After skimming through the linked article I am quite confused by its author's bizarre writing style. And almost complete lack of order among its many conclusions and assumptions (hard to tell them apart). Isn't there a clear way to state the same thing without forcing the reader to wade through silly dialogues and pointless digressions?
It's his standard writing style. It's not to everyone's taste, but I find it captivating. It creates a sort of mental soundscape that other ideas can echo off of.
Also, he makes the assumption that you've read other stuff by him, which creates a decent sized inferential distance. This alllows him to cover more material per post. This is a pretty common trope among blogs, including this one. But it can be confusing.
I tend to just ride the wave of confusion until something later clarifies it, but that makes skimming nearly impossible. I like styles that make me read every word as important as it helps me remember what I'm reading.
Also, he makes the assumption that you've read other stuff by him, which creates a decent sized inferential distance.
A style altogether unfamiliar to LessWrong, I assure you.
I followed the link, and wow that was a bad article. After sampling some of the structureless, self-indulgent writing, I realized I've actually read a few posts from him before. My personal favorite is this, where he takes a break from rambling about some internet celebrity to explain that we are all sheeple for not turning widescreen monitors sideways.
But what makes The Last Psychiatrist really awful is that he pretends to be wise. One very easy way to establish oneself as Wise and Profound is to baldly make some seemingly self-contradictory or obviously false statement. It's important not to actually argue for this claim, simply make it, and sneer at anyone who disagrees. A great example:
What you don't understand consciously is that your judgment of risk is based on the fact that you believe in God, and this is even more true if you think you don't believe in God. I can sense your resistance to this idea because you think you don't believe in God, but sadly for your immortal soul, you do.
Heh, you think you don't believe in god? Think again, sheeple! The Last Psychiatrist doesn't need evidence, he just makes reality up as he goes.
For what it's worth, The Last Psychiatrist used to be interesting, but then he started ranting about how everyone (else) is a narcissist without giving any clue about what a non-narcissistic approach to life would be like.
For what it's worth, The Last Psychiatrist used to be interesting, but then he started ranting about how everyone (else) is a narcissist without giving any clue about what a non-narcissistic approach to life would be like.
Replace "narcissist" with "hypocrite" and that's a good description of Robin Hanson.
Which raises the question - if Hanson turns out to be massively hypocritical on something, does that undermine or support his whole Homo hypocritus paradigm?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hanson's whole point that everyone is naturally hypocritical, and has been made that way via millions of years of evolution optimized to handle social politics in small forager bands? Wouldn't a "non-[hypocritical] approach to life" be something that Hanson's theory would predict wouldn't exist?
sheeple for not turning widescreen monitors sideways
Why on Earth would I want to do that? By keeping it horizontal I can see two pages of the book I'm reading at once, as I would if I was reading a printed copy!
I've noticed a lot of older users tend to have only one application maximized on their screens. I suspect that's because they got used to using computers when displays were smaller and it was impractical to keep more than one application open on the desktop. These days displays are huge and cheap, so most people use them with the originally intended "desktop metaphor". Like widescreen monitors, desks are typically wide rectangles, that let you view multiple documents/applications at a time.
I'm having trouble parsing this:
It definitely articulates some of the frustrations I've had with people breaking out some people who break out in a rash of Libertarianism over one (on the surface) silly law being passed and reported on and then not
Alone points out that humans create institutions to make their environment safer, and then offload their own responsibilities onto these institutions. He accuses us all of shirking our Heroic Responsibility. I’m not sure this is fair. An individual human can only do so much. I’ve avoided vulnerability to a somewhat silly degree in the past (avoiding caring for others or owning much more than I can carry at a dead run… caring for too much makes you vulnerable). Turns out too much independence can be far more harmful than not enough, because individual humans are weak and small, and we can do things of Power only by combining our efforts. To do something noteworthy, we much focus on our specialty and trust others to do focus on theirs. To create a strong meta-individual, we cannot all be completely responsible for everything – we need some specialists in responsibility as well. Not every cell in the human body can fight off hostile invaders, most of them have other vital tasks.
Oh, I agree, at least to a certain extent. Don't be so green and blue. We really are shirking responsibility. If your morality has responsiblity as the highest virtue, than it might be bad to have a nanny state, but there a serious advantages to having one, such as, as you point out, specialization.
The libertarian in me says it'd be ideal to have a third party, like an advocacy group, or a religion or whatever, taking that responsibility for those who need it while the government did the minimum against fraud and such. But as long as people don't realize they're Beyond the Reach of God, that's going to have problem of it's own.
This article is very much in the same vein as the discussion about Heroic Responsibility So good!
Thanks for this, I haven't read Last Psychiatrist in a while, it was nice to be reminded of it again.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html
Saw this and I thought it went so well with Beyond the Reach of God and Blue and Green on Regulation that I just had to post it here. It definitely articulates some of the frustrations I've had with people who break out in a rash of Libertarianism over one (on the surface) silly law being passed and reported on and then not:
A. Using the Principle of Charity to see what the opponent is really about. Even if it's silly, it shouldn't be *that* silly. See Policy Debates Should Not Appear to be One Sided.
B. Considering how it applies in the larger context. You should be free to buy big sodas but not [insert literally anything the government regulates here, which is a ton of stuff]. Why is this sillier than the other thing? See anything Less Wrong has written about the absurdity heuristic.
C. Thinking about your source of information, noting the feeling it's giving you, why it's giving you that feeling. Then realizing that it was specifically designed to give that feeling. If they did this, then dropping the line of thought or, deciding that they're so much smarter than the people in charge. *And then forgetting that the fact that they feel that was part of the plan of those who reported it, too.* Seriously, The Last Psychiatrist is great for that stuff.