alenglander's Shortform

Different connotations? For example, if you say "looking at the results, most rationalists are actually not that smart", as an inside criticism it seems to imply "therefore, we should try harder and do rationality more consistently, or admit our limitations and develop techniques that take them into account", but as an outside criticism it seems to imply "therefore you smartasses should not be so dismissive of astrology and homeopathy, unlike you those guys make lots of money".

It reminds me of "concern trolling", whose bailey is "any criticism or suggestion made by outgroup", but the motte is, if I understand it correctly, trying to convice the group to do something suboptimal / create discord in the group / waste group's time by providing what seems to be a helpful advice / genuine question.

Like, after outside criticism, the usual following step is offering an advice how to fix the problem. "Despite all the talk about winning, most rationalists don't seem to significantly win at life. As a rationalist, you should reject armchair reasoning in favor of empirical evidence. I know many people whose lives have dramatically improved after finding Jesus. You should try it, too..."

And sometimes the following step was not made yet, but you already expect it. Which could be a mistake. But often is not. It is easy to err in either direction.

Alternate framing: if you already know that criticisms coming from one's outgroup are usually received poorly, then the fact that they are received better when coming from the ingroup is a hidden "success mode" that perhaps people could use to make criticisms go down easier somehow.

Do you have some examples? I've noticed that rationalists tend to ascribe good faith to outside criticisms too often, to the extent that obviously bad-faith criticisms are treated as invitations for discussions. For example, there was an article about SSC in the New Yorker that came out after Scott deleted SSC but before the NYT article. Many rationalists failed to recognize the New Yorker article as a hit piece which I believe it clearly was, even more clearly now that the NYT article has come out.

A lot depends on the question and the kinds of responses you hope to get.  I don't think it's necessarily about polish and cites of previous work, but you do need enough specificity and clarity to show what you already know and what specific part of the topics you mention you're asking about.

High-quality answers come from high-quality questions.  There are things you can ask on facebook which don't work well here, if you're not putting much effort into preparation.  And there are things you can ask in shortform that you can't easily ask in a top-level question post (without getting downvoted).  You're correct that you get less traction in those places, but the expectations are also lower.  Also, shortform (and facebook) has more expectation of refinement and discussion via comments, where capital-Q Question posts are generally (but not always) expected to elicit answers.

All that said, you've been here long enough to get 500+ karma - I'd recommend just trying stuff out.  The only way to spend that karma is to make risky posts, so get good value out of it by experimenting!   I strongly expect that some questions will catch peoples' attention even if you're not greatly prepared in the post, and some questions won't get useful responses no matter how perfect your form is.  

Either of the three options you listed are fine. Question posts don't need to be super-high-polish. Shortform and Open Threads are sort of interchangeable.