12 ms·

Thanks for writing this. While the tweets have great comedic effect, they are just really stupid. You could very easily write a whole piece about how elegant a

Thanks for writing this. While the tweets have great comedic effect, they are just really stupid. You could very easily write a whole piece about how elegant and awe inspiringly complex and effective they are on the exact same subject. Except it wouldn’t get as many likes and retweets, of course. Sort of made me sad just thinking about that. Twitter really does encourage the worst forms of conversation - outrage, sarcasm, cheapness, drunk humor dominates.

elsurudo 6y ago
I didn't take it like that at all and I feel you are over-reacting. To me it seems that the author (in his own tongue-in-cheek way) is awed by these clever solutions that natural selection has found.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I feel like these kinds of "X scientific phenomenon is incredible magical bullshit and here's why!" type deals are overdone and feel kinda forced. But eh, I'm not the one who took their time to write this all out in a presentable way so whatever the author wants
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bonoboTP 6y ago
These things can be a great entry point to dispel naive unexamined homunculus ideas and to dive into some philosophy and neuroscience.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Sure, may have been a bit overly pessimistic. But tbh you could still be super funny and not so “omg were dumb”. The 2010s “lol look at this dumb shit” attitude reminds me of the 90s “edgy ironic” attitude. It’s lazy, just following the trend that further reduces our ability to continue and have a cool discussion. You can be funny without needing to hit every dopamine receptor. But hey, maybe that’s just what Twitter is for - letting off some steam. I only felt sad because I saw discussions here the other day about humans being sphagetti code and this sort of absolutist/negative/ironic postmodern attitude just kind of sucks - it actually shuts down conversation (note you are literally just defending it instead of expanding into, say, some philosophy). You can be totally tongue in cheek, funny, and even self-deprecating without being just wrong and super absolutist at once, it’s just not as easy and probably wins a few less internet points. If anything I’m advocating for a humor that complements truth.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    The spaghetti code stuff may point to the right direction though, depending on one's current opinion/understanding. As I always remark, writing a comment or blog post can only point in a direction, as in "please shift your opinion following this arrow", but not a destination as in "please arrive at this target". If one watches a lot of brain documentaries on pop sci TV channels, the thing they present looks like this magnificent beautiful 3D model with bluish and pinkish stuff and light pulses go around as in a hyperfuturistic awesome thing while the camera is circling around with beautiful intriguing music in the background. The reality is a squishy gobblegook of kludges that gets its job done remarkably well but through some remarkably strange ways. It is a lot of spaghetti, no clear modularity, lots of stuff performing multiple functions and doing things in a roundabout way. I first read about this contrast in David Linden's really enjoyable "The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God". But if you already think that everything is rotten and humans are crap and biased beyond imagination, nothing has any value etc. etc. then perhaps you'd benefit from the opposite direction idea, about how really well it works and how much extra stuff the mind does that is not strictly mundane and everyday tasks.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      I think you probably should be pointed in the direction of your last statement, but hey, that’s just my direction.
pmachinery 6y ago
I wondered after a few posts why it was even on Twitter, and if it had been an article/blog post there would definitely have been less motivation for the author to play to the gallery. > how bullshit insane our brains are > but OH NO > this shit works > your freaking visual system just lied to you about HOW LONG TIME IS > we're apparently computers programmed by batshit insane drunkards in Visual Basic 5 > your brain has EVEN MORE UGLY HACKS Interminable shtick that just makes subject matter pointlessly longer and more of a chore to read.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  I'm ambivalent; on the one hand this could be a long-form article but on the other I prefer a ten tweet summary to a new Yorker article where they'll start by discussing a neuroscientist's dog walk for 500 words before getting to the topic.
- aeontech 6y ago
  This comes up any time @foone’s content gets posted. TLDR; that’s authors choice both for stylistic reasons and personal. When the choice is between “don’t blog at all” and “post on twitter” because that’s what fits his mind process, I would rather read about it on twitter than not at all. Judging by the amount of discussion here, it seems like this was thought provoking for a number of people despite the format. I find twitter threads frustrating to follow also, but you could always... skip clicking the link if you feel so strongly about it. As an aside, criticizing the form of content rather than the substance is not of particular interest in general, to be honest. It comes off as “I didn’t really have anything to say about the subject, but at least I can comment on perceived flaws in the style of presentation”.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    The critique is actually that this stupid YouTuber attention-desperate style leads to Reddit level discussion. Especially because he just frames the whole process as being dumb rather than... interesting. So no it’s not just a style critique, he’s just making wild unfounded claims while trying to frame them as obvious truths. If you like that style, then fine, why don’t you just not reply to this valid sub-thread? I don’t see you adding any to the discussion. But the discussion of the degradation of our ability to communicate due to social media incentivizing stupid clickbait is super important.
gryson 6y ago
I don't understand your criticism. Foone (a rather famous user of Twitter with 62k followers who posts enormously interesting content in my opinion) is successfully engaging his audience in a casual style that they appreciate. How is this "really stupid"? Because it doesn't live up to your expectations for the form that such content should take?
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  They would get the same audience if they were an average-looking woman and decided to do porn for free. Nassim Haramein - British leftist newager who claims to have invented a new theory of physics implying all particles are actually black holes and who’s quite popular in North London hippie circles has 350K followers on Facebook. I think these are good baselines of what it takes to get 62k followers.
  - mongojunction 6y ago
    Here's a link to the "quack"'s paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302941651_Quantum_Gravity_and_the_Holographic_Mass https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302941651_Quantum_G... Science establishment knows all, and is never wrong, especially once it excommunicates a heretic. Science heretics are always bad and wrong. Science establishment people are always right. Trust science establishment. Give science establishment money. Science good. Quack bad. Give money. No money to quack. All to science. Science good. Did we mention science right and quack wrong?
- gdy 6y ago
  Kardashians have many more followers and are successfully engaging their audiences. Their posts must be really smart.
throwawaygh 6y ago
> Sort of made me sad just thinking about that. Twitter really does encourage the worst forms of conversation - outrage, sarcasm, cheapness, drunk humor dominates. I've never understood why, in the Eternal September, anyone would expect the average late-night conversation on the internet to be any different from the average late-night conversations at the local pub. Sure, you might find that rare table of PhD students/young engineers/residents/academics and teachers/etc. having a genuinely interesting conversation as they transition from work to relaxation after a long night at the lab/hospital/grading. But mostly it's drunk idiots relishing in base pleasures. And after the second drink or so those engaging conversations will devolve. I don't think Twitter is encouraging anything in particular here. The same thing happened with IRC channels, forums, etc. No point in getting angry or sad about the Eternal September; it was always inevitable.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  You don't think the nature of a tweet, the very limitation placed on the number of characters, encourages a certain type of communication/interaction? The platform not only discourages long form dialogue, which is especially useful for communicating complex topics, it explicitly prohibits it.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > You don't think the nature of a tweet, the very limitation placed on the number of characters, encourages a certain type of communication/interaction? Sure, but I don't think that type of communication/interaction causes bad conversations. The conversation was going to be a shit show regardless. Go join any Mome's or Political group on Facebook. The conversation isn't exactly elevated. > The platform not only discourages long form dialogue, which is especially useful for communicating complex topics, it explicitly prohibits it. Not really. "1/N"
    - abnercoimbre 6y ago
      The pub analogy or even the Facebook group isn't very good. Tweeting involves getting your short thoughts evaluated and rated by strangers at scale! You're also regularly aware of the properties required to (potentially) go viral. It is far more difficult, by design, to encourage better conversations there.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
It reads like an article written entirely with Buzzfeed headlines.
firethief 6y ago
It's two sides of the same coin. Anything heavily-optimized for something other than simplicity ends up maddeningly complex. It doesn't make me sad that people prefer the more entertaining perspective on the same information.

