= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Rain comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - 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 (1329)
Of his most recently posted articles: Undiscriminating Skepticism scores at a Flesch-Kincaid grade level 17 and a Gunning Fog index of 17.9, You're Entitled to Arguments is at 16 and 17.8, and Outside View as Conversation Halter is at 14 and 14.5. Note that a score of 15+ is considered academic writing by these measures. Tests of his recently upvoted comments show scores ranging from 7 to 20.
Here's the Flesch-Kincaid calculator I used, and the Gunning Fog calculator. I would be surprised if other measures of readability, and tests of his other posts, did not show it to be academic-level writing.
"Undiscriminating Skepticism" -- why, that's ten (10) syllables right there in the title! My head is already spinning!
Seriously: tests like those do not control for the content or subject matter of the writing. There exists, furthermore, a significant subset of the (adult!) human population who would consider a phrase like "undiscriminating skepticism" itself to be difficult and unusually abstract. Needless to say, tests which heavily weight the judgements of such people are not very useful for the purpose of judging "readability" in most contexts here.
If you want to judge the readability of LW posts, I suggest spending some time reading typical articles published in academic journals.
And yet I find his writing a model of clarity here, despite a few randomly chosen articles by other people having a far lower Fog Index. How useful are these indices? On the Gunning Fog page it says "The higher the Fog Index the trickier it is to read." But the Wiki pages for these tests reference no empirical studies.
I find his writing to be very readable as well. However, I consider myself highly educated, with excellent English skills, and I have been following his writing for some years now.
I was deferring to experts in the field of readability, and considered it likely that they would provide a better measure than self-reports of "looks fine to me."
Further, it seems likely to me that Eliezer is very good at targeting his audience and maintaining interest despite the complexity of his prose. Academic doesn't mean "boring" by necessity. One of the references from the Gunning Fog page states:
And yes, I do realize that this criticism can be applied to my own use of the tool, but point out that the measure directly supports my initial statement: "Use longer sentences and bigger words," with the caveat that you should also be a good writer, to ensure the complexity doesn't hinder the message. Or I could add, only do this if you can get away with it (still be a successful communicator).
I'd also like to point out that this feels like a good example of the dojo-style response to my clumsy use of a single word: academic.