6 ms·

I sense a certain amount of enmity from your pg-related posts here and your tweets.

ahoyhere 15y ago
Not enmity. I am intellectually galled by the laziness of many of pg's arguments. I agree with a lot of what he writes about creating things people want, on the other hand, and wish he would stick to writing about things he's good at -- or at least, when writing about something he's bad at, do it in an exploratory instead of declamatory fashion.
- dingfeng_quek 15y ago
  So am I, but as a style, I find it much better than many conventional writers (excluding research papers, at least the good ones). More important to me, PG's style is consistent - once I get used to it (in the first few paragraphs), all the rest of his essays can be interpreted with the same "filter/transform".
- pg 15y ago
  If you were driven by a disinterested search for the truth, your comments would not have the tone they do.
  - jpeterson 15y ago
    Yea, I'd be interested in reading a balanced criticism of pg's work. But ahoy and the linked article smack more of scorned lover than unbiased review.
  - paulsutter 15y ago
    I really think there is more to this. My guess - small changes in the way you use words may reduce the chance that you are badly misunderstood by some people. I love your essays, but our personalities are probably similar. My friend Mike, who was always a word man when I was an idea guy, has a reaction to your writing that is so similar to hers that at first I was sure he was the author of her post. When I read her point by point rebuttal, my reaction is that she seems to be missing the ideas behind the words, fighting the texture of the bark and missing the layout of the forest. But in her mind the bark looks phony so the whole forest is a fraud. The whole tension may be about personality and perspective, not truth and falsehoods. I don't have an answer, or even specific suggestions. But I sense that there is something to learn here. And I suspect that you are more likely to solve the puzzle than she is.
    - wormwood28 15y ago
      I'd guess it's largely the nature of the Essay as a literary form. Some of the criticisms here are very reminiscent of those Arnauld and Pascal made regarding Montaigne's method and rigor.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
  - ahoyhere 15y ago
    I never claimed to be driven by a disinterested search for truth. I said I am intellectually galled. I find lazy thinking to be extremely irritating.
    - jpeterson 15y ago
      I think what he's getting at is that your tone is needlesly hostile, and belies the claimed "intellectual" nature of your complaints. I, for one, cannot take you seriously for this reason.
    - paulsutter 15y ago
      It's fascinating that the same essay makes you intellectually galled, and me intellectually stimulated. I don't think it's because one of us is right and the other wrong. And I'm skeptical that lazy thinking is the source of the conflict. Take the quote "Having good ideas is most of writing well." My reaction was "that's an interesting belief", and I stopped to think about it. It seemed plausible, and that was enough for me to move along. I knew he was setting up an intuitive frame in order to make a larger point. I didn't bother to agree or disagree with the statement because I knew I could circle back to it if it was crucial to his major point. Even after all this debate, I feel no need to agree or disagree with the statement. I'm perfectly satisfied feeling that it is plausible. Now I'm going to stick my neck out, because this is the part I'm trying to understand: Perhaps you view statements like that as an attempted declaration of scientific fact. From that perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to respond "Woah cowboy, slow down! Either break this down for me or at least cite some references here, because that's a provocative statement". I bet that if pg had also written an essay on "Ideas and Writing Well", even that is a citation you would find useful, it wouldn't have to come from Aristotle. Apologies if I am guessing wrong here, but if that is the way you view it: you are not wrong, I am not wrong, and pg is not wrong. We're just viewing the same statement differently. I'm willing to bet that this is a subject pg has considered deeply. And from his perspective, I'm certain his statement is true. The criteria for "good writing" is definitely an opinion, and his is probably a well considered opinion. Your opinion could even be diametrically opposed, and that wouldn't make either of you wrong. It would just mean that you disagree. And that's perfectly OK. It was your comment about the lack of references that hit me like a punch in the nose. From my perspective, that seemed to come way out of left field. But in retrospect, it could be a totally valid question when viewed from another perspective. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Not enmity. I am intellectually galled by the laziness of many of pg's arguments. I agree with a lot of what he writes about creating things people want, on the other hand, and wish he would stick to writing about things he's good at -- or at least, when writing about something he's bad at, do it in an exploratory instead of declamatory fashion.

dingfeng_quek 15y ago
So am I, but as a style, I find it much better than many conventional writers (excluding research papers, at least the good ones). More important to me, PG's style is consistent - once I get used to it (in the first few paragraphs), all the rest of his essays can be interpreted with the same "filter/transform".
pg 15y ago
If you were driven by a disinterested search for the truth, your comments would not have the tone they do.
- jpeterson 15y ago
  Yea, I'd be interested in reading a balanced criticism of pg's work. But ahoy and the linked article smack more of scorned lover than unbiased review.
- paulsutter 15y ago
  I really think there is more to this. My guess - small changes in the way you use words may reduce the chance that you are badly misunderstood by some people. I love your essays, but our personalities are probably similar. My friend Mike, who was always a word man when I was an idea guy, has a reaction to your writing that is so similar to hers that at first I was sure he was the author of her post. When I read her point by point rebuttal, my reaction is that she seems to be missing the ideas behind the words, fighting the texture of the bark and missing the layout of the forest. But in her mind the bark looks phony so the whole forest is a fraud. The whole tension may be about personality and perspective, not truth and falsehoods. I don't have an answer, or even specific suggestions. But I sense that there is something to learn here. And I suspect that you are more likely to solve the puzzle than she is.
  - wormwood28 15y ago
    I'd guess it's largely the nature of the Essay as a literary form. Some of the criticisms here are very reminiscent of those Arnauld and Pascal made regarding Montaigne's method and rigor.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- ahoyhere 15y ago
  I never claimed to be driven by a disinterested search for truth. I said I am intellectually galled. I find lazy thinking to be extremely irritating.
  - jpeterson 15y ago
    I think what he's getting at is that your tone is needlesly hostile, and belies the claimed "intellectual" nature of your complaints. I, for one, cannot take you seriously for this reason.
  - paulsutter 15y ago
    It's fascinating that the same essay makes you intellectually galled, and me intellectually stimulated. I don't think it's because one of us is right and the other wrong. And I'm skeptical that lazy thinking is the source of the conflict. Take the quote "Having good ideas is most of writing well." My reaction was "that's an interesting belief", and I stopped to think about it. It seemed plausible, and that was enough for me to move along. I knew he was setting up an intuitive frame in order to make a larger point. I didn't bother to agree or disagree with the statement because I knew I could circle back to it if it was crucial to his major point. Even after all this debate, I feel no need to agree or disagree with the statement. I'm perfectly satisfied feeling that it is plausible. Now I'm going to stick my neck out, because this is the part I'm trying to understand: Perhaps you view statements like that as an attempted declaration of scientific fact. From that perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to respond "Woah cowboy, slow down! Either break this down for me or at least cite some references here, because that's a provocative statement". I bet that if pg had also written an essay on "Ideas and Writing Well", even that is a citation you would find useful, it wouldn't have to come from Aristotle. Apologies if I am guessing wrong here, but if that is the way you view it: you are not wrong, I am not wrong, and pg is not wrong. We're just viewing the same statement differently. I'm willing to bet that this is a subject pg has considered deeply. And from his perspective, I'm certain his statement is true. The criteria for "good writing" is definitely an opinion, and his is probably a well considered opinion. Your opinion could even be diametrically opposed, and that wouldn't make either of you wrong. It would just mean that you disagree. And that's perfectly OK. It was your comment about the lack of references that hit me like a punch in the nose. From my perspective, that seemed to come way out of left field. But in retrospect, it could be a totally valid question when viewed from another perspective. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.