I stumbled upon LessWrong a long time ago and until recently didnt bother to look into it much. It seems like a good source for learning about rational thinking, but I looked into it a bit more and the thing is, this guy is the primary author there. There are some good posts on rationality, but its also a big proponent of "the singularity" and this has been criticised. Some even say that it is a personality cult of the author. The author of these amazingly well thought posts on Less Wrong also seems to be uncharacteristically irrational or downright childish. So is he a partially rational but intelligent man with delusions of grandeur? Does the site and its articles have any value at all? And are futurists and singularitarians mostly wacks? What am I to make of all the criticism? What really struck me as odd was that there is a forbidden topic on the site. And the topic is the "Roko's Basilisk" which is considered so harmful even in its mention than any allusion to it is banned. Aside from the fact that the assumptions on which this Basilisk is based are very contrived and that it is essentially pascal's wager reskinned, it seems nonsensical that we should be its target any more than our Homo Erectus ancestors would be. It seems awfully like a gambit for money to the institute he has co-founded which hasn't submitted any papers for peer review despite being a research institute. The reason this OP is so haphazard and peppered with links is because I have no clue whatsoever who is right here and moreover, I dont know what to do to evaluate such situations. Is there some basic methodology of investigative journalism or something similar that can be used here? Moreover, these are long posts about complex topics that I do not understand and am in no position to evaluate. Therefore, I must ask for your help to try and make some sense of this. How to handle such topics where the people seem to be rational or scientific but may not be? I tripped once in similar conditions when I had become a new ager and want to make sure I am not making another mistake.