4 ms·

I think, in general, you will find that to be a rare thing. Even if you start with a small population that doesn't require "setting the scene," as soon as the

I think, in general, you will find that to be a rare thing. Even if you start with a small population that doesn't require "setting the scene," as soon as the population grows, so does the requirement. I would claim that even in the 400 days I've been here on HN I've seen this happening. When I first arrived it was possible to have a short, to-the-point, informative comment that required the reader to think hard before they got the most out of it. Most of them did. Now it's necessary to create longer, more detailed, more direct comments that set the scene, make their point, put the point in context, and draw conclusions. This is an inevitable consequence of a larger audience. It also means that the subsequent discussion will be "diluted" because of the wider range of experience and ability of the participants. As far as I can seem it cannot be avoided. Nor is it necessarily to be regarded as a criticism. If you want a broad range of opinions so you can learn from all points of view then you need a large population from which to draw them. You then must realise that it's not the same as it used to be, and one's style must change to match the new audience. Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. People will always tend to have an opinion, and setting it aside during a discussion in order to listen/read dispassionately is highly unnatural. It is better to work with human nature rather than demand that your audience set aside their natural tendencies, perhaps especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything.

stcredzero 17y ago
Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking isn't helping me as much as spending time actually having substantive discussion. especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything. It seems we agree on some fundamental level. I think the ability and diligence to direct skepticism at oneself is basic and essential. If one does not know how to do that, one doesn't really know how to think.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  RoG> ... I do not think this is a question of RoG> "intellectual integrity," and labelling it RoG> as such is unhelpful. StC0> I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge StC0> myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking StC0> isn't helping me as much as spending time StC0> actually having substantive discussion. I'm not debating or questioning the use of a labal to capture the concept. I'm suggesting that the sepcific label you are using is itself a barrier to communication. To speak of someone failing to exhibit "intellectual integrity" feels like you are accusing them of dishonesty. I don't think, in truth, that you are doing so, but that is how it might appear. You could consider a better label for the near inhuman, almost Vulcan, ability to put asides one's own opinions and beliefs in order to listen to the points being made by someone else. Calling it ""intellectual integrity" is, I think, conveying the wrong message, and caries too much baggage. And yes, I suspect we are more in agreement than not. I, perhaps, am giving more leeway to those who are not trained to set aside their natural tendencies. It's something I've had to learn, at times painfully, upon entering a business environment after doing research in pure math. It seems to be a requirement, and simply one of those things one has to do in order to communicate effectively with people from the "Real World." Sad, but true. I've had to learn to live with it.

stcredzero 17y ago

Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking isn't helping me as much as spending time actually having substantive discussion. especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything. It seems we agree on some fundamental level. I think the ability and diligence to direct skepticism at oneself is basic and essential. If one does not know how to do that, one doesn't really know how to think.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
RoG> ... I do not think this is a question of RoG> "intellectual integrity," and labelling it RoG> as such is unhelpful. StC0> I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge StC0> myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking StC0> isn't helping me as much as spending time StC0> actually having substantive discussion. I'm not debating or questioning the use of a labal to capture the concept. I'm suggesting that the sepcific label you are using is itself a barrier to communication. To speak of someone failing to exhibit "intellectual integrity" feels like you are accusing them of dishonesty. I don't think, in truth, that you are doing so, but that is how it might appear. You could consider a better label for the near inhuman, almost Vulcan, ability to put asides one's own opinions and beliefs in order to listen to the points being made by someone else. Calling it ""intellectual integrity" is, I think, conveying the wrong message, and caries too much baggage. And yes, I suspect we are more in agreement than not. I, perhaps, am giving more leeway to those who are not trained to set aside their natural tendencies. It's something I've had to learn, at times painfully, upon entering a business environment after doing research in pure math. It seems to be a requirement, and simply one of those things one has to do in order to communicate effectively with people from the "Real World." Sad, but true. I've had to learn to live with it.