4 ms·

The clarity and authority in his writing is remarkable. His writing is in contrast to todays blog post style writing. Today it is a catchy intro graphic, a lo

by j7ake 3y ago

The clarity and authority in his writing is remarkable. His writing is in contrast to todays blog post style writing. Today it is a catchy intro graphic, a low-information intro paragraph, a barely relevant graphic separates every two paragraphs, a gigantic quote in bold letters separates every four paragraphs, and the entire essay can be digested by rapidly scrolling down website without reading any content.

HenryBemis 3y ago
I came in JUST to comment on the writing. I usually 'autodownload' PDFs posted in HN, and (almost immediately) read the first paragraph. And WOW what writing was this (unlike mine just now). I am looking forward to read this, and it's a pitty it's only 8 pages long.
- walterbell 3y ago
  Some of his other writing is available: https://www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/
- benbreen 3y ago
  Agreed, the style is strikingly crisp and witty in a way I associate with early twentieth century English writers, especially around Oxford/Cambridge (Isaiah Berlin, C. S. Lewis). The title is notably good too. I love how Haldane writes.
arcanemachiner 3y ago
Some also have meme images every page or so. Blegh.
earthboundkid 3y ago
It's very well written, but also it's bullshit. The basic argument is "I, a biologist, know a lot about how animals need to be different sizes, therefore I also know about whether socialism or democracy or whatever is a good idea now." When you write it out like that, it's very clearly a bullshit argument that relies on appeal to authority, but because the essay is well written, it just comes across as logical and commonsense when you read it.
- j7ake 3y ago
  He did not say whether socialism is better versus democracy. He said human institutions have an optimum size. An institution or system that works at small scale is not guaranteed to work at large. That is not common sense, and in fact many contemporary people believe in scale-free properties of institutions, which have led to catastrophic failures (eg large interconnected banks that all fail together).
  - earthboundkid 3y ago
    I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying the whole structure of the argument is bullshit, but it's really good rhetoric, so you don't notice it. The argument is an extended analogy between biological systems and society, and the analogy cannot bear the weight placed on it. In the end, the conclusion he makes might be correct or not, but if it is correct, its correctness is not correlated with the argument he makes for it.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      There is no need to insist in separating ideas about biology from ideas about society. The two are intimately connected. Studying something like political science is really a study of animal behavior.
      - earthboundkid 3y ago
        But he’s not a sociologist. The stuff about animals is stuff he studied. The stuff about society is just him spitballing.
        pwndByDeath 3y ago
        Maybe sociologists could benefit from a biologist mentor?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
tempaway85751 3y ago
In 1926 if you were privileged enough to get published you could write in an authoritative voice knowing that no-one would challenge you, or if they did it would take many months for any such challenge to appear. Perhaps a letter to a newspaper or something. These days anyone can publish anything at any time and if you write in that authoritative sort of style its just begging for someone to come in and contradict you (you see it in HN comments all the time). Hence people write differently now OR And so I thusly declare that is a most elegant explanation, without possible rebuttal, for why this most elegant authoritative style is so rarely seen in these times.
- j7ake 3y ago
  It’s 2023, you’re welcome to contradict this article if you wish, if you think this person is wrong. The fact this essay continues to be shared 100 years later suggests that this excellent essay could simply be a result of selection: bad essays don’t get shared and they quickly fade into obscurity.

by j7ake 3y ago

HenryBemis 3y ago

I came in JUST to comment on the writing. I usually 'autodownload' PDFs posted in HN, and (almost immediately) read the first paragraph. And WOW what writing was this (unlike mine just now). I am looking forward to read this, and it's a pitty it's only 8 pages long.

walterbell 3y ago
Some of his other writing is available: https://www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/
benbreen 3y ago
Agreed, the style is strikingly crisp and witty in a way I associate with early twentieth century English writers, especially around Oxford/Cambridge (Isaiah Berlin, C. S. Lewis). The title is notably good too. I love how Haldane writes.

arcanemachiner 3y ago

Some also have meme images every page or so. Blegh.

earthboundkid 3y ago

It's very well written, but also it's bullshit. The basic argument is "I, a biologist, know a lot about how animals need to be different sizes, therefore I also know about whether socialism or democracy or whatever is a good idea now." When you write it out like that, it's very clearly a bullshit argument that relies on appeal to authority, but because the essay is well written, it just comes across as logical and commonsense when you read it.

j7ake 3y ago
He did not say whether socialism is better versus democracy. He said human institutions have an optimum size. An institution or system that works at small scale is not guaranteed to work at large. That is not common sense, and in fact many contemporary people believe in scale-free properties of institutions, which have led to catastrophic failures (eg large interconnected banks that all fail together).
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying the whole structure of the argument is bullshit, but it's really good rhetoric, so you don't notice it. The argument is an extended analogy between biological systems and society, and the analogy cannot bear the weight placed on it. In the end, the conclusion he makes might be correct or not, but if it is correct, its correctness is not correlated with the argument he makes for it.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    There is no need to insist in separating ideas about biology from ideas about society. The two are intimately connected. Studying something like political science is really a study of animal behavior.
    - earthboundkid 3y ago
      But he’s not a sociologist. The stuff about animals is stuff he studied. The stuff about society is just him spitballing.
      - pwndByDeath 3y ago
        Maybe sociologists could benefit from a biologist mentor?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

tempaway85751 3y ago

In 1926 if you were privileged enough to get published you could write in an authoritative voice knowing that no-one would challenge you, or if they did it would take many months for any such challenge to appear. Perhaps a letter to a newspaper or something. These days anyone can publish anything at any time and if you write in that authoritative sort of style its just begging for someone to come in and contradict you (you see it in HN comments all the time). Hence people write differently now OR And so I thusly declare that is a most elegant explanation, without possible rebuttal, for why this most elegant authoritative style is so rarely seen in these times.

j7ake 3y ago
It’s 2023, you’re welcome to contradict this article if you wish, if you think this person is wrong. The fact this essay continues to be shared 100 years later suggests that this excellent essay could simply be a result of selection: bad essays don’t get shared and they quickly fade into obscurity.