= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Rhetoric for the Good - 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 (289)
MWI, Aumann's Agreement Theorem, Great Filter concerns for existential risk, anthropic arguments in general, Bayes's Theorem in the non-finite case. But even these are not in general high priority issues for rationality. I think it is fair to say that most of the important ideas can have bumpersticker size statements. But, the level of unpacking may be so large from the bumpersticker forms that they only reason the bumpersticker form seems to do anything useful is just illusion of transparency.
Think of it as an enticing slogan, then. Or a tagline. Something to lure the lure-able. People read 600-page books based on back-cover blurbs, and they do so on a whim, at an airport.
If you want the "back cover blurb" for a 600-page book, that's an entirely sensible request... but it seems weird to criticize a 600-page book on the grounds that it isn't as accessible as a back-cover blurb. Back-cover blurbs can exist in addition to the books; they needn't be instead of.
Right. I'm only criticizing the quality of the blurb. I'm not suggesting scientific papers adopt a different editorial standard... although I'd be completely psyched if they did.
EDIT: If LW could convince a million people only to remember that their brains frequently mess up and then try to cover their own tracks, that would be a gigantic victory.
Agreed.
What I challenge is the idea that most posts/comments here ought to make good cover blurbs.
If I need a cover blurb, it seems more productive to say "Hey, I need a cover blurb, any recommendations?" than to point to arbitrary contributions and say "This isn't a very good cover blurb."
My turn to agree. What can I say, I got emotional when it seemed to me like everyone chose to nitpick Luke's advice rather than heed it.
My question remains: can LW produce Blurb Ninjas?
Cool; glad we got that cleared up.
As for Blurb Ninjas... see comment elsewhere for my thoughts on how to encourage that.
Ok. If they are that large, say a one paragraph blurb, then I really don't think there's anything generally discussed here that could not if carefully phrased get the primary points across if someone is willing to read the paragraph and then actually think about it.
Then it's just a matter of getting them into the public consciousness somehow.