and reasoning, but I'm not exactly discussing these topics with the people at less wrong, I'm discussing it with other tropers, so just learn to formulate your own argument.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

This one finds it thought provoking, occasionally brilliant but disturbing. The worst part is that it makes this one doubt if it's perhaps she who is sick and wrong for not being able to step over some of her core ideals. Makes this one think that she is clinging to a proven wrong, because she cannot think of logical refute, yet unwilling to accept either.

Why should this be weird?

edited 3rd Apr '11 10:05:45 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

This blog.

It's annoying for a few reasons. One, there seems to be this impression that they speak for everybody irreligious. Two, all the reasons I'm already annoyed with singulatarians. Three, the writing has annoying and dogmatic tendencies, as in the entry on Gould.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

It always seems to ooze with total certainty in the author's convictions in a way that turns me off. Also, as noted, it doesn't helped how it's linked to as if it's gospel (pardon the pun).

Yeah, didn't care for the Gould article.

edited 3rd Apr '11 10:09:27 AM by Jordan

Hodor

Then clearly you are an evil postmodern Communist!

Less Wrong raises a lot of interesting points, even if I don't always agree with it.

edited 3rd Apr '11 11:37:57 AM by silver2195

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

"the writing has annoying and dogmatic tendencies"

Yes. I don't like that blog, but I do like some of the people there. Their extreme eccentricity is very refreshing to me.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I stand for the opposite of Less Wrong Gnorwssel...

I like the writings on Less Wrong, but yeah-I kind of feel like sometimes it's a bit ... cultish.

I'm a fan. Though I've yet to get past "Bayes Theorem". Math is my weakness

I'd like to hear more specifics on why people do not like Lesswrong...I'd also like to hear why people like Lesswrong as well

edited 3rd Apr '11 12:26:40 PM by ViralLamb

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

Why shouldn't it? Why is this considered a bad thing?

I've never seen that. Then again, I usually skip most of the comments section, where I imagine this stuff would be.

All of it or some of it? There are a lot of different authors there, right? And some are more popular than others. I would imagine the ones who sound less dogmatic would be more popular, though I guess I don't really know.

As for me, I've done a binge or two. It's certainly very interesting, and I always find something to think about each time. I'd love to read more of it but it's just too much of a commitment, given how heavy the writing/subject typically is.

edited 3rd Apr '11 12:37:20 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I liked the twelve virtues of rationality-which actually aren't even from Less Wrong, they're from whats his face before he started Less Wrong I guess-but like I said above, even though I agree with them, it still feels a little bit like signing on to a cult.

Because the arrogance and certainty in their beliefs found in a lot of Lesswrong posts are somewhat counter to the spirit of scientific enquiry they claim to champion. There's a general vibe that they're letting themselves get carried away with the awesome possibilities without stopping to ask themselves some important questions like 'will it work?', 'what's the catch?' and 'who, exactly, is going to benefit most from this?'.

edited 3rd Apr '11 12:46:40 PM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

I think that Less Wrong has the idea that truth is inherently valuable as being an axiom.

And yet, I also get a sense of pragmatism from the author so ... huh.

edited 3rd Apr '11 12:49:32 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I don't mean from Lesswrong, I mean from everybody else. For example: First post of this thread.

Some of it, obviously.

Oh, and the explanation of Löb's theorem was crap.

edited 3rd Apr '11 12:51:49 PM by Tzetze

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I just think that the point of seeking knowledge shouldn't be just a way to tell the alchemists and Christians that they're idiots.

Kill all math nerds

Well, as I suggested, if you hold "truth" to be axiomatically valuable, you don't need it to lead to prosperity in order to seek it.

People with a total conviction of their superiority and correctness are insufferable to be around. I only read one article, but that combined with the fact that the author deviated from his original concept to push his ideological agenda turned me off from it forever. It smacked of trying to teach people how to think by telling them what to think.

Specifics please?

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

It's been too long since I've read it to give specifics without going back and trying to find the article again.

There's a difference between social modesty and the sort of humility that's useful to scientific enquiry. It's one thing to declaim about how you might be wrong and can never really be certain about anything, and another to quantify how much confidence is warranted by the available evidence and determine how to best investigate to further improve your understanding.

Have you brought these up before? I don't recall you ever mentioning them.

...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.

Re: superiority/dogmatism/being told what to think-

If you disagree with what they're saying, there should be some point at which you can identify a break in their logic that doesn't work. If you can find it, congrats, you are less wrong than them. Bring it up in the comments, maybe it'll get a response. If you can't...maybe they were right?

None of these things, I would say, are arguments against the site in general, unless you're saying these things are the majority aspect of the site.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

I'm aware of the definition the blog uses for scientific humility, but I'd argue that it too often neglects that as well. Too much 'hey, this is going to be totally awesome', and too little 'OK, what are the potential problems here, and what's our Plan B if they arise?'.

edited 3rd Apr '11 1:26:42 PM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?