4 ms·

There is no need to read this article. These are clearly the words of a madman: "No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt ar

There is no need to read this article. These are clearly the words of a madman: "No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same."

lethain 18y ago
He's basing that statement on a study performed on a number of runners which tried to identify factors that would make someone likely to have an injury over a year, and the only one that was statistically significant was price of running shoe. Certainly one study doesn't provide a definitive answer, but decrying the article because he is inconsistent with common sense, which is he is explicitly saying is wrong, seems a bit unfair.
- pingswept 18y ago
  No. The sentence I quoted is in the 8th paragraph, above the first photo in the article. The part you're mentioning is in the addendum, "Painful Truth No 1." I stand by my claim. It is ridiculous to say that we all have the same chance of getting hurt, which is what he says. He also says much later and in an unrelated part of the article that, as you note, you're more likely to get hurt in expensive shoes than cheap ones, according to one study. There is no mention of "Remember that stuff I said at the beginning-- that was wrong." Maybe "madman" is going too far-- perhaps "inconsistent and unreasonable person" would be more accurate.
  - gregwebs 18y ago
    "inconsistent and unreasonable person", like "madman" is still stating your disagreement at the lowest intellectual levels. See http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html You need to remove the personal attack ("person") and just point out that the ideas are inconsistent. Refuting one sentence is useful, but does not refute the central point.
    - pingswept 18y ago
      I agree that I am stating my argument at a relatively low intellectual level (but maybe not "the lowest"), and I also agree with you and PG that in general we ought to avoid personal attacks as a form of disagreement. However, I think you've mistaken my intent. I don't agree or disagree with the article. Honestly, I have only skimmed the article, and I don't plan to read it carefully, because I am convinced that the writing is sloppy, and that makes the article, in my judgment, not worth reading. I would presume you feel differently. I had hoped to spare fellow readers the disappointment that I experienced, clicking on the article, hoping to find insightful commentary on running shoes, but instead finding writing that appeared to me to be unexceptional. It certainly seems this has been ineffective. I don't know; maybe you all loved the article, and I'm the one missing out. I'll stick with the heuristic of "Articles that lead with unreasonable claims are not worth finishing."
      - gregwebs 18y ago
        The article is really sloppy and poorly explains the underlying ideas. Perhaps I should have down-voted it and posted a link to good information.
        pingswept 18y ago
        Hell yes, my good man!
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

There is no need to read this article. These are clearly the words of a madman: "No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same."

lethain 18y ago

He's basing that statement on a study performed on a number of runners which tried to identify factors that would make someone likely to have an injury over a year, and the only one that was statistically significant was price of running shoe. Certainly one study doesn't provide a definitive answer, but decrying the article because he is inconsistent with common sense, which is he is explicitly saying is wrong, seems a bit unfair.

pingswept 18y ago
No. The sentence I quoted is in the 8th paragraph, above the first photo in the article. The part you're mentioning is in the addendum, "Painful Truth No 1." I stand by my claim. It is ridiculous to say that we all have the same chance of getting hurt, which is what he says. He also says much later and in an unrelated part of the article that, as you note, you're more likely to get hurt in expensive shoes than cheap ones, according to one study. There is no mention of "Remember that stuff I said at the beginning-- that was wrong." Maybe "madman" is going too far-- perhaps "inconsistent and unreasonable person" would be more accurate.
- gregwebs 18y ago
  "inconsistent and unreasonable person", like "madman" is still stating your disagreement at the lowest intellectual levels. See http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html You need to remove the personal attack ("person") and just point out that the ideas are inconsistent. Refuting one sentence is useful, but does not refute the central point.
  - pingswept 18y ago
    I agree that I am stating my argument at a relatively low intellectual level (but maybe not "the lowest"), and I also agree with you and PG that in general we ought to avoid personal attacks as a form of disagreement. However, I think you've mistaken my intent. I don't agree or disagree with the article. Honestly, I have only skimmed the article, and I don't plan to read it carefully, because I am convinced that the writing is sloppy, and that makes the article, in my judgment, not worth reading. I would presume you feel differently. I had hoped to spare fellow readers the disappointment that I experienced, clicking on the article, hoping to find insightful commentary on running shoes, but instead finding writing that appeared to me to be unexceptional. It certainly seems this has been ineffective. I don't know; maybe you all loved the article, and I'm the one missing out. I'll stick with the heuristic of "Articles that lead with unreasonable claims are not worth finishing."
    - gregwebs 18y ago
      The article is really sloppy and poorly explains the underlying ideas. Perhaps I should have down-voted it and posted a link to good information.
      - pingswept 18y ago
        Hell yes, my good man!
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]