Flowers for Algernon
post by Anatoly_Vorobey · 2014-06-18T09:16:31.166Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 11 commentsContents
11 comments
Daniel Keyes, the author of the short story Flowers for Algernon, and a novel of the same title that is its expanded version, died three days ago.
Keyes wrote many other books in the last half-century, but none achieved nearly as much prominence as the original short story (published in 1959) or the novel (came out in 1966).
It's probable that many or even most regulars here at Less Wrong read Flowers for Algernon: it's a very famous SF story, it's about enhanced intelligence, and it's been a middle/high school literature class staple in the US. But most != all, and past experience showed me that assumptions of cultural affinity are very frequently wrong. So in case you haven't read the story, I'd like to invite you explicitly to do so. It's rather short, and available at this link:
(I was surprised to find out that the original story is not available on Amazon. The expanded novelization is. If you wonder which version is better to read, I have no advice to offer)
(I will edit this post in a week or so to remove the link to the story and this remark)
11 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by [deleted] · 2014-06-18T10:25:39.455Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just read the short story. I'm glad I did. Thanks.
comment by JoshuaZ · 2014-06-29T12:56:56.939Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I read it many years ago- it is well written but has a terrible message, and is a really good example of how much good writing can be used to deliver bad messages. The essential lesson is that being smarter can be much worse, unintended consequences, hubris of humanity, etc. And as is often the case with this sort of thing, rather than actually examine the implications of a technology that would make people smarter, it has to turn out that the effect is only temporary. Why? Because otherwise the deck wouldn't be stacked the way Keyes wants it to be stacked.
comment by Tenoke · 2014-06-18T14:14:25.046Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree that Flowers for Algernon is a very good story, but I am [still] against willy-nilly posting of whatever in discussion (in this case a link to a very famous story with nothing else), so I am downvoting.
Replies from: JoshuaFox↑ comment by JoshuaFox · 2014-06-18T14:51:19.522Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Tenoke, there has been a shortage of quality material on LessWrong. Why not share the best reading material? The question of whether it was originally published at LessWrong seems inconsequential.
Replies from: Tenoke, drethelin↑ comment by Tenoke · 2014-06-18T18:11:10.835Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Because this is likely not of much interest to most people since many have read it. It is much better suited for the Open Thread or the Media Thread, why share it here?
Replies from: John_Maxwell_IV↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2014-06-19T21:50:21.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just to make sure we're on the same page: you could imagine an expression like
nonreader_utility * num_nonreaders + reader_utility * num_readers
where nonreader_utility is the expected value that someone who has never read FfA gets from reading this post, and reader_utility is the expected value someone who has read the story gets from reading this post. If this expression is positive, making the post was a good idea. If this expression is negative, making the post was a bad idea.
My guess is that the absolute value of nonreader_utility is substantially above reader_utility... it's not hard to skim over a post, find that it holds nothing new for you, and move on. (Less Wrong seems to be one of the few places on the internet that refuses to acknowledge this fact. Most places on the internet encourage users to post all the content they want, then build filtering mechanisms so that people see better content more often. LW is the only site I've seen where people self- and other-censor to such a significant degree... and, surprise surprise, that lead to a steady decline in user participation.) As a general rule, the point of the voting system is to give us quantitative insights in to these kind of things. So the fact that this post has a high score is evidence that making it was a good idea. We can collect additional quantitative data... in order to gather something different from the post score, let's try to estimate cohort sizes only:
[pollid:726]
Anyway, I'll turn your question right back at you: what do you think you are adding, exactly, by griping in the comments? Why not just downvote?
Replies from: drethelin, Tenoke↑ comment by Tenoke · 2014-06-20T14:00:23.900Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My point is that reader_utility is more or less the same when the story is posted here, as it would be if it was posted in the Open Thread and Media Thread, but that nonreader_utility would be significantly better if it was posted there rather than here.
Anyway, I'll turn your question right back at you: what do you think you are adding, exactly, by griping in the comments? Why not just downvote?
I periodically make this sort of comment on inappropriate posts, hoping that the posters will realize that yes, they can post this type of thing in the OT/Media Thread/etc from now on, even if they previously didn't knew of their existence / didn't care. A downvote doesn't do any of that - here it will look like I'm downvoting the story itself.
At any rate, if a semi-official consensus is reached, which states that Discussion should be like a normal subreddit, where simple link posts, re-posts, etc. are allowed, then I'll stop downvoting.
Replies from: John_Maxwell_IV↑ comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2014-06-20T17:49:48.937Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
My point is that reader_utility is more or less the same when the story is posted here, as it would be if it was posted in the Open Thread and Media Thread, but that nonreader_utility would be significantly better if it was posted there rather than here.
I don't follow. A viewer is a viewer whether they are viewing from an open thread or discussion. Posting in Open Thread vs Discussion only has the effect of scaling viewer numbers (in this model, num_nonreaders & num_readers) up or down. And I would expect that the num_nonreaders to num_readers ratio is the same for Discussion readers vs Open Thread readers. (BTW note that num_readers refers to the fact that the people have read Flowers for Algernon, etc... sorry for the confusingly named variables. Feel free to refer back to the grandparent comment.)
In fact, in this toy model the open thread vs discussion vs main distinction is fairly pointless: if the expected utility of a given person seeing a given post is positive, we should give it as much exposure as possible in order to harvest as much utility is possible. And if the expected utility is negative it should not be posted anywhere.
To the extent the toy model is wrong, it's wrong because people have a limited amount of time when they read LW and we would like to put the highest expected utility stuff in places where they are more likely to see it. If everything was posted to Discussion, finding higher-value stuff might be harder. But if there isn't already stuff competing for attention in main/discussion, little is lost that I can see by upgrading open thread posts to discussion posts or discussion posts to main posts.