I'm referring to encoding in several different languages, which makes it progressively more implausible that choice of language matters.

I agree that's not a perfect solution, but it's good enough for me.

That's a fully general argument against criticizing anything without having read all of it, though. And there are some things you can fairly dismiss without having read all of. For instance, I don't have to read every page on the Time Cube site to dismiss it as crazy, stupid, pathologically arrogant, and so on.

have most of the people here

http://lesswrong.com/lw/8p4/2011_survey_results/

89 people (8.2%) have never looked at the Sequences; a further 234 (32.5%) have only given them a quick glance. 170 people have read about 25% of the sequences, 169 (15.5%) about 50%, 167 (15.3%) about 75%, and 253 people (23.2%) said they've read almost all of them. This last number is actually lower than the 302 people who have been here since the Overcoming Bias days when the Sequences were still being written (27.7% of us).

• 23% for 'almost all'
• 39% have read > three-quarters
• 54% have read > half

In addition, there are places in the Sequences where Eliezer just states things as though he's dispensing wisdom from on high, without bothering to state any evidence or reasoning. His writing is still entertaining, of course, but still less than persuasive.

They are a bit rambly in places, but they're entertaining and interesting.

I also found this to be true.

as have most of the people here.

I'm pretty sure the 2011 survey puts this claim to the test, but I don't have the time to look it up.

You know, the sequences aren't actually poorly written. I've read them all, as have most of the people here. They are a bit rambly in places, but they're entertaining and interesting. If you're having trouble with them, the problem might be on your end.

The problem is partly on my end, for sure; obviously, I find rambling intolerable in Internet writing, and I find it in great abundance in the sequences. You're more tolerant of rambling, and you're entertained by Yudkowsky's. I also think he demonstrates mediocre literary skills when it comes to performances like varying his sentence structure. I don't know what you think of that. My guess is you don't much care; maybe it's a generational thing.

I'm intrigued by what enjoyment readers here get from Yudkowsky's sequences. Why do you all find interesting what I find amateurish and inept? Do we have vastly different tastes or standards, or both? Maybe it is the very prolixity that makes the writing appealing in founding a movement with religious overtones. Reading Yudkowsky is an experience comparable to reading the Bible.

As a side issue, I'm dismayed upon finding that ideas I had thought original to Yudkowsky were secondhand.

Of course I understand simplicity doesn't pertain to simplicity in English! (Or in any natural language.) I don't think you understand the language-relativity issue.