= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on [Link] Salon piece analyzing Donald Trump's appeal using rationality - 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 (65)
I start twitching when emphatic statements are made about the motivations of large numbers of people. How can you check on whether you're right?
This being said, Sanders is also appealing to anger and fear, and both candidates are also appealing to hope.
Gleb's article is about as rigorous as a (non-famous) academic author can be to still get published in the popular press.
Um, no, unless your definition of "popular press" excludes things like the New York Times and the like. A random sprinkling of buzzwords is not rigor.
Would he be allowed to add a link or two for people who want more background?
I actually had to struggle to get them to put in as many links as they allowed. They wanted links to Salon pieces, while I kept insisting on making more links to academic pieces. It's always a trade-off when going to a popular source like Salon, and James is right, it is about as rigorous as one can get in a venue like Salon. These are the trade-offs that are required if one chooses to spread rationality broadly.
Editors often remove links and usually don't like there being too many.