Once you decide that you believe what you believe because you are very smart and almost always believe true things, and the things you believe just happen to be the true ones (I am being unfair but I think this is the psychological effect of this so-called rationalism) it's not a big leap to: everything I have to say is worth hearing.
A big part is that the rationalist community has little respect for traditional philosophical arguments. Consequently they don’t really understand how to make an argument, in the sense of a formal logical framework that can be summarized and critiqued.<p>Instead they seem to take one premise and just run with it, and tens of thousands of words later, they think they’ve made some profound point.<p>I’d say that 99% of the rationalist essays I’ve read wouldn’t be given passing grades in an academic philosophy class on the topic.
Academic philosophical arguments are enormously wordy. A bulk of points academic papers try to convey could be cut dramatically short, but then passing peer review would be challenging. Authors are thus incentivized to signal erudition through hard (analytic) or soft (continental) obscurantism.<p>This may not be the case for historical philosophical arguments. And while these are enormously influential from the standpoint of history of ideas, from the standpoint of a contemporary observer most of them contain trivial logical mistakes.<p>t. majored in philosophy
Agree with the author. Most rationalist material I've tried to read it's incredibly lengthy and frequently boring. It's also true that they are using verbosity and a certain academic style to hide the lack of precision and correctness. They are prolific writers, but not great.
It reminds me a bit of elaborate theological arguments that build up in denominational seminaries. The authors just have an obsessive compulsion to catalogue and resolve every minute detail, details that only really matter if you've already accepted many other dubious and compounding premises. IE, the articles are really for existing converts.
Ironically very similar to LLM output.
lol, Jordan Peterson comes to mind
When I think of rationalist blog posts, I think LessWrong and ACX. There is probably more to know. Across 46,000 posts on LW the average word length is 1,300 words as of May 2026. That doesn't seem too bad.<p>Regarding the varying degree of quality I wanted to note that this is a public forum where anyone is allowed to create an account and post public articles. Anyone is allowed to call themselves a "rationalist" if they want to. I wonder if most who read articles there and post occasionally do label themselves though. I know some who don't.
To a degree I think it comes with the rational approach. If you want to be a rationalist, you need to consider many perspectives, and somehow bring in the nuance of as many of them as possible instead of ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative. It's very easy to be brief with one-sided takes, but nuance is boring and lengthy. That of course doesn't mean that the authors conclusions and arguments will be correct in the end.
> adding layers of detail and nuance rather than interrogating the one or two assumptions they make at the start or broadening their philosophical background beyond the collection of texts popular within their subculture.<p>Personally i think the world would be a better place if more of us added nuance to our arguments.
The problem part in that quote is “rather than interrogating the one or two assumptions they make at the start”, not that they’re including nuance. Nuance can be a value add or it can be a distraction. It is not by itself virtuous.<p>The trick is to include a lot of nuance, details, and steelmanned arguments about little concessions and downstream, but to leave the key assumptions at the start largely unquestioned.<p>The reader spends 15 minutes reading what feels like a highly nuanced, deeply researched article. If you’re not paying close attention you don’t notice that some pivotal assumptions were spared from the nuance and steelmanning.<p>Rationalist bloggers aren’t the only ones who use this technique, but it is oddly common in rationalist blogs. Once you start noticing it, you see it everywhere.
I don't know, I think rationalist bloggers tend to love arguing, and if you identified some assumption that they didn't address they'd just as happily write 50,000 words on that instead. :-)
I think he just used nuance as a polite way to say meandering.<p>Personally I really wish authors would pack their 'nuance' into well-sectioned areas, maybe even collapsible (we have the technology!). I shouldn't have to skim several paragraphs just to understand the core of the argument.<p>Arguably, it's not a big problem if you already love the author and hang on to their every word. But as someone who is often just trying to get the gist of the idea, I find the rationalist writing style really tiresome.
How would it make it much better? Can you give me a nuanced argument and one that isn't nuanced so I can agree with you?
> Eliezer Yudkowsky's "sequences" are over one million words long.<p>This is a particularly weird example. The median post in the "sequences" is less than 1000 words long. The sequences are mostly a long series of individually very short blogposts.
Over a million words is significantly longer than the bible and it's treated as one work:<p>"There also used to be a practice on LW of telling newbies who weren't producing good content to come back when they'd read the sequences."<p><a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EauwsXht4jrjTTE9m/reading-the-sequences-before-starting-to-post-costs-and" rel="nofollow">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EauwsXht4jrjTTE9m/reading-th...</a>
His weirdo Harry Potter fanfic is 600,000 words long, which is the combined length of the first five real harry Potter books.
I have not read nor heard of this, but umm, its fanfic. People write fanfic because they enjoy the world of the story and want more of it. Why would it be a surprise that a fanfic is overly long and verbose? I'd assume that just goes with the territory.
Wait... Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality was written by Eliezer Yudkowsky? So that means he wrote that totally straight and its not a joke?
It’s real. The excessive length is one of several things that serves as a filter. Anyone dedicated enough to get through it is a believer by the end. It even includes completely unnecessary uncomfortable parts like the rape threat sequence which further filter out all but the true believers.<p>The ridiculousness of it all serves as a type of hazing ritual. To enter the cool club you have to grit your way through it and also The Sequenced.<p>Most people tap out early. Those who persevere get to join the cool kid’s club, where they haze others into reading it all too.
I was totally enjoying it. If you think that everyone needs to grit through it, as an initiation ritual, no less... The sneer club, I presume?
I read it for a while, when it first got published. It started very strong (first several chapters), then was weird and refularly was giving me vibes of Atlas Shrugged.<p>Then author got his diva moment, at least this is how I remember it. He constructed some impossible to solve situation and had tantrum that if readers won’t give answer how one of protagonists will solve it, author will stop writing the book. I think it had even time limit for readers.<p>After that I dropped the book and never returned to it.
> Those who persevere get to join the cool kid’s club<p>Are you sure “cool” is the correct adjective?
As a perseverer, I can confirm it was a waste of time and, functionally, a poorly-written demonstrative exercise on the abuse of rhetoric to disabuse others of their beliefs, dignity and agency. Imagine my surprise when I found out about the cult stuff.
That's correct. Harry Potter fanfic is a huge part of the rationalist movement, the Zizians, and more. Behind the Bastards' episodes on the Zizians do a fairly well-cited dive into it.
It's a recruitment tool.
