I hadn’t expected you to disagree with that tweet, so I’m clearly getting something wrong. I wrote that in the hope that it would encourage people to read the Sequences, not put them off—I think people imagine it as this million-word work of revelation, but a very large part of what it is is a work of popular science—turning people on to good existing ideas in psychology and philosophy and biology and physics and suchlike. There is a great deal that is original and valuable in there, but I don’t think of it as the majority of the material.
Except on Wikipedia (where it’s usually an euphemism for ‘crackpottish’). ;-)
(As someone on a Wikipedia talk page once said—quoting from memory, “if we aren’t allowed to [do X] the allowed band between original research and plagiarism becomes dangerously narrow”.)
Right, but I had hoped that the result would be that someone would follow the link in the tweet, after which they find out some things that may cause them to feel more positively.
So, yeah, I don’t think you’d encourage anyone to read anything by calling it “not original”.
I don’t know anything about the friends ciphergoth is attempting to reach, but I observe that in religion, “original” would be the greater turn-off. In religion, every innovation is heretical, because it is an innovation. To be accepted it must be presented as “not original”, either because it is exactly in accordance with official doctrine, or because it is a return to the true religion that the official doctrine has departed from. It is rare for a religion to successfully introduce a new prophet with the power to sweep away the old, and even then (“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”) the pretence is maintained that no such thing has happened.
Someone who doesn’t want to read science-y stuff because they have that kind of mindset is not going to suddenly become curious when someone tells them it’s based on science-y stuff from less than 30 years ago.
I like to think of it temporally; that religion is much like rationalists facing the wrong direction. Both occasionally look over their shoulders to confirm their beliefs (although with theists it’s more like throwing a homunculus into the distant past and using that for eyes), while most of the time the things we really care about and find exciting are in front of us. Original vs unoriginal with respect to modern thought is of no practical interest to someone with the “every innovation is heretical” mindset unless it is completely within their usual line of sight—heretical is code for “I don’t want to keep looking over my shoulder”, not “I hate the original on principle”. So unless you put that “original” encouragement thousands of years ago where they can see it, where it’s a matter of one in front and one behind, the distinction between which is the greater turn-off is not going to matter, or bait anyone into turning around—there is nothing in their usually observed world to relate it to.
Thinking about it further though, this makes something of a nonsense of the original tweet, since it’s hard to think what would count as “mostly original” by this standard. You might as well describe eg The Better Angels of Our Nature as “mostly not original” since it contains no original research but presents a synthesis of the research of others, building up to a common theme.
The problem I have is that if I say something that sounds positive about the Sequences, that’s going to turn my friends off, since they already know I think well of them. By saying something that on first reading sounds negative, I might get their interest, but that only works if they go on to follow the link.
The problem I have is that if I say something that sounds positive about the Sequences, that’s going to turn my friends off, since they already know I think well of them.
For example, they may be turned off if you came out and said “The sequences really aren’t the parochial ramblings of an intellectual outcast, they are totally in accord with mainstream scientific thinking”. But “mostly not original” conveys much of the same message by making a concession to the orthodoxy.
The problem I have is that if I say something that sounds positive about the Sequences, that’s going to turn my friends off, since they already know I think well of them.
I do not understand this. What planet are your friends from? If you’re tweeting to your friends, and they already know what you think of the Sequences, why are you tweeting about them to them?
They are from Earth. Because it would be great for me and for the world if more of my friends took an interest in this sort of thing, and if they have misconceptions that stand in the way of that I’d like to clear up those misconceptions.
Because it would be great for me and for the world if more of my friends took an interest in this sort of thing, and if they have misconceptions that stand in the way of that I’d like to clear up those misconceptions.
I understand the goal; but not the action taken to achieve it. Negging the Sequences will get them to take more of an interest?
I hadn’t expected you to disagree with that tweet, so I’m clearly getting something wrong. I wrote that in the hope that it would encourage people to read the Sequences, not put them off—I think people imagine it as this million-word work of revelation, but a very large part of what it is is a work of popular science—turning people on to good existing ideas in psychology and philosophy and biology and physics and suchlike. There is a great deal that is original and valuable in there, but I don’t think of it as the majority of the material.
I get your point, but to lots of people the wording of that tweet would have the connotation ‘EY is a plagiarist’, not ‘EY is not a crackpot’.
Yes, this.
The word “original” has positive connotations. And therefore the words “unoriginal” or “not original” have negative connotations.
So, yeah, I don’t think you’d encourage anyone to read anything by calling it “not original”.
Except on Wikipedia (where it’s usually an euphemism for ‘crackpottish’). ;-)
(As someone on a Wikipedia talk page once said—quoting from memory, “if we aren’t allowed to [do X] the allowed band between original research and plagiarism becomes dangerously narrow”.)
Right, but I had hoped that the result would be that someone would follow the link in the tweet, after which they find out some things that may cause them to feel more positively.
I don’t know anything about the friends ciphergoth is attempting to reach, but I observe that in religion, “original” would be the greater turn-off. In religion, every innovation is heretical, because it is an innovation. To be accepted it must be presented as “not original”, either because it is exactly in accordance with official doctrine, or because it is a return to the true religion that the official doctrine has departed from. It is rare for a religion to successfully introduce a new prophet with the power to sweep away the old, and even then (“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”) the pretence is maintained that no such thing has happened.
Someone who doesn’t want to read science-y stuff because they have that kind of mindset is not going to suddenly become curious when someone tells them it’s based on science-y stuff from less than 30 years ago.
I like to think of it temporally; that religion is much like rationalists facing the wrong direction. Both occasionally look over their shoulders to confirm their beliefs (although with theists it’s more like throwing a homunculus into the distant past and using that for eyes), while most of the time the things we really care about and find exciting are in front of us. Original vs unoriginal with respect to modern thought is of no practical interest to someone with the “every innovation is heretical” mindset unless it is completely within their usual line of sight—heretical is code for “I don’t want to keep looking over my shoulder”, not “I hate the original on principle”. So unless you put that “original” encouragement thousands of years ago where they can see it, where it’s a matter of one in front and one behind, the distinction between which is the greater turn-off is not going to matter, or bait anyone into turning around—there is nothing in their usually observed world to relate it to.
Thinking about it further though, this makes something of a nonsense of the original tweet, since it’s hard to think what would count as “mostly original” by this standard. You might as well describe eg The Better Angels of Our Nature as “mostly not original” since it contains no original research but presents a synthesis of the research of others, building up to a common theme.
The problem I have is that if I say something that sounds positive about the Sequences, that’s going to turn my friends off, since they already know I think well of them. By saying something that on first reading sounds negative, I might get their interest, but that only works if they go on to follow the link.
For example, they may be turned off if you came out and said “The sequences really aren’t the parochial ramblings of an intellectual outcast, they are totally in accord with mainstream scientific thinking”. But “mostly not original” conveys much of the same message by making a concession to the orthodoxy.
I do not understand this. What planet are your friends from? If you’re tweeting to your friends, and they already know what you think of the Sequences, why are you tweeting about them to them?
They are from Earth. Because it would be great for me and for the world if more of my friends took an interest in this sort of thing, and if they have misconceptions that stand in the way of that I’d like to clear up those misconceptions.
I understand the goal; but not the action taken to achieve it. Negging the Sequences will get them to take more of an interest?