I’m going to comment on the presentation (I have no objection to the ideas):
This piece pleased me immensely in the beginning. The “F” grade anecdote was perfect and actually enraged me upon later reflection. In spite of that, I don’t feel the persuasion was manipulative.
The reiteration of the linked ideas was good. I especially liked the story of the irrational gambler who could be used as money pump.
The material up to and including the Greene dilemma was good.
Following that, however, is a painfully verbose recapitulation of the opening “I’ve always felt a bit nervous about demanding that people be able to explain things in words, because, while I happen to be pretty good at that, most people aren’t.”.
Then we have some clever self-hedging (“shared moral beliefs might suggest an underlying reason, even if there’s no satisfactory exposition”, “but even unreasonable beliefs sometimes get a seemingly-convincing apology!”) that looks like preparation for a debate. Why not let your readers have those thoughts on their own? They just serve to annoy those who are capable of having them, and confuse those who aren’t. There’s no need to claim priority on such thoughts; let them arise in the comments (post them yourself, even).
Or, in other words, considerations that occurred to you, but don’t substantially change the final judgment, can often be omitted or relegated to a comment/footnote.
Finally, the rules. I agree with them. I think it’s okay to be as verbose as you are, because there’s real danger in having people blindly follow if you’re unclear. The arguments for them have already been made (or are obvious). I didn’t feel a need to read past the first sentence of each rule, but it’s good that detail is there.
The final rule is more hedging like I already complained about. I guess you imagine some of your readers as automatons or idiots :) Or, more likely, you’re preparing yourself for expected objections.
I think it’s good that you consider the consequences of your ideas, possible misunderstanding of them, and have rebuttals in advance.
I’d like to propose a new form for you:
First, all the great stuff. Really original ideas without repetition, plus particularly clever demonstrations or evocative examples/problems. All the formalization, you have, too. Essentially, everything that would inform and please a not-obnoxious and competent person who has no fundamental disconnect from you.
A separator to be understood as “you can stop now if you understood everything and are impatient”.
Now, all the stuff I complained about earlier. Some kind of linking or numbering might be necessary to get the same context as the usual inline form.
Maybe that’s too much work. But as a reader, I often find that the required investment to be off-putting. If you don’t want “skim and then socialize in the comments” happening, it might be worth the effort, though. (I do think most comments by regulars indicate that they really read the article they comment on).
I’m going to comment on the presentation (I have no objection to the ideas):
This piece pleased me immensely in the beginning. The “F” grade anecdote was perfect and actually enraged me upon later reflection. In spite of that, I don’t feel the persuasion was manipulative.
The reiteration of the linked ideas was good. I especially liked the story of the irrational gambler who could be used as money pump.
The material up to and including the Greene dilemma was good.
Following that, however, is a painfully verbose recapitulation of the opening “I’ve always felt a bit nervous about demanding that people be able to explain things in words, because, while I happen to be pretty good at that, most people aren’t.”.
Then we have some clever self-hedging (“shared moral beliefs might suggest an underlying reason, even if there’s no satisfactory exposition”, “but even unreasonable beliefs sometimes get a seemingly-convincing apology!”) that looks like preparation for a debate. Why not let your readers have those thoughts on their own? They just serve to annoy those who are capable of having them, and confuse those who aren’t. There’s no need to claim priority on such thoughts; let them arise in the comments (post them yourself, even).
Or, in other words, considerations that occurred to you, but don’t substantially change the final judgment, can often be omitted or relegated to a comment/footnote.
Finally, the rules. I agree with them. I think it’s okay to be as verbose as you are, because there’s real danger in having people blindly follow if you’re unclear. The arguments for them have already been made (or are obvious). I didn’t feel a need to read past the first sentence of each rule, but it’s good that detail is there.
The final rule is more hedging like I already complained about. I guess you imagine some of your readers as automatons or idiots :) Or, more likely, you’re preparing yourself for expected objections.
I think it’s good that you consider the consequences of your ideas, possible misunderstanding of them, and have rebuttals in advance.
I’d like to propose a new form for you:
First, all the great stuff. Really original ideas without repetition, plus particularly clever demonstrations or evocative examples/problems. All the formalization, you have, too. Essentially, everything that would inform and please a not-obnoxious and competent person who has no fundamental disconnect from you.
A separator to be understood as “you can stop now if you understood everything and are impatient”.
Now, all the stuff I complained about earlier. Some kind of linking or numbering might be necessary to get the same context as the usual inline form.
Maybe that’s too much work. But as a reader, I often find that the required investment to be off-putting. If you don’t want “skim and then socialize in the comments” happening, it might be worth the effort, though. (I do think most comments by regulars indicate that they really read the article they comment on).