3 ms·

I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.

by gjvc 6y ago

airhead969 6y ago
As a minor nit, the way it was said was a bit harsh, but it seemed to be done in the spirit of necessary, tough love. I'm appalled by intellectual laziness and codependency these days. We have a mostly illiterate, ignorant, distracted, atomized society that doesn't read, doesn't dig into primary or even secondary sources, doesn't have critical thinking skills, is easily-manipulated by advertising, mainstream news, and social media, doesn't communicate in-person that much, and more and more people feel entitled to be spoon-fed answers and information like helpless chicks tweeting for a worm (the definition of codependency). Only by more people reading, learning, researching, thinking, and doing for themselves more often can these trends be reversed. PSA: Turn off the screens and read a respectable nonfiction book more often, please. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - English proverb
- gjvc 6y ago
  well said, and I would add that the acceptance of the "TL;DR" "culture" is cancerous in tacitly encouraging such laziness.
  - airhead969 6y ago
    I think we should also be able to summarize but not exclusively or reaching a point of cargo-culting blindly because only one book priest can read. Against oversimplification: There are nuances and details that are often lost as the memetic game of "telephone" gets played and introduces mutations. Also, intellectual dilettancy, whereby people no longer master any other details other than utilitarian ones; history gets lost, anecdotes get lost, and so forth. Writers should aim for concision where possible, but not skimp on evidence, rationale, or interesting anecdotes or analysis. Einstein said something about "irreducible basic elements" but never said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Time and attention are valuable, but the essence shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
RivieraKid 6y ago
I honestly don't get this "you should read it" fetish. I actually spend a lot of time reading. But if I have, say 4 hours per day allocated to reading, I want to choose material that gives me the highest possible value per minute of reading. You're basically saying that the optimal learning and information consumption strategy is to always either read (or skim) the whole thing or ignore it. I disagree, the optimal strategy includes reading TL;DRs if available because they give you good value per unit of time or energy and they give you information whether it's worth to read the whole thing.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  (Interestingly enough, Doug would agree with you. The irony of those condemning you is multi-layered. There's the first-order irony that those doing the condemnation probably haven't themselves read the thing they are upset with you about. The second-order irony is that the overall thrust of their clamor is directly opposed to the ideas that Doug expresses -- if only they knew it by reading for themselves...)

I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.

by gjvc 6y ago

I have never read quite such a lazy comment on HN. Do your own research, instead of grifting off other people's opinions.

airhead969 6y ago

As a minor nit, the way it was said was a bit harsh, but it seemed to be done in the spirit of necessary, tough love. I'm appalled by intellectual laziness and codependency these days. We have a mostly illiterate, ignorant, distracted, atomized society that doesn't read, doesn't dig into primary or even secondary sources, doesn't have critical thinking skills, is easily-manipulated by advertising, mainstream news, and social media, doesn't communicate in-person that much, and more and more people feel entitled to be spoon-fed answers and information like helpless chicks tweeting for a worm (the definition of codependency). Only by more people reading, learning, researching, thinking, and doing for themselves more often can these trends be reversed. PSA: Turn off the screens and read a respectable nonfiction book more often, please. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - English proverb

gjvc 6y ago
well said, and I would add that the acceptance of the "TL;DR" "culture" is cancerous in tacitly encouraging such laziness.
- airhead969 6y ago
  I think we should also be able to summarize but not exclusively or reaching a point of cargo-culting blindly because only one book priest can read. Against oversimplification: There are nuances and details that are often lost as the memetic game of "telephone" gets played and introduces mutations. Also, intellectual dilettancy, whereby people no longer master any other details other than utilitarian ones; history gets lost, anecdotes get lost, and so forth. Writers should aim for concision where possible, but not skimp on evidence, rationale, or interesting anecdotes or analysis. Einstein said something about "irreducible basic elements" but never said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Time and attention are valuable, but the essence shouldn't be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

RivieraKid 6y ago

I honestly don't get this "you should read it" fetish. I actually spend a lot of time reading. But if I have, say 4 hours per day allocated to reading, I want to choose material that gives me the highest possible value per minute of reading. You're basically saying that the optimal learning and information consumption strategy is to always either read (or skim) the whole thing or ignore it. I disagree, the optimal strategy includes reading TL;DRs if available because they give you good value per unit of time or energy and they give you information whether it's worth to read the whole thing.

pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
(Interestingly enough, Doug would agree with you. The irony of those condemning you is multi-layered. There's the first-order irony that those doing the condemnation probably haven't themselves read the thing they are upset with you about. The second-order irony is that the overall thrust of their clamor is directly opposed to the ideas that Doug expresses -- if only they knew it by reading for themselves...)