As probably the person with most to gain from understanding what you think is deplorable about the comment you were replying to (I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are referring to my comment rather than the original post), I regret that it’s not at all clear to me; perhaps my brain just doesn’t work as well as those of “most others”. Perhaps you might like to give me a clue? Even if you’re not sure what you don’t like, you must have some idea.
Navel-gazing introspection about Less Wrong?
Lengthy analysis of something you consider not worth analysing at length?
Something you think I got wrong in that analysis?
Something you don’t like about my comments about the “Sequences”?
A writing style that doesn’t appeal to you?
Something entirely different?
(Responding super-briefly to the first three: I agree that LW has too much navel-gazing and mostly talk about other things; I think thinking clearly about things is a useful skill and worth practising even when the objects available for practising on aren’t the most interesting imaginable; I may have made errors but they aren’t obvious to me. I don’t think I have anything to say about the others without more specific criticism.)
It’s hard to explain, i’ll edit it in later if I think of a good explanation.
It’s just the overly pedantic style complimented by a lovely personality and the passive framing. It has to do with the organizational style as well, maybe a bit too spruced up? Don’t let me get you down though, I didn’t mean it like that.
Well, of course if S.E. is correct that “there are too many posts like the one I’m responding to” then we should expect that other people will like that sort of thing even though s/he doesn’t.
(Unsurprisingly, I think my comment was perfectly OK too. Thanks for the expression of support.)
As probably the person with most to gain from understanding what you think is deplorable about the comment you were replying to (I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you are referring to my comment rather than the original post), I regret that it’s not at all clear to me; perhaps my brain just doesn’t work as well as those of “most others”. Perhaps you might like to give me a clue? Even if you’re not sure what you don’t like, you must have some idea.
Navel-gazing introspection about Less Wrong?
Lengthy analysis of something you consider not worth analysing at length?
Something you think I got wrong in that analysis?
Something you don’t like about my comments about the “Sequences”?
A writing style that doesn’t appeal to you?
Something entirely different?
(Responding super-briefly to the first three: I agree that LW has too much navel-gazing and mostly talk about other things; I think thinking clearly about things is a useful skill and worth practising even when the objects available for practising on aren’t the most interesting imaginable; I may have made errors but they aren’t obvious to me. I don’t think I have anything to say about the others without more specific criticism.)
I thought the comment was good and I don’t have any idea what SanguineEmpiricist was talking about.
It’s hard to explain, i’ll edit it in later if I think of a good explanation.
It’s just the overly pedantic style complimented by a lovely personality and the passive framing. It has to do with the organizational style as well, maybe a bit too spruced up? Don’t let me get you down though, I didn’t mean it like that.
Well, of course if S.E. is correct that “there are too many posts like the one I’m responding to” then we should expect that other people will like that sort of thing even though s/he doesn’t.
(Unsurprisingly, I think my comment was perfectly OK too. Thanks for the expression of support.)