elsurudo 6y ago

I didn't take it like that at all and I feel you are over-reacting. To me it seems that the author (in his own tongue-in-cheek way) is awed by these clever solutions that natural selection has found.

BoorishBears 6y ago
I feel like these kinds of "X scientific phenomenon is incredible magical bullshit and here's why!" type deals are overdone and feel kinda forced. But eh, I'm not the one who took their time to write this all out in a presentable way so whatever the author wants
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bonoboTP 6y ago

These things can be a great entry point to dispel naive unexamined homunculus ideas and to dive into some philosophy and neuroscience.

nwienert 6y ago
Sure, may have been a bit overly pessimistic. But tbh you could still be super funny and not so “omg were dumb”. The 2010s “lol look at this dumb shit” attitude reminds me of the 90s “edgy ironic” attitude. It’s lazy, just following the trend that further reduces our ability to continue and have a cool discussion. You can be funny without needing to hit every dopamine receptor. But hey, maybe that’s just what Twitter is for - letting off some steam. I only felt sad because I saw discussions here the other day about humans being sphagetti code and this sort of absolutist/negative/ironic postmodern attitude just kind of sucks - it actually shuts down conversation (note you are literally just defending it instead of expanding into, say, some philosophy). You can be totally tongue in cheek, funny, and even self-deprecating without being just wrong and super absolutist at once, it’s just not as easy and probably wins a few less internet points. If anything I’m advocating for a humor that complements truth.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  The spaghetti code stuff may point to the right direction though, depending on one's current opinion/understanding. As I always remark, writing a comment or blog post can only point in a direction, as in "please shift your opinion following this arrow", but not a destination as in "please arrive at this target". If one watches a lot of brain documentaries on pop sci TV channels, the thing they present looks like this magnificent beautiful 3D model with bluish and pinkish stuff and light pulses go around as in a hyperfuturistic awesome thing while the camera is circling around with beautiful intriguing music in the background. The reality is a squishy gobblegook of kludges that gets its job done remarkably well but through some remarkably strange ways. It is a lot of spaghetti, no clear modularity, lots of stuff performing multiple functions and doing things in a roundabout way. I first read about this contrast in David Linden's really enjoyable "The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God". But if you already think that everything is rotten and humans are crap and biased beyond imagination, nothing has any value etc. etc. then perhaps you'd benefit from the opposite direction idea, about how really well it works and how much extra stuff the mind does that is not strictly mundane and everyday tasks.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    I think you probably should be pointed in the direction of your last statement, but hey, that’s just my direction.

