3 ms·

I know this is off topic, but I wish this type of essay had an abstract or thesis statement at the beginning that could help me understand if I want to read it.

fullshark 5y ago
The first paragraph even explicitly says what the point is and it was all over the place and I had trouble following. I think this is the key point: > The universal principle that comes out of all of this is of the power of your filter. Perhaps the simplest and best definition of wisdom I’ve heard is “knowing what information is important.” This kind of knowing is not solely done in the intellect. Data is constantly being fed into your unconscious, then cross referenced against your experience.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  Feels like advice the author needs. I'm not being (intentionally) snarky. A lot of writing isn't has little point beyond sharing the set of things floating around lately in an author's head. "I haven't quite made sense our of these things but they seem important, maybe you can." You could argue that's perfectly legitimate -- but it's never presented that way. The conceit is always that you'll learn something useful.
  - Jeff_Brown 5y ago
    To be fair, i thought the introduction telegraphed quite well that it would be mushy and without any clear purpose. Not sure why I didn't stop there.
throwaway81523 5y ago
It is imho a disorganized article that burps up some interesting points from Scott Siskind's review of Julia Galef's book (linked in the article) and a few other places. There's not really a central point made, except maybe that certain cognitive distortions reinforce other distortions. I read the book review itself a week or so ago and having that in the background probably helped make sense of the article. I do like reading Siskind (aka Scott Alexander), at least in small doses, and it may be more worthwhile to read his stuff directly. His stuff is longwinded but usually stays on its topic. The racehorses article is more like free association.
- jrussino 5y ago
  At the risk of venturing too far off-topic from the linked article: isn’t it in poor taste to be citing this author using his real name, given that he recently went so far as to take down his blog in protest of a rumored NYT article that would have doxxed him? From what I can tell the cited book review is published under his pen name (Scott Alexander) so it seems to me like the author of the linked article is going out of their way to use his real name.

fullshark 5y ago

The first paragraph even explicitly says what the point is and it was all over the place and I had trouble following. I think this is the key point: > The universal principle that comes out of all of this is of the power of your filter. Perhaps the simplest and best definition of wisdom I’ve heard is “knowing what information is important.” This kind of knowing is not solely done in the intellect. Data is constantly being fed into your unconscious, then cross referenced against your experience.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
Feels like advice the author needs. I'm not being (intentionally) snarky. A lot of writing isn't has little point beyond sharing the set of things floating around lately in an author's head. "I haven't quite made sense our of these things but they seem important, maybe you can." You could argue that's perfectly legitimate -- but it's never presented that way. The conceit is always that you'll learn something useful.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  To be fair, i thought the introduction telegraphed quite well that it would be mushy and without any clear purpose. Not sure why I didn't stop there.

throwaway81523 5y ago

It is imho a disorganized article that burps up some interesting points from Scott Siskind's review of Julia Galef's book (linked in the article) and a few other places. There's not really a central point made, except maybe that certain cognitive distortions reinforce other distortions. I read the book review itself a week or so ago and having that in the background probably helped make sense of the article. I do like reading Siskind (aka Scott Alexander), at least in small doses, and it may be more worthwhile to read his stuff directly. His stuff is longwinded but usually stays on its topic. The racehorses article is more like free association.

jrussino 5y ago
At the risk of venturing too far off-topic from the linked article: isn’t it in poor taste to be citing this author using his real name, given that he recently went so far as to take down his blog in protest of a rumored NYT article that would have doxxed him? From what I can tell the cited book review is published under his pen name (Scott Alexander) so it seems to me like the author of the linked article is going out of their way to use his real name.