Vaniver comments on 2012: Year in Review - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
I enjoyed the post, but I'm confused by the first paragraph. Does it add to the post to have an explicit justification?
I observe that some people benefit from short introductions to get their consciousness (or stream-of-consciousness or whatever) into the right place within their own mental space and be able to run and process what they're reading at a better pace.
For some subjects this is certainly the case for me - for instance, formal mathematics seems to be in a relatively separate mental / memory cluster in my mind that is rather far from other clusters, and takes a bit more priming for me to get into, while other people seem to comparatively be instantly "there" and understand what is going on even when you spring mathematical equations at the edge of their understanding on them while they were wondering what socks to wear.
So I don't feel that it adds to the post's content, but I feel that it is still potentially useful for some readers in order to better absorb and more easily process said content.
Probably not, but I felt that it needed some introduction. And I'm bad at writing introductions.
Hardly; you already wrote a fine introduction:
Then add on something like "Here are some particularly noteworthy things that happened in 2012:"
Only on less wrong is a new years retrospective justified using game theory ;)
I chuckled slightly at the "schelling point" line and thought the introduction was fine.