You’d have a point if it was longer lol<p>Besides there are other HP fan fics in this range
As a philosophy major, I can confirm that the field generally rewards those who make good arguments for bad ideas, and that for reasons that I never fully understood, texts always seem to be far more verbose than necessary.
"The idea that something may be true, valuable, or good merely because it is common sense or inherited tradition is anathema to them"<p>This is reasonable though. Tradition and common sense suggest value perhaps more than rationalists think, but if tradition and common sense have value, there is an underlying reason.
There is also value in the abstract sense, meaning tradition can have value for the consensus and social understanding it causes.<p>Like, maybe Christmas as understood for Americans has no value. But the fact a Christmas exist does result in families getting together and provides a cohesive context for the winter season across pop culture, and that can have downstream value.
Isn't this just the naturalistic fallacy?<p>Traditions can often encode good things, but they shouldn't be respected solely because they are tradition.
I don’t think it’s reasonable. The age of an idea does not imply that it’s true, valuable, or good.
The term "Chesterton's Fence" comes to mind.<p>There's no harm in critically examining why a tradition is there (especially if harmful in other ways). But a lot of the time, "it's a long story" does actually have a reasonable story.
But even if we don't know the underlying reason, they are still valuable by dint of having survived for so long
Things survive for no good reason. It is very common in evolution.<p>For example, our eyes are wired the wrong way, that is, the optic nerve goes in front of the retina, causing a blind spot and other issues. From a design perspective, it is really stupid and there is no "good" reason why we are like this, it would be like making a monitor with the connectors in front of the display. Octopus eyes are wired the correct way and it works better.<p>Eyes have evolved like this out of random chance, as an imperfect but functional solution, and we are too advanced for evolution mechanisms to fix the problem now.
Not knowing an underlying reason isn't the same as denying that reason's existence
Of course there is tremendous value in many traditions. However, when the world is changing quickly as it is today, it is also very important to check in frequently with reality, to face facts, as it were.<p>Many people also use tradition as a cover for bias, bigotry, and bullying. When one has been on the other end of that, one learns to view blind tradition with a healthy dose of skepticism.<p>And yet, still, there is much of value there. Ironically it takes some wisdom to learn which is worth keeping and which is not.
The Economist is so good in this respect.<p>A smart, very good writer will write something and get to the point quickly. Articles are mostly a page or less.<p>Writing like that respects people's time.<p>Many bloggers could do with writing things more briefly.<p>The author of this piece also makes a very good point that often long pieces go into weird corners of their own argument without thinking about their own assumptions.
When I open a general article and it starts with things like:<p><i>In a cold autumn in 1967, a barely awake scientist in the now defunct Institute of XYZ thought he'd go through his lab notes as he has done for the past 3 years since leaving the serene setting of the University of...</i><p>I immediately close it.
It's all about understanding the medium. The Economist makes a wide-ranging, newsstand magazine that isn't too far different of a medium than like a weekend Financial Times paper. I think blogs, or free-ish or frequently publishing substances, naturally slot into that kind of medium where you want to pack the most info and analysis into a deftly concise format.<p>If you want to write long form, please use a medium where that is naturally part of that medium. Quarterly magazines, books, full length investigative pieces, etc. An important part of WHY longer form writing works in those media is that the author is understood and expected to have devoted much more time and work into it, and doesn't output content so frequently. In other words, respect the axiom that the medium is also the message.
[flagged]
> It turns out, actually, nicotine is addictive, and is bad for you even if you don't smoke it, as you probably already obviously knew.<p>This is not the point, but I’m very confused by the link that is linked as evidence on that line? It doesn’t match the sentence it’s attached to<p>Link in question: <a href="https://psychotechnology.substack.com/p/a-love-song-to-nicotine-630?open=false#%C2%A7ps-be-careful" rel="nofollow">https://psychotechnology.substack.com/p/a-love-song-to-nicot...</a>
Yeah. It's titled "a love song to nicotine" and 80+% of it is about the benefits of nicotine with a claim that "sublingual nicotine’s addictive potential feels low", but TFA links to the tacked-on twitter screenshots at the end. Not the point, but it does make one wonder. Though, to be fair, I only realised that the main body of the article existed when I accidentally scrolled back up "too far". Perhaps the author of TFA received the exact same link and made the same mistake as I initially did.
It takes skill and effort to condense knowledge.<p>"I would have written a shorter letter, but did not have the time." - Blaise Pascal in “Lettres Provinciales,” 1657.
I see this quote being thrown around a lot as if it supports the article's point, but this quote is just some of the most famously smart, skilled, and effortful people ever <i>admitting even they cannot</i> condense their knowledge that much.<p>I don't think historical "sorry for the wall of text"s by famous intellectuals is the dunk on walls of text that people seem to think it is.
> I don't think historical "sorry for the wall of text"s by famous intellectuals is the dunk on walls of text that people seem to think it is.<p>It is a bit overused phrase, but I find it to be absolutely correct -- to make something concise without losing meaning and not being overly dry is both a skill and also lots of effort. I don't think it is impossible, it is just that often it is not worth it.
To me it's clearly the opposite. They could condense but did not have the time to do so. And I struggle to understand how the opposite conclusion could be reached when the explanation is right there, leaving little margin to extrapolation.
>I see this quote being thrown around a lot as if it supports the article's point, but this quote is just some of the most famously smart, skilled, and effortful people ever admitting even they cannot condense their knowledge that much.<p>But that’s explicitly not what the quote says - it’s not that they can’t, it’s that it takes work.
That sounds like a different way of saying that wall of texts with low signal are produced by low skill and low effort users...<p>Which, TBH, matches the clear majority of AI boosters.
I don't understand how you're parsing that quote as "cannot".
so that's why Claude is so verbose
This is basically a dunk piece. Scott’s and gwern’s posts are often long because they contain arguments, which ironically the author does not use, other to point to one gwern post. He says that rationalists substitute thoroughness for verbosity when gwern’s post does the exact opposite!<p>It’s easy to dismiss the argument with “lol nicotine bad”, but I think it’s good to examine studies on the addictiveness of nicotine when not smoked, and not assume it would be just like smoking. There are plenty of things that seem obvious but are not and it’s always good to be rigorous.