pmachinery 6y ago

I wondered after a few posts why it was even on Twitter, and if it had been an article/blog post there would definitely have been less motivation for the author to play to the gallery. > how bullshit insane our brains are > but OH NO > this shit works > your freaking visual system just lied to you about HOW LONG TIME IS > we're apparently computers programmed by batshit insane drunkards in Visual Basic 5 > your brain has EVEN MORE UGLY HACKS Interminable shtick that just makes subject matter pointlessly longer and more of a chore to read.

ramraj07 6y ago
I'm ambivalent; on the one hand this could be a long-form article but on the other I prefer a ten tweet summary to a new Yorker article where they'll start by discussing a neuroscientist's dog walk for 500 words before getting to the topic.
aeontech 6y ago
This comes up any time @foone’s content gets posted. TLDR; that’s authors choice both for stylistic reasons and personal. When the choice is between “don’t blog at all” and “post on twitter” because that’s what fits his mind process, I would rather read about it on twitter than not at all. Judging by the amount of discussion here, it seems like this was thought provoking for a number of people despite the format. I find twitter threads frustrating to follow also, but you could always... skip clicking the link if you feel so strongly about it. As an aside, criticizing the form of content rather than the substance is not of particular interest in general, to be honest. It comes off as “I didn’t really have anything to say about the subject, but at least I can comment on perceived flaws in the style of presentation”.
- nwienert 6y ago
  The critique is actually that this stupid YouTuber attention-desperate style leads to Reddit level discussion. Especially because he just frames the whole process as being dumb rather than... interesting. So no it’s not just a style critique, he’s just making wild unfounded claims while trying to frame them as obvious truths. If you like that style, then fine, why don’t you just not reply to this valid sub-thread? I don’t see you adding any to the discussion. But the discussion of the degradation of our ability to communicate due to social media incentivizing stupid clickbait is super important.

gryson 6y ago

I don't understand your criticism. Foone (a rather famous user of Twitter with 62k followers who posts enormously interesting content in my opinion) is successfully engaging his audience in a casual style that they appreciate. How is this "really stupid"? Because it doesn't live up to your expectations for the form that such content should take?

heavenlyblue 6y ago
They would get the same audience if they were an average-looking woman and decided to do porn for free. Nassim Haramein - British leftist newager who claims to have invented a new theory of physics implying all particles are actually black holes and who’s quite popular in North London hippie circles has 350K followers on Facebook. I think these are good baselines of what it takes to get 62k followers.
- mongojunction 6y ago
  Here's a link to the "quack"'s paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302941651_Quantum_Gravity_and_the_Holographic_Mass https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302941651_Quantum_G... Science establishment knows all, and is never wrong, especially once it excommunicates a heretic. Science heretics are always bad and wrong. Science establishment people are always right. Trust science establishment. Give science establishment money. Science good. Quack bad. Give money. No money to quack. All to science. Science good. Did we mention science right and quack wrong?
gdy 6y ago
Kardashians have many more followers and are successfully engaging their audiences. Their posts must be really smart.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> Sort of made me sad just thinking about that. Twitter really does encourage the worst forms of conversation - outrage, sarcasm, cheapness, drunk humor dominates. I've never understood why, in the Eternal September, anyone would expect the average late-night conversation on the internet to be any different from the average late-night conversations at the local pub. Sure, you might find that rare table of PhD students/young engineers/residents/academics and teachers/etc. having a genuinely interesting conversation as they transition from work to relaxation after a long night at the lab/hospital/grading. But mostly it's drunk idiots relishing in base pleasures. And after the second drink or so those engaging conversations will devolve. I don't think Twitter is encouraging anything in particular here. The same thing happened with IRC channels, forums, etc. No point in getting angry or sad about the Eternal September; it was always inevitable.

_curious_ 6y ago
You don't think the nature of a tweet, the very limitation placed on the number of characters, encourages a certain type of communication/interaction? The platform not only discourages long form dialogue, which is especially useful for communicating complex topics, it explicitly prohibits it.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > You don't think the nature of a tweet, the very limitation placed on the number of characters, encourages a certain type of communication/interaction? Sure, but I don't think that type of communication/interaction causes bad conversations. The conversation was going to be a shit show regardless. Go join any Mome's or Political group on Facebook. The conversation isn't exactly elevated. > The platform not only discourages long form dialogue, which is especially useful for communicating complex topics, it explicitly prohibits it. Not really. "1/N"
  - abnercoimbre 6y ago
    The pub analogy or even the Facebook group isn't very good. Tweeting involves getting your short thoughts evaluated and rated by strangers at scale! You're also regularly aware of the properties required to (potentially) go viral. It is far more difficult, by design, to encourage better conversations there.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago

It reads like an article written entirely with Buzzfeed headlines.

firethief 6y ago

It's two sides of the same coin. Anything heavily-optimized for something other than simplicity ends up maddeningly complex. It doesn't make me sad that people prefer the more entertaining perspective on the same information.