= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Outside Analysis and Blind Spots - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
Ajay, there is no such blog; re-read the part directly after the cut. I took an excerpt from a Less Wrong post, changed it to the third person, and invented a plausible outside source for it, in order to make a point about our reactions to outside criticism versus critiques from within the group.
The linked post was, of course, quite interesting in its own right, if you want to look through that thread.
yes, i am stumped!! the thing is clear from one of the comments. actually i was a bit sleepy (still am) and skimmed thru it, and missed the part after the cut. Fantastic post though.
I have a question: I am a real beginner here in this forum. Although i read a lot, the language used by you and many others in this forum is very high quality. The sentences are huge, which have to be re-read sometimes to understand what is being said. Although i know i will feel more comfortable with time, is it really simple english that is used in this forum? simple is relative, but lets say, is the english used here simple when compared with english used in most of the "standard" philosophy books or sites? i hope i am able to put across my point!!!
I'd say that most of the writing here is much simpler than most academic philosophy, although some writers (including me) are fond of convoluted sentences now and then. Keep in mind also that English is a second language for many of the other contributors as well...
Also, welcome to Less Wrong! If you haven't yet visited the welcome thread, you should click over and say a bit about yourself.
I would expect the writing here to be more difficult for a reader for whom English is a second language than the writing in the average philosophy book because the writing here is closer to informal spoken language.
Good question! We do have a lot of participants from not-primarily-English-speaking-countries, so perhaps one of them would be able to answer this better. However, this forum is filled with a higher-than-average number of quirky intellectuals, and we do love our jargon. Also, to seem more expert and smart, we even throw in technical jargon from our own respective fields! Okay, so there are actually good reasons for that other than showing off. But yes, I'd imagine the English here is very difficult as compared to even other smarty-pants forums on the web.
I got confused, too. I think I interpreted it to mean that the Kass acolyte was criticizing KS, but you hadn't included the quote; so I stopped reading and started scanning for a link to the source.
I would have found it easier if you had inserted "Actually," before "The quote is a..."
Do lots of articles play games with the cut? It probably would have been clearer to me if I'd read it with the cut. Maybe you could imitate the effect with an HR tag?
OK, good point— I've edited to make it much less ambiguous. I recall another article or two playing with deceit above the cut, and then revealing the trick below, but it's difficult to find them.