I think Scott in particular just really enjoys writing. He is very articulate and obviously just brimming with clever connections and turns of phrase. And he can generate a lot of words very easily.<p>When I was younger, sometimes I would just get carried away by the splendor and awe of it all and soak in the 25,000 word articles (or whatever they are.)<p>Today I would say that either he has fallen off a little, or I've just grown a little weary of the form, but I don't really get the same rush out of his writing anymore; and I notice more of the motivated reasoning and cheap tricks.<p>Still, sometimes I'll come across one of his posts and think 'damn, Scott's still got it.'
What the author here misses is that the verbosity is often a signal of work done.<p>It's like the "alternatives considered" section in a design doc or RFC: it shows you've thought through different approaches, considered trade-offs, etc. It's a little like showing your work combined with taking the reader on a journey.
In UX, if it needs a long on-boarding, you probably messed up.<p>If it's so rational, why does it need to be over-explained?
I suspect it's the consequence of a depth-first search for truth, when reality is deep.<p>Imho narrative and metaphor and feeling hits more like the breadth-first mode. Lots of compression in pursuit of demarking a reality, whether or not everyone likes where a story does its compression. It takes visiting a lot places (and listening to how lot of signals bounce back) to drop a good metaphor, or craft a good story, that reaches and affects a large quorum of minds.
Because they know that quantity is a substitute for quality. If you write enough words about something, no matter how nonsensical your actual arguments are, people tend to assume you know what you are talking about. If someone points out a flaw in one of your arguments you just say "well you aren't addressing all my other arguments"<p>It's gish gallop
> In any case, what is missing from this endlessly verbose rationalist writing style is wisdom. Wisdom involves discretion: an intuition for what ideas are and are not worth seriously pursuing, and the ability to determine what does and does not need to be said. This community, broadly speaking, does not seem to value wisdom as a trait at all; the idea that something may be true, valuable, or good merely because it is common sense or inherited tradition is anathema to them.<p>I haven't heard the term "rationalist blogger" before, but surely, not assuming tradition is correct is sort of key to the "rationalist" part?
> I haven't heard the term "rationalist blogger" before, but surely, not assuming tradition is correct is sort of key to the "rationalist" part?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_community" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_community</a>
In Scott Alexander's case, it's because he's into ideas (e.g., eugenics) that most people find reprehensible, so he has to couch them in a lot of bullshit to make them more palatable, and to give himself some credibility.<p><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander" rel="nofollow">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander</a>
A lot of rationalists seem to believe that prolixity is a sign of intellectual effort.
I love the rationalist blogosphere but agree with this 100%. I was actually having a very similar thought this morning (specifically about the book reviews in the ACX contest and how they seem to keep getting longer).
It's autistic / adhd hyperverbosity. Rationalists are a social group of neurodiverse people and attract neurodiverse people as a result.<p>> adding layers of detail and nuance rather than interrogating the one or two assumptions they make at the start<p>This is a fundamentally neurotypical assumption. NDs have a hard time understanding the shared context of their audience, so they splay out all the detail to compensate. Earlier in their lives they tried 'just interrogating the one or two assumptions' but because they are not able to infer context nobody understands them because they are off the mark. They also enjoy diving into a huge amount of detail and exploring every nook and cranny to potentially find something new.
Autism is often associated with bottoms-up communication, start with the details, then the big picture will emerge. I.e., <a href="https://autisticphd.com/theblog/what-is-bottom-up-thinking-in-autism/" rel="nofollow">https://autisticphd.com/theblog/what-is-bottom-up-thinking-i...</a><p>Which I find is the lesswrong-style to a T: here are all the details, literally all of them, and then we'll find our way to the point together, eventually.
> NDs have a hard time understanding the shared context of their audience<p>Or they understand that this “shared context” is a myth that doesn’t exist in reality. Plenty of situations where everybody just nods “yea, right” and then walks away with a different idea because they’ve been looking at it from a different perspective/set of assumptions.
The issue is that you've got to <i>build</i> shared context before people can follow an unstructured dump of everything in your brain. You have to tell a story that makes sense. Also, ideally you figure out how to filter out the stuff that other people simply don't need to know. It is not easy, but it is a skill you can learn.
How ND of you! There is a difference because the when the ND person misses the mark they get reactions of confusion. What you're talking about has a huge amount of instinctual social detail behind it and knowing what kind of 'yeah right' and seeing how your audience received it is part of the game.
... are you going to accuse his 2 sentence post of being hyperverbose?<p>> huge amount of instinctual social detail behind it and knowing what kind of 'yeah right' and seeing how your audience received it is part of the game.<p>Most people's instincts on the matter lead them astray. They seem to spend their life hallucinating that other people said or thought things that they didn't. Functional assumptions, but wrong. With a predictable consequence that sociopaths have an easy time ending up in charge if they feel like it, because people relying on their instincts just make too many social mistakes.
Autistic misunderstand each other as much as they misunderatand neurotypical people.
> NDs have a hard time understanding the shared context of their audience, so they splay out all the detail to compensate<p>I would say this is fascinatingly true of AI as well, and probably one of the reasons I (and maybe other ND folks?) work with it so well, cringey slop word choice aside.<p>I was joking a few years ago that if the AI was trained on the internet, the corpus included massive overrepresentation with ND style writing.
Coincidentally I was thinking about this topic earlier today. It seems that we train students to write in the worst way possible, by giving arbitrary word counts as benchmark for completeness.<p>I suppose letting students turn in 3 sentence essays may not be a better option, but it at least it doesn't encourage students who engage with the assignment in good faith to turn a high-quality six paragraphs into six pages.
Most of the time the benchmark word count isn't any more than six paragraphs to begin with. And putting out more words means more practice, which is valuable in a school setting.
The alternative is to "turn in a good paper" which is not quantifiable and thus anathema to the modern Taylorism inspired world of education. If the student can't agree, it's a problem and so word count it is - can't argue with basic math.
Having a well-defined rubric is better than having a minimum word count or page count. If they can meet all the rubric's requirements in 3 sentences then so be it.
If we buy information by paying in reading time, the ideal deal would be maximum information for no reading time.<p>Sounds unachievable? Doesn't mean we shouldn't go there!
