4 ms·

I stopped reading after the grammar of the first two sentences. I cannot parse the second sentence, although I think I get what they are trying to say. Fair or

I stopped reading after the grammar of the first two sentences. I cannot parse the second sentence, although I think I get what they are trying to say. Fair or not, I interpret this as a public service announcement against nootropics.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 10y ago
Care to try to parse those sentences for us, so we can determine if it is the reader or the writer with the grammar problem.
- psyc 10y ago
  The problem is very long run-on sentences, with parentheticals, and awkward word omissions.
  - panzagl 10y ago
    Seems like he's trying for that overly formal 18th/19th century style of scientific writing.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      I find my natural style tends towards such affectations. Perhaps he's just not trying to apply a writing style after the fashion of "I could have written less but I didn't have enough time".
6nf 10y ago
He's leaving out some words that makes it a bit hard to parse: > [This is] A record of nootropics I have tried, with thoughts about which ones worked and did not work for me. > These anecdotes should be considered only as anecdotes, and one’s efforts with nootropics [should be considered] a hobby to put only limited amounts of time into due to the inherent limits of drugs as a force-multiplier ...
striking 10y ago
It's no more dense or abstruse than the introductory philosophy text I've started reading. Yeah, it might take you a try or two to understand what they're saying, but that in and of itself isn't a very strong case against the article. In fact, the writer actually agrees with you, in a sense, in that second sentence. He mentions that the piece is strictly anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt, and that you shouldn't burn too much time on this stuff because there are limits to what you can achieve. Maybe you should give the article another go. You might learn something new, or at least have wasted your time in an engaging way.
logicallee 10y ago
(people need to upvote parent). You started from the lowest-level (reading word by word) but I started at the highest: after skimming the first couple of sentences I scrolled down trying to get an "overview", I tried to take in the main things, to read a Conclusions section, to read something that would put all these things in perspective. (The "background" first section and the couple of sentences that precede it aren't any kind of good abstract, or if they are then I missed it while skimming.) But I didn't see it - I couldn't "see the forest for the trees." So take it as strike two against the author and therefore against nootropics: while there might be a wealth of detail that it uncovers, too many details will make you lose the perspective, and, indeed, the whole point. Like when someone writes a groundbreaking optimizing compiler or something, but can't even tell you why.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

oh_sigh 10y ago

Care to try to parse those sentences for us, so we can determine if it is the reader or the writer with the grammar problem.

psyc 10y ago
The problem is very long run-on sentences, with parentheticals, and awkward word omissions.
- panzagl 10y ago
  Seems like he's trying for that overly formal 18th/19th century style of scientific writing.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    I find my natural style tends towards such affectations. Perhaps he's just not trying to apply a writing style after the fashion of "I could have written less but I didn't have enough time".

6nf 10y ago

He's leaving out some words that makes it a bit hard to parse: > [This is] A record of nootropics I have tried, with thoughts about which ones worked and did not work for me. > These anecdotes should be considered only as anecdotes, and one’s efforts with nootropics [should be considered] a hobby to put only limited amounts of time into due to the inherent limits of drugs as a force-multiplier ...

striking 10y ago

It's no more dense or abstruse than the introductory philosophy text I've started reading. Yeah, it might take you a try or two to understand what they're saying, but that in and of itself isn't a very strong case against the article. In fact, the writer actually agrees with you, in a sense, in that second sentence. He mentions that the piece is strictly anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt, and that you shouldn't burn too much time on this stuff because there are limits to what you can achieve. Maybe you should give the article another go. You might learn something new, or at least have wasted your time in an engaging way.

logicallee 10y ago

(people need to upvote parent). You started from the lowest-level (reading word by word) but I started at the highest: after skimming the first couple of sentences I scrolled down trying to get an "overview", I tried to take in the main things, to read a Conclusions section, to read something that would put all these things in perspective. (The "background" first section and the couple of sentences that precede it aren't any kind of good abstract, or if they are then I missed it while skimming.) But I didn't see it - I couldn't "see the forest for the trees." So take it as strike two against the author and therefore against nootropics: while there might be a wealth of detail that it uncovers, too many details will make you lose the perspective, and, indeed, the whole point. Like when someone writes a groundbreaking optimizing compiler or something, but can't even tell you why.