I think you have a good point, but it would be easier to see if you had posted a short sentence explaining what your point is. Please don’t assume that every reader has read all the sequences or has the time to do so (edit: read this one) just to understand your comment.
The idea is that you shouldn’t start your reasoning process from the conclusion, if you want to be rational. For a rational person, conclusion is what they get at the end, after weighing all available evidence, not a starting point.
Specifically, you don’t know whether “rationality would be beneficial for the society”. So you shouldn’t start at this point (the conclusion). What if you are wrong (but there is a selective evidence you could use to support your conclusion anyway)?
I certainly don’t assume that any particular reader has read all the sequences (nor that they should). I don’t think it’s so unreasonable to suggest reading one particular not-so-long post—whose title might give the game away to a sufficiently quick-witted reader without even needing to follow the link.
This is decreasing your work in commenting by increasing the work for some readers. It would be globally more useful to spend one minute on a better comment like the one Viliam_Bur has posted, than having an unknown number of people read the linked article to understand your point.
Your utility function and opinion may differ though, perhaps your intention was not primarily to get a point across but to make people read the article?
My intention was to get a point across. I thought that anyone who read my comment, didn’t find its meaning clear, and was interested enough that they’d have bothered to read a longer and more explicit one would probably also be willing to read the thing I linked to, and that they might find it interesting if they did.
(Being terse plainly hasn’t, in fact, decreased the amount of effort I’ve had to expend.)
I actually read the article due to your post and it was interesting. I agree to your point, just didn’t like the style and I could have been more diplomatic about it.
Please don’t assume that every reader has read all the sequences or has the time to do so just to understand your comment.
A particular post was linked. The implied requirement of having to “read all the sequences” is an extreme distortion of the issue that makes your remark seem more relevant.
You’re right. “Has read a majority of the sequences so that there is a high probability that this specific sequence is among them” would have been more precise.
While it was an exaggeration “extreme distortion” seems like a harsh judgement.
Edit: oh sorry—I i didn’t mean to imply all the sequences are necessary for understanding. I’ll fix the sentence.
I think you have a good point, but it would be easier to see if you had posted a short sentence explaining what your point is. Please don’t assume that every reader has read all the sequences or has the time to do so (edit: read this one) just to understand your comment.
The idea is that you shouldn’t start your reasoning process from the conclusion, if you want to be rational. For a rational person, conclusion is what they get at the end, after weighing all available evidence, not a starting point.
Specifically, you don’t know whether “rationality would be beneficial for the society”. So you shouldn’t start at this point (the conclusion). What if you are wrong (but there is a selective evidence you could use to support your conclusion anyway)?
I certainly don’t assume that any particular reader has read all the sequences (nor that they should). I don’t think it’s so unreasonable to suggest reading one particular not-so-long post—whose title might give the game away to a sufficiently quick-witted reader without even needing to follow the link.
This is decreasing your work in commenting by increasing the work for some readers. It would be globally more useful to spend one minute on a better comment like the one Viliam_Bur has posted, than having an unknown number of people read the linked article to understand your point.
Your utility function and opinion may differ though, perhaps your intention was not primarily to get a point across but to make people read the article?
I’m sorry that you didn’t like my comment.
My intention was to get a point across. I thought that anyone who read my comment, didn’t find its meaning clear, and was interested enough that they’d have bothered to read a longer and more explicit one would probably also be willing to read the thing I linked to, and that they might find it interesting if they did.
(Being terse plainly hasn’t, in fact, decreased the amount of effort I’ve had to expend.)
I actually read the article due to your post and it was interesting. I agree to your point, just didn’t like the style and I could have been more diplomatic about it.
Keep posting. :-)
A particular post was linked. The implied requirement of having to “read all the sequences” is an extreme distortion of the issue that makes your remark seem more relevant.
You’re right. “Has read a majority of the sequences so that there is a high probability that this specific sequence is among them” would have been more precise.
While it was an exaggeration “extreme distortion” seems like a harsh judgement.
Edit: oh sorry—I i didn’t mean to imply all the sequences are necessary for understanding. I’ll fix the sentence.
Having to read the “majority of the sequences” is still an extreme distortion. It’s enough to have a look at the (single) linked post.
Yes I replied too fast to your comment. Already Fixed.