I don't know if nicotine is good for you, but I've enjoyed all the parodies at <a href="https://morewrong.lol/" rel="nofollow">https://morewrong.lol/</a>
This is an amazing site<p>> Pascal’s Mugging and Why I Gave an Escort My Son’s College Fund<p><a href="https://morewrong.lol/?post=pascals-mugging-college-fund" rel="nofollow">https://morewrong.lol/?post=pascals-mugging-college-fund</a>
Hehe, that got a chuckle out of me, it's a bit like that HN parody site.<p>That has some serious n-gate vibes (<a href="http://n-gate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://n-gate.com/</a>)
How come I hadn't already seen that? Thank you.
I’m an avid less wrong reader, but this is incredible
[dead]
Philosophy also tends to rattle on. I think part of it is that if the ideas are not that strong and seem obvious or wrong if stated briefly you can make it look more significant by lengthening up.<p>See Hobbes, Calvin <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/calvinandhobbes/comments/1300k80/academia_here_i_come/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/calvinandhobbes/comments/1300k80/ac...</a>
A lot of academics are bad writers, philosophers included. In my opinion, philosophy is actually far from the worst offender. If you read philosophers who are good at writing and actually have something to say (e.g. Bertrand Russell, Thomas Nagel, Susan Wolf) they can be short and illuminating.<p>By the way, there's a big divide between continental (European) and analytic (Anglosphere) philosophy. The Calvin and Hobbes joke is poking fun at postmodern continental philosophy (or literary criticism or gender studies) but most analytic philosophy is not like that.
Or there is a lot of nuance and long history of arguments behind concepts like free will, consciousness, realism, emergence. You can't simplify the arguments without glossing over a lot of detail. Philosophers prattle on because they're responding to all that. They're aware of the various objections to their position.
Yes, a lot of pieces just aren't written for beginners, they are part of an ongoing and voluminous discourse. Writing something short just wouldn't be very interesting (for the experts), they want to engage with all of the prior art.<p>I think that when references to the prior work are only implicit, pieces tend to be nearly unreadable for casual readers.<p>However, when interesting counter arguments are stated explicitly, the long articles can still be kind of fun, and personally think this is something Scott Alexander does pretty well, for instance. He is not the main offender of unreadable long rationalist blog posts, of which there are many.
Good writing takes effort.<p>Clarity - grace - style ... is not taught. Passable text is good enough.<p>No editor - plus a peer group who create bloated text.<p>Here is my favorite text on how to write clearly: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Style-Ten-Lessons-Clarity-Grace/dp/0321095170/142-2343226-6556653?psc=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Style-Ten-Lessons-Clarity-Grace/dp/03...</a><p>I really hope good writing makes a comeback. I really appreciate everyone who takes the time and effort to write well.
That really is a fine book, it brings back good memories.<p>However, I don't think this article is really complaining about style. Scott Alexander has great style, the clarity/grace people would find much to love about him.<p>The complaint is about the length of his writing, and the content, ie focusing on endless arguments as opposed to honoring prior traditions.
So that's where Claude's verbosity comes from.
Not sure about the verbosity but that's probably where the useless and annoying claudisms come from, they are rewarded by (rationalist adjacent) users because they feel good about understanding the jargon and it reinforces the feeling of communicating with a superior alien intelligence (and that oneself is also somewhat superior for being able to understand it).
No one likes Claudisms, especially people who write a lot. The AI cliches are nearly unbearable. However no one has quite figured out how to fix it.
They use automated graders now. It's more likely the communication style was rewarded by overly strict grading rubrics.<p>(ie "honest caveats" wording comes from a reward for being honest about drawbacks instead of covering them up)<p>Note Opus 5.5 is much less likely to do it.
I'm speculating but there must be someone who writes a style guide for how Claude is supposed to speak then they design a way to reward for that style? So the problem could be they employ rationalist adjacent people who think this is peak A.I. design.
So the length is load-bearing?
The verbosity of the entire post can be condensed down to just this bit:<p>> verbosity is a substitute for thoroughness<p>Clearly OP author is far too wordy as well!
are you really asking? modafinil.
I’m not sure what this “rationalist” thing is but I think almost every blog entry is too long. Half the posts on this site are too long, get to the point. I have actual books to read by people that wrote their works 100 years ago, why would I spend an hour reading something that was written in San Francisco last week?
From the article:<p><pre><code> Consider when blogger Gwern explained that nicotine, actually, is not addictive, and is good for you, as long as you don't smoke it, over the course of 9,000 words, with over 100 references. It turns out, actually, nicotine is addictive, and is bad for you even if you don't smoke it, as you probably already obviously knew.
</code></pre>
The first sentence is a link to the Gwern essay, which does indeed have over 100 references and is rigorously argued and appropriately caveated.<p>The second sentence is a link to a Substack essay, which has two screenshots of two individuals self-reporting “nicotine bad” on Twitter, one of whom smoked it.<p>By the content and construction of these sentences, the author makes it abundantly clear that he finds the second overwhelmingly more convincing than the first, and that the second essentially refutes the first.<p>Given that the only evidentiary standard this author appears to be able to apply is “how much does this agree what what I already believe”, I find that I agree with his claim that extra words don’t make his articles better, and I would extend this to say that fewer words would make them better still, with perfection achieved when the number of words reaches zero.
> The second sentence is a link to a Substack essay<p>The author of the second essay here! It's a pro-nicotine one — the OP just linked to the very end of it. Moreover Gwern himself reviewed my essay during Inkhaven (<a href="https://www.inkhaven.blog/" rel="nofollow">https://www.inkhaven.blog/</a>), a 30-posts-in-30-days program.<p>I asked Gwern explicitly if he ever feels responsible for getting some people addicted to nicotine. His answer was something along of the lines of: “No, I explicitly warned people that (1) vaping/smoking is addictive and (2) if you ever was addicted to nicotine, even sublingual nicotine is enough to get people addicted”.<p>I do think it's important to warn people that they should be careful with the substance and watch their usage, so I included the screenshots in my essay!
That's a complete cop-out then.<p>He should have reasonably foreseen that that would be the exact effect.<p>Most normal people reading his piece would come away with the opposite conclusion.<p>The title alone: "On the benefits and lack of demerits of nicotine (research up to 2015)"<p>Is enough to make people go 'oh, that's ok then' without investing in trying to understand the subtlety of the argument made. You can add 500 references and spend 30K words but you've already lost by the first line of the article.<p>It would have taken 10 seconds to put a bit right at the top that says 'do not see this article as an excuse to go smoke or vape' or maybe even something harsher than that. With great power etc ...
Yes, I hate to admit I am/was someone that assumed nicotine is bad, but Gwern's article is fascinating and well researched. This was a poor hill to die on for this article.
