4 ms·

My experience of the book was similar: the first third was great. Great idea, brilliantly executed. Definitely worth it for the first third alone. In a way, ma

by kranner 7mo ago

My experience of the book was similar: the first third was great. Great idea, brilliantly executed. Definitely worth it for the first third alone. In a way, maybe it going off-piste is coherent with the idea of the first third. I'm sure this was not the author's intent, but fun from an ironic perspective.

glenstein 7mo ago
It certainly invites that level of meta-commentary on its own structure, though I agree it's inadvertent. And I know at some point someone is going invoke that point in full sincerity as if its an answer, and whatever that is, the satisfied meta-commentary that makes too much of irony as if its a sincere insight, I feel like is just looming as a possible and frustratingly shallow justification of the book. There's an interesting question there of the scales of abstraction at which anti-memes could function, and that's fascinating but as you noted in this instance not necessarily intentional. It makes me think of the movie Doubt, where I remember being sincerely confused as to the central accusation at the center of the movie (though retrospectively its obvious and I knew it was at least one possibility but I wasn't sure if there was perhaps a different interpretation), and was told that not being sure was the point and by expecting an answer I was missing the point since the whole movie is about "doubt". I felt this explanation was, frankly, just stupid. Just because you're going meta doesn't mean any point coherently registered in the form of meta-analysis is insightful. But anyway, I'm off the rails a bit now going after imaginary adversaries, but agree with everything you've said.
- kranner 7mo ago
  That was very well articulated. I'm going to hold on to your point about trivial meta-analyses masquerading as serious ones, sadly a very common type of gotcha in tech-aligned circles.
  - glenstein 7mo ago
    Thanks! I was mostly building off of your point I think. You have to imagine there's a short term or phrase for this. The overestimation of the value of going meta, or treating the move of going meta like it's a skeleton key when it's actually frivolous.

by kranner 7mo ago

glenstein 7mo ago

It certainly invites that level of meta-commentary on its own structure, though I agree it's inadvertent. And I know at some point someone is going invoke that point in full sincerity as if its an answer, and whatever that is, the satisfied meta-commentary that makes too much of irony as if its a sincere insight, I feel like is just looming as a possible and frustratingly shallow justification of the book. There's an interesting question there of the scales of abstraction at which anti-memes could function, and that's fascinating but as you noted in this instance not necessarily intentional. It makes me think of the movie Doubt, where I remember being sincerely confused as to the central accusation at the center of the movie (though retrospectively its obvious and I knew it was at least one possibility but I wasn't sure if there was perhaps a different interpretation), and was told that not being sure was the point and by expecting an answer I was missing the point since the whole movie is about "doubt". I felt this explanation was, frankly, just stupid. Just because you're going meta doesn't mean any point coherently registered in the form of meta-analysis is insightful. But anyway, I'm off the rails a bit now going after imaginary adversaries, but agree with everything you've said.

kranner 7mo ago
That was very well articulated. I'm going to hold on to your point about trivial meta-analyses masquerading as serious ones, sadly a very common type of gotcha in tech-aligned circles.
- glenstein 7mo ago
  Thanks! I was mostly building off of your point I think. You have to imagine there's a short term or phrase for this. The overestimation of the value of going meta, or treating the move of going meta like it's a skeleton key when it's actually frivolous.