The problems with the article that I perceive: 1. It makes claims about the SSC readership and the rationalist community intended to invoke an emotional respon

The problems with the article that I perceive: 1. It makes claims about the SSC readership and the rationalist community intended to invoke an emotional response with little verifiable evidence. > This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years—that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing 2. It's overly general in how it addresses people involved; it tends to conflate very different people connected by little more than their professed belief in using evidence to make decisions and examining their preconceptions. Using a rationalist psychologist as representative of "Silicon Valley" is evidence of this point. I may be influenced by the fact the fact that I have a good friend who is an avowed rationalist and I don't believe the broad strokes generalizations in the article represented him. Also, it fails to grasp what I perceive as the main reason for Alexander's blog takedown, which I think is merely a game theory influenced attempt to prevent the NYT from printing his name, rather than anything more grand.