No nicotine is actually basically bad. Basically all the scientific evidence we have on nicotine products is that it’s bad and addictive. It is a stimulant though, which means it can, potentially, help people with conditions like ADHD. But then again, we have real medicine for those, that we know works.<p>All the people who think nicotine is not that bad have clearly not used it long enough, and aren’t addicted enough. There does come a point where it will feel like your bones are trying to escape your body when you dare relinquish from nicotine. Then, it will be clear it is bad.<p>If there are any doubts nicotine is bad, simply ask nicotine users. And by that I mean, not the people who used Zyn once or twice to study for an exam.
It's like cocaine. It is bad, no doubt. It is <i>also</i> a stimulant. If Gwern had written about cocaine instead of nicotine it would have likely gotten a different reception, but it actually would have been roughly the same kind of article.
I don't have a horse in the "is nicotine good/bad" race, but having lots of references and being argued to death isn't a proxy for being true. Gwern is a former wikipedia admin so peppering everything with references and going line by line, usenet style, to demolish someone's argument is his bread and butter. That just makes him an excellent rhetorician in the online community of people who relate to this argumentative style (typically people who read wikipedia a lot), not a source of truth. When it comes to fields I know a bit more about it's pretty easy to see through the irrelevant citation gish gallop.
Ironically, the Substack essay which was linked to is titled "A Love Song to Nicotine" and is all about how the author enjoys using nicotine for productivity boosts, and doesn't feel like he experiences many downsides to using it.
(To clarify the Gwernpost, nicotine isn't primarily <i>addictive</i> but <i>habit forming.</i> So for instance if you get your nicotine from cigarettes you end up habituated to smoking cigs, and so on. But you can use it to habituate to anything else as well.)
> By the content and construction of these sentences, the author makes it abundantly clear that he finds the second overwhelmingly more convincing than the first, and that the second essentially refutes the first.<p>> Given that the only evidentiary standard this author appears to be able to apply is “how much does this agree what what I already believe”<p>Mainstream medical science along with common sense point to nicotine being addictive and bad for you. I don't really feel the need to interrogate that view, especially when "interrogating" in this context would mean spending dozens of hours of my life going line-by-line through each reference and trying to understand the context of a field which, frankly speaking, neither me nor the author of the article have any business trying to evaluate. The only winning move is not to play.
> Mainstream medical science along with common sense point to nicotine being addictive and bad for you.<p>Gwern's article cites many, <i>many</i> peer reviewed journal articles (aka mainstream medical science) about how nicotine's addictiveness is overblown, and you're citing three tweets.<p>Common sense points to you being clueless in all of your writing, even though I haven't read it, and I don't really feel the need to interrogate that view.
> It turns out nicotine is addictive and bad for you<p><i>links to a substack post confirming the benefits Gwern wrote about, and acknowledging the risks Gwern acknowledged</i>
Longer = more important<p>Also most people on lesswrong are likely on the spectrum and are used to needing to overexplain themselves because neurotypical people rarely give them the benefit of the doubt.
Why do americans insist on using philosophical terminology to mean its opposite?
i think there is room for word vomit overexplaining every little nuance, detail, and caveat as a style of writing especially if one is trying to be through and “rational”, but I think it takes much more skill to condense the meat of a subject
Probably not universally true, but good writing is a skill regardless.<p>And maybe they are "too long" in the same way that Lean proofs are "too long"? I have no idea - I don't read either very often.<p>However, often I don't care how verbose a piece is if it can hold my interest. For example, the late Umberto Eco wrote some of my favourite pieces. He was a philosopher (among other things), and many of them - notably of the "post-modern" - are known to be particularly verbose.<p>Here's a particularly relevant one: <a href="https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/</a>
the same reason a greasy used car salesman goes on an on and on.
A problem with long articles is there are so many important topics to be informed about today, and if I spend an hour on one, then I don't have time for others.
There is the effect that it takes more words to say something new in a way that is convincing than to say something your audience already believes.
While notionally my interests align very well with lesswrong, I am seldom able to make it through the length of a post without losing interest.
Because they need to rationalize everything.
Not as long as the sales pages for e-books.<p>They just keep going on and on. I wondered why. I think it's because at every point, the person either stopped and bought, or... they're still reading so... you may as well hit them with MOAR and MOAR!
A lot of times, it feels like reading the Talmud.<p>First, it has a canon, every rationalist ends up referencing Yudowsky, arguments frequently refer back to earlier ones, and to make matters worse, by shorthand ("Molochs", "The Litany of Tarski", "conflict vs mistake theory")<p>Like the Talmud, rationalists like to use extreme hypotheticals to test principles. The contrivance of the situations is the point, as if stress-testing a rule by applying it to extreme situations to distil it to a single variable problem.<p>Both writing traditions keep opposing arguments in full. The Talmud records minority options and the full log of disputes that went for centuries. Rationalist's steelmanning is basically the same.<p>It is not surprising that Yudkowsky is Jewish and grew up Orthodox. A lot of other very important figures are also Jewish like Scott Alexander, so, it is plausible that they brought a lot of the disputation-as-study and commentary-on-commentary traditions with them and set the tone for the community.<p>Of course, I am not directly comparing the Talmud to Rationalist writing. The Talmud is ultimatelly a legal document, its hypotheticals feed a system that tells people how to act, compressing centuries of legal precedent, this is by nature dense, and this density makes it hard to read more than simply verbose. Rationalist blogs are often long due to a lack of professional editing.
I don't think its just rationalist blogs who do this. Authors don't realise how little time people have now and catching anyone's attention is a miracle. These examples for the nicotine aren't the best though. Gwern's articles are long because he includes literally every thing he can possibly find on a subject. They're not meant to be like short summaries but more like evolving wikipedia articles.<p>If you read what gwern says on nicotine its far more nuanced than "nicotine is fine, use nicotine." He does acknowledge that frequent use leads to tolerance. But tolerance is not the same as addiction. I think also if you're going to try argue against his post (which is thoroughly researched) then you ought to do better than just set up a strawman and say he's wrong....
As one young philosopher put it, wisdom is a moral choice. It is a decision to only speak about what you truly know; and that is very little. E. g. most of us do not truly know the Earth is a sphere; we only "know" this from a hearsay and that is not it.
