waitingforgodel comments on How Greedy Bastards Have Saved More Lives Than Mother Theresa Ever Did - Less Wrong

14 Post author: waitingforgodel 03 December 2010 06:20AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (24)

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: waitingforgodel 03 December 2010 07:06:39AM 0 points [-]

The idea behind the title is to look interesting enough to read, to a large number of people.

The article's intended readership isn't lesswrong -- see the $100/essay threads for more :)

Comment author: Emile 03 December 2010 09:15:59AM 4 points [-]

The article's intended readership isn't lesswrong -- see the $100/essay threads for more :)

I don't think LessWrongers are the only ones who'll expect Yet Another Rant About How Selfish Entrepreneurial Sprit Does More Good In The World Than Good Intentions ... your post is a bit more original than that.

(I'm a third data point for "expected silly objectivism from the title")

Comment author: waitingforgodel 03 December 2010 10:14:30AM 1 point [-]

"expected silly objectivism from the title" isn't good or bad -- the question is was there a title that would have made more prospects read this....

As long as objectivists also open it... non-objectivists opening it to mock what appears at first glance to be written by a dumb-objectivist is good :p

Comment author: Emile 03 December 2010 11:19:38AM *  5 points [-]

Some people might not even read it (because they assume they already know it's full of ideological drivel saying nothing they haven't heard a dozen times before), or argue against it based on the title and not the contents (which is unfotunately common on the internet).

That being said, I don't mind the essay title that much, I was just chiming in saying "I got that impression too", and somehow found myself arguing for a point I didn't necessarily support in the first place. How did that happen?

A: your title gives impression X!
B: yep, I got impression X too.
C: giving impression X isn't necessarily bad.
B: (has to say something) um, yes it is!

Damn faulty brain. Couldn't it use better criteria for choosing which position to support?

Comment author: sketerpot 05 December 2010 09:08:29PM *  2 points [-]

Some people might not even read it (because they assume they already know it's full of ideological drivel saying nothing they haven't heard a dozen times before), or argue against it based on the title and not the contents (which is unfotunately common on the internet).

I don't dispute that. The real question here is, will the title attract more readers than a more descriptive, less Objectivist-sounding title? I suspect that it will; titles like this are called "linkbait" for a reason.

Comment author: Jack 03 December 2010 08:12:39AM 2 points [-]

The idea behind the title is to look interesting enough to read, to a large number of people.

It does do this but it also primes a lot of people (bleeding heart liberals, in particular) to disagree with what you're about to say.

Comment author: waitingforgodel 03 December 2010 10:17:19AM *  1 point [-]

Fair enough. That's what the subhead/lead story was for (assuming the bleeding heart liberals get unprimed by the saving a life for $600 /// lead-in story).

Better headline & subhead solicited, on the condition it has the same draw

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit