3 ms·
This is one of PG's weaker essays. He attempts to glide between psychology, history, politics, and philosophy without proper evidence or background in those are
by Dumblydorr 6y ago
This is one of PG's weaker essays. He attempts to glide between psychology, history, politics, and philosophy without proper evidence or background in those areas. His construct is somewhat interesting on the surface but is only supported by his own feelings and his own anecdata, he doesn't point to anything relevant or similar written by actual experts.
- dhimes 6y agoThe essay is very good starting with this paragraph: You'd think it would be obvious just from that sentence what a dangerous game they're playing. But I'll spell it out. There are two reasons why we need to be able to discuss even "bad" ideas. Everything above that is just setting up the rest.
- threatofrain 6y agoYeah but unless there's someone who is a domain expert, deeply affiliated with experts from other domains, willing to drop into HN to give free advice... gurus are what you get. As popular as HN is, there are surprisingly few people willing to do this.
- minikites 6y agoWhy would they even try on HN, a site that famously looks down on any subject that isn't STEM or closely adjacent?