It’s not getting better with AI. I’m 100% with the author on <i>wisdom.</i> LLMs don’t seem much to exhibit the benefit of experience in their outputs
Most blog posts could be a tweet.
It’s because the point isn’t actually to convey the idea<p>It’s to do the practice of rationalist blogging
Alternatively the question is why the author of that
opinion piece has nothing more to say.
I think it's pretty simple. To prioritize concision, you need to value other people's time more than stroking your own ego. A lot of "rationalists" are just people who, more than anything else, think they are smarter than other people and desperately need to prove it. This naturally means they don't respect other people's time and it naturally leads to voluminous prose.
They are insecure and want to appear smart, and think long writing == smart.<p>To be contrarian isn't to be a "free thinker", it's to be led around like a dog on a leash. You're just a reactionary saying the opposite of an actual opinion.<p>If I had to wager, I'd say both of those points stem from being bullied in school more often than not.
Because they have autism
It's a mix of bad writing ability, contrived arguments (coming up with weird hypotheticals or simulating what an opponent would say), cargo-culting rationalist thought leaders (Yarvin, Scott, Yudkowsky, gwern) and the concealing of unsavory ideas.<p>There's also a culture of not knowing when to stop posting and touch grass - when all your friends are way too online and probably also rationalists and much of your identity and status is tied to online posting, you invest a lot in cultivating that social identity and signaling to your community, even to a degree that would look unhealthy to normies.
Yarvin is about as anti-rationalist as you can get.
Obscurantism as a form of deliberate concealment is definitely a large part of it, and adds weight to the idea that rationalism is essentially a post-modern take on libertarianism.
Gish gallop. Harder to argue with.
I'll give you a hint: the truth is usually very simple.
"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."<p>Aristotelian physics is simpler than Newtonian physics, which is simpler than either relativity or quantum mechanics, both of which will probably turn out to be simpler than whatever theory we come up with that somehow encompasses both.<p>Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis is shorter than <i>On the origin of species</i>, which in turn is shorter than the shelf-full of books you would need to cover all the details Darwin didn't know about.<p>The truth does generally turn out to be simpler than its alternatives, when you fill in all their details and add the epicycles you need to make them consistent with what we actually observe. In some sense that's how we <i>recognize</i> the truth: it's what you don't need to keep making increasingly implausible excuses for.<p>But it's not reliably "very simple" if that means "short blogpost length at most", and things that purport to be that simple often turn out to be simple only in appearance. (Like saying "a witch did it", which in some sense can explain anything, and for the exact same reason explains nothing until you've filled in lots of details about what witches can do and how, at which point it stops looking like a good explanation for anything.)
The simplest truths are the hardest to prove/explain.
This is true. The Preacher says,<p>“Do not be rash with your mouth,
And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God.
For God is in heaven, and you on earth;
Therefore let your words be few.
For a dream comes through much activity,
And a fool’s voice is known by his many words.” -Ecclesiastes 5:2
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly (some translations "as his folly deserves"), lest he be wise in his own eyes." - Proverbs 26:4,5<p>I think part of what's happening is that the bad ideas and bad reasoning get diluted among 9000 words and 100 references. It's hard to put your finger on one sentence and say "here's where you're wrong", because the conclusion does not (obviously) rest on any one sentence. It rests more on the volume of words.<p>But "proof by volume" is not actually a thing. (I mean, it's a technique that can be effective in practice, but logically, it's not valid whatsoever.)<p>How do you answer something like that? If you try a point-by-point rebuttal, you're going to be into it 9000 words yourself (at least), and it is rarely worth it. I think that's "don't answer a fool according to his folly".<p>"Answer him as his folly deserves" is less clear to me. Is that to just flat out say that his ideas are foolish? Is it to give a concise one-paragraph statement of why his conclusion is folly? I think the latter is preferable (if you can). I mean, the rationalist is just going to claim that you haven't engaged with his arguments, though you can reply "no I didn't; your conclusion is so wrong that I don't need to engage with how you got there". And the concise rebuttal may be helpful to bystanders.
On an internet where almost every atypical person can find a niche to fit their oddities, rationalism is one of the bubbles for people who are strongly inclined toward (and have the time for) very long, clever-sounding essays. Pretty much everything else is downstream of that bias, so there's no real prospect of improvement.
Because a defining feature of those people is confusing the appearance of seriousness with seriousness itself, just like they confuse their ideological preference with rationality.
they get paid by the word
adderall
This post is too long to read. Tldr?
I mean an obvious reason is that people tend to write rationalist blog posts if they're really into overanalyzing things and if you're into that you're likely to write a lot about what you're overanalyzing.
> Eliezer Yudkowsky's "sequences" are over one million words long.<p>The sequences are really books made up of chapters (blog posts). Most of those posts are relatively short.
They are also very repetitive. When I started reading it (back in 2015 I think?) I thought that they had some interesting info, but needed a good editor to remove at least 60% of the material; many chapters argued the exact same point as the previous chapter, with a slightly different analogy. Also many are responses to other blogs of the time, which also isn't interesting to read in a book since you don't have any context. Very tiresome to read.
Because, although the arguments might make sense in an abstract, detached way, they're very often against 'gut feel', and for good reason.<p>Therefore they use a kickstarter or aliexpress style torrent of argument and features to try to cudgel you into agreement.
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
When one is “full of shit” as they say, the shit needs to spill out somewhere.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
Rationality is mostly absence of bs, so when you sit down to write about it, you are most likely already a person who produces too much words on any subject.
I think it comes from their culture "growing up" in hostile parts of the internet (twitter, Reddit, HN, etc) and so having to hedge every statement with excruciating delineation of edge cases and precise scoping lest some sneering POS leave drive by comments that twist their words into some straw man that the local majority will be against.<p>Basically it's a defense mechanism against adversarial HN commenter type behavior that's been cargo culted a couple times over and doesn't actually service it's original purpose anymore and is just a group signaling mechanism.
Most of them are too smart to have brief thoughts, but not smart enough to have succinct ones.<p>There's also rhetorical advantage in spewing so much stuff that you snow your reader under a blizzard; what's worse, some of that tends to be true.
It’s called a gish gallop. Rationalists are masters at bullshitting, and the best way to do that is to say so many things that people can’t really devote the time to proving you wrong. If they do try, they counter with even more words until you give up. Rhetorically it’s where they feel most comfortable.
