5 ms·

Never read Slate Star Codex before. Took the link to an entry on metoo[1]: 1. Starts with a thought experiment based on statistics from various sources. 2. Ha

Never read Slate Star Codex before. Took the link to an entry on metoo[1]: 1. Starts with a thought experiment based on statistics from various sources. 2. Has a parenthetical paragraph about gay male harassment, also with statistics. 3. Makes a speculative conclusion inside the parenthetical, never mentioning the famous metoo case of Terry Crews, the media coverage of which argues against said conclusion. Can someone tell me if the other articles follow this pattern of building from first principles without having first done due diligence on a given topic? [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/04/against-overgendering-harassment/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/04/against-overgendering-... Edit: clarification

sanderjd 6y ago
I would say it is not uncommon for his articles to build from first principles, but also not uncommon for them to be based on due diligence. One general problem with this NYT article is that SSC is ... a lot of words, and is not easily categorizable, so pretty much any treatment of it in an article like this is going to be superficial and unable to find some cohesive narrative that captures truth. Instead it chooses one cohesive narrative, which is inevitably incredibly incomplete.
- jancsika 6y ago
  > I would say it is not uncommon for his articles to build from first principles, but also not uncommon for them to be based on due diligence. Thanks. With that in mind-- and with a proud and explicit rejection of the idiotic repostings of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect here on HN-- I'll do my due diligence and read some of the other postings, too. As far as this article I stumbled upon wrt metoo-- I think it stands as a good example of how not to write an even-handed analysis for a general audience. Relying on a thought experiment without mentioning that there's an extant well-known case leads the astute reader to believe the author hasn't devoted adequate study to the subject.
joveian 6y ago
Your #3 is only one of a bunch of things wrong with that paragraph :(. This seems much worse than his earlier posts that I read, mostly a couple of years earlier IIRC. Not sure if that is typical of his more recent writing or not. But yes, I would say that is exactly the pattern, long arguments from first principles leaving out obvious counterarguments or mentioning them but dismissing them without understanding the argument. Obviously when discussing complex topics it is impossible to mention everything, but he seems to often fail to understand the most common objections against what he is arguing.

sanderjd 6y ago

I would say it is not uncommon for his articles to build from first principles, but also not uncommon for them to be based on due diligence. One general problem with this NYT article is that SSC is ... a lot of words, and is not easily categorizable, so pretty much any treatment of it in an article like this is going to be superficial and unable to find some cohesive narrative that captures truth. Instead it chooses one cohesive narrative, which is inevitably incredibly incomplete.

jancsika 6y ago
> I would say it is not uncommon for his articles to build from first principles, but also not uncommon for them to be based on due diligence. Thanks. With that in mind-- and with a proud and explicit rejection of the idiotic repostings of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect here on HN-- I'll do my due diligence and read some of the other postings, too. As far as this article I stumbled upon wrt metoo-- I think it stands as a good example of how not to write an even-handed analysis for a general audience. Relying on a thought experiment without mentioning that there's an extant well-known case leads the astute reader to believe the author hasn't devoted adequate study to the subject.

joveian 6y ago

Your #3 is only one of a bunch of things wrong with that paragraph :(. This seems much worse than his earlier posts that I read, mostly a couple of years earlier IIRC. Not sure if that is typical of his more recent writing or not. But yes, I would say that is exactly the pattern, long arguments from first principles leaving out obvious counterarguments or mentioning them but dismissing them without understanding the argument. Obviously when discussing complex topics it is impossible to mention everything, but he seems to often fail to understand the most common objections against what he is arguing.