= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
adamzerner comments on Typical Sneer Fallacy - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (44)
Nitpick-y point/question, but regarding:
My impression is that (c) only makes sense for things that are sufficiently bad. I'm imagining the people who watch bad movies because they enjoy laughing at and correcting the badness. But I don't recall people consuming a work that is mostly very good with the intention of finding the bad parts of it. And so with that prior, I doubt that su3su2u1 decided to read HPMOR to dissect it for its bad parts.
But I'm not sure. Maybe sophisticated people see this as a puzzle/challenge. To take something that is already really good and make it better is a task that really requires you to think and to have a deep understanding of the field.
"Bad" is an aesthetic judgement. Different people have vastly different aesthetic tastes. HPMOR is a particularly polarizing example.
True. So I guess what I mean is "things that the viewer thinks is sufficiently bad". Ie. my impression is that a (c) kind of person would enjoy doing this sort of criticism for something they think is sufficiently bad. They wouldn't enjoy doing this sort of criticism for something they thought was mostly good.
Gotcha, I thought you were making a different point.