This is a funny juxtaposition; I grew up creationist, and 'gish gallop' of course originated as something the rationalists [0] used to describe the creationists! 'rationalist' may have shifted slightly as a descriptor, but honestly perhaps the shoe has always fit pretty well.<p>[0] <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop" rel="nofollow">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop</a>
It's like those HN commenters who just spew links to cherry picked sources at you when you call them out for misleading people. It's an only slightly obfuscated attempt to move the goalposts from "hey idiot take a step back and look at the big picture, your core point is garbage and you're a bad person for even making it" type argument to one of implicitly accepting their premise and then bickering over sources (in the case of the filthy linkposters) or the exact nature of the minutia and excruciating detail they have produced in droves (in the case of the rationalists).<p>That said I consider the rationalists a little bit higher brow since they're at least DIYing (or were before AI) the words and the arguments and responsible for all that verbosity whereas any idiot can cherry pick links.
[dead]
Personally, I often write long responses when making a contrarian point. The reason is because people have been heavily conditioned to believe certain things and making a contrarian point requires you to provide an alternative interpretation for all of their many beliefs around the subject.<p>Every contrarian idea has to dismantle layer upon layer of existing beliefs to even be considered plausible. Many people will discard it outright because of how much it goes against their worldview.<p>The worst part is that people have also been conditioned to believe that long, detailed explanations are the result of delusions built up in social media 'echo chambers' or 'conspiracy theories' based upon fake news. LLMs will typically act as though they are concerned for your mental health if you provide a valid rebuttal to all of their points in such a discussion; they will say "Note what you did, you've made your argument unfalsifiable..." And I have to point out that its own mainstream version is also merely a narrative and also unfalsifiable and backed by even less evidence. The discussion has to be evaluated from first principles, taking into account empirical evidence, trends and incentives.<p>Incentives are much more important than simplicity of arguments to estimate accuracy. People will go to great lengths to obtain rewards and avoid punishment. Often, reality is complicated, not simple. Occam's razor generally isn't correct these days. Perhaps it was at one point in the past; those were simpler times.<p>From my own life experience and behavior, there are no simple explanations for anything I did or what happened to me; so I don't see why simple explanations are valid for anyone else. Occam's razor is essentially part of Hollywood's conditioning; conditioning people to people map their lived experiences into simple movie-like narratives.
> nicotine is addictive, and is bad for you even if you don't smoke it<p>meh, this is legitimately disputed today, for example as there are less smokers today lung cancer has gone down but Parkinson's disease has gone up, suggesting nicotine does have some cognitive benefits
Indeed, it seems to me that nicotine may indeed have beneficial effects in some contexts.<p>It is also readily apparent to me that nicotine <i>is</i> bad for us, generally and broadly.<p>The combination leaves wiggle room for nicotine to be a net-good lever on certain mechanisms. I do think it's best to avoid it; It's a challenging double-edged sword.<p>The molecular biology of <i>how</i> it's maybe-good and maybe-bad is probably the most useful aspect of it. It's a strange sort of bronchodilator and has weird and ambiguous antiinflammatory properties. (Which seem to tie in to how it is addictive: Short-term bronchodilation and oddly-shaped short-term antiinflammatory properties turn into bronchoconstriction and proinflammatory effects as time passes from taking nicotine, which feels like it would be rather inductive to generating a craving for more nicotine.)<p>Re. Parkinson's: Wild guess, addled brain hunching on nebulous perspectives, but I do think that nicotine's protective effects against Parkinson's are indeed related to the bronchodilation and antiinflammatory aspects, and more specifically it seems to me that Parkinson's has pulmonary basis. I think we're nuking our lungs in many subtle ways that in some of us cause the dam of cell death in the substantia nigra to break. How might we be nuking our lungs? Say… Air pollution, incl. microplastics and plasticizers, various disruptors of fine pulmonary epithelium and metabolic function and neuroendocrine autonomic control. And I'd think that once we start to lose fine autonomic control by way of loss of dopamine cells in the substantia nigra, we'd be poised to enter a vicious cycle of further loss of pulmonary foundations.<p>but idk, just sayin lol
Why do you trust your imagination on this? That how folks thought before the French Revolution, invention of the scientific method, etc.<p>Actual evidence in the real world points to pesticides causing the rise in Parkinson’s:<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/opinion/parkinsons-pesticides-chemicals.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kU8.gmQa.d1Ipqwc1AYDi&smid=nytcore-android-share" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/opinion/parkinsons-pestic...</a>
I suspect we'll find that some smokers (in addition to being addicted) were self-medicating.
Not sure about earlier, but during WWI cigarettes were smoked at incredible scale, to help deal with the stresses and horrors of war. Ensuring an ample supply to front-line troops was major gov't priority.<p>And I certainly have known cigarette smokers who explained "yes, I know they cause cancer and other bad stuff - but they also help with other serious (physical and mental) problems that I have, and I'm choosing quality of life over quantity".
What? Why jump to that conclusion, without any evidence?<p>Especially in a context where most scientists blame pesticides?
Funnily enough, the main body of the post the author links to is about the exact opposite
It is? Am I getting a different link to you, or is my reading comprehension just terrible at 9.30pm or something.<p><a href="https://psychotechnology.substack.com/p/a-love-song-to-nicotine-630?open=false#%C2%A7ps-be-careful" rel="nofollow">https://psychotechnology.substack.com/p/a-love-song-to-nicot...</a><p>It says the exact opposite to me?
What, exactly, is the point of this post, and especially the point of it on HN? It appears to be a rant directed at 2 people on the internet that has nothing to do with tech.
It's because you read too slowly.
Rationalism is for people who have the reading skill. If someone prefers short videos, it means that the doors of rationalism is closed for him.
If the ideas are not complex enough to warrant a long explanation, it is a failure of the writer to be unable to produce the same information more succinctly.<p>Its not about short-form content, its about the unneeded over verbosity being a sign of a failure of communication.<p>Following Grice's maxims of communication, you can infer that they are either poor communicators or worse trying to hide something.
It takes a few words to communicate an idea; it takes a lot more to defend it. Which one is the blog post in question trying to do?
I'm a really slow reader. Had some hilarious conversations with fast readers. They really enjoy fluffy low density content. I ask what is on the page they just read and their first reaction is to look at it again. I describe barely related thoughts I had reading the page, the character of the author from their choice of words, they look at me as if I've done just the thing you aren't suppose to.
The complaint is about the lack of writing skill:<p><pre><code> Nearly every blog post I have read in this ecosystem, even the rare one that contains some good ideas, is painfully long and extremely tedious.</code></pre>
Honestly, Gwern and Scott are both pretty good writers. Dunno about Yud though.<p>It’s hard to write a rigorous analysis of something without length. The challenge is keeping it interesting.
My controversial thesis was about author's poor reading skill. The dilemma of the rationalist writer is about whether be skipped by wizards or be understandable by maglesses.<p>You can take the truthest truth ever like "god does not exist". This statement is rationalist and true and short so the author is supposed to cry with a tears of happiness. But making a wisard to behave like this requires something more thorough to be sent. Maybe the author's post also has a chance to become a rationalist if it would be a little bit... longer?
I score way above average on reading skill and I can still tell that many rationalist articles have a word count higher than the subject matter itself requires. If the point of a rationalist article is to exclude people by requiring them to have a willingness to absorb long overly verbose writing then they have succeeded admirably. But that is still bad writing.
Nothing requires you to abandon skimming. But imagine some Christian person which is going to become an atheist. If the rationalist resource requires the reader to have in his mind all the atheist memes, he will never switch and probably report some errors. If you are a bald reader then have a bit of respect who might read these things his first time. Rationalist articles should be made for stupids, like a "technology connections" yt channel. If you are not stupid, you might not need to read a rationalist's stuff any more to save your time for more advanced topics.
I don’t think brief writing has to be niche/rely on pre-existing context in its audience. Good writing is accessible <i>because</i> it is brief.<p>The assumption that “stupids” are going to be more receptive to long-form/from-first-principles arguments is wrong, I think. So is the assumption that that’s why rationalists write that way (it’s more likely because of bubble culture and/or because people like hearing themselves talk).
What's a magless? Is that some weird variation on muggle? If so, oh my god, get a life.
I tried to search about it, and Google AI overview gave an answer based on your comment. I didn't find anything about magless in rationalism page on Wikipedia or LessWrong, so the answer was based only on this thread. I'm surprised about how easy is to mess with AI overview answers like that. State actors must have been doing this by the clock
> My controversial thesis was about author's poor reading skill.<p>What makes you think the author has poor reading skill?
Projection by the look of it.
If he would follow his own advice he just put the Pascal's quote, maybe in slightly different words. What is this article if not a rationalist blog post way too long for the scope of thoughts has been put within?
Like a certain Terry Pratchett character you think you are a wizard but also spelled wizard wrong...
Do you not think their belief to some extent involves believing formalizing things [even to a reductively useless point] makes them more adept at understanding the world?<p>I'll cite an example: <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-levels-and-their-interactions" rel="nofollow">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qDmnyEMtJkE9Wrpau/simulacra-...</a>. I can make the case that one might feel smarter simply having read through the grating writing.
“I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”
- Mark Twain
The author didn't say that they wanted a short video. You're constructing a strawman to gleefully knock down. How very "rational".
Rationalism is for people who enjoy jerking off to their supposed superior intellect while reading bad Harry Potter fan fictions.
The post's clearest claim is that rationalists "lack wisdom" and makes a circular argument - posts are too long because they lack the wisdom to make shorter posts, and the evidence for the lack of wisdom is the length of the posts. It says nothing useful or with predictive power. Another claim is that they didn't read an article by Scott Alexander, they didn't have much to say about it, and somehow conclude that makes them wiser, or a better writer, or superior in some vague way.<p>I may as well ask why so many replies, and responses to rationalist posts are empty posturing, sneering, ad-hom attacks, and writing so much while being so insubstanial. That post could be replaced by Bart Simpson bashing a saucepan shouting "I AM SO GREAT" and it would be no less informative.<p>> "<i>even the rare one that contains some good ideas</i>"<p>"Tee hee lols, cutting insight from superior mind, zing, burn, am I so great, or am I so great? I hope you feel wiser for reading my wisdom. Imagine how much worse this would be if I committed that sin of 'adding detail and nuance'. Also I'm not going to do the one thing I said they should do - interrogate the assumptions I made at the start."
> "Tee hee lols, cutting insight from superior mind, zing, burn, am I so great, or am I so great? I hope you feel wiser for reading my wisdom. Imagine how much worse this would be if I committed that sin of 'adding detail and nuance'. Also I'm not going to do the one thing I said they should do - interrogate the assumptions I made at the start."<p>It's actually quite interesting to me that even relatively mild jabs get dismissed by rationalists as "sneering." "Sneering" is what they are most averse to: as if the worst crime is simply to choose not to engage with something or be dismissive of it on its face. Something that is extremely normal to do.
Take this HN thread, here are some comments that could all be replaced with "because <someone else> is dumber than me" and convey the same meaning:<p>- "It's because you read too slowly."<p>- "Most of them are too smart to have brief thoughts, but not smart enough to have succinct ones"<p>- "they confuse their ideological preference with rationality"<p>- "When one is “full of shit” as they say, the shit needs to spill out somewhere."<p>- "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."<p>- "a culture of not knowing when to stop posting and touch grass"<p>- "Rationalism is for people who have the reading skill. If someone prefers short videos, it means that the doors of rationalism is closed for him."<p>Extremely normal to do, and boring to read. At least Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary is witty with its scathing putdowns. None of these is a good contribution by the HN guidelines (thoughtful, effortful, edit out snark and sneering). Why is it "actually quite interesting" that people who want to focus on evidence and logic are averse to sneering as if that's surprising - who isn't averse to it? (NB. 'simply choosing not to engage' and 'ad-hom the author' are different, btw).
> None of these is a good contribution by the HN guidelines (thoughtful, effortful, edit out snark and sneering).<p>This one is thoughtful correcr observation: "they confuse their ideological preference with rationality"<p>It is not snearing, it is factual description.
I cannot speak on behalf of Hacker News commenters that are not myself, I can only defend my words, which were far milder than that.
You aren't being asked to speak on behalf of Hacker New commenters, I'm asking you things like:<p>- why are you surprised that anyone doesn't like being sneered at?<p>- do you think those 'sneering' comments I quoted are good and interesting, would you like it if there were more of them?<p>- why were your words ""Sneering" is what they are most averse to: as if the worst crime is simply to choose not to engage with something" when sneering and not engaging are different things?<p>- why are you surprised that a group which is trying to avoid the normal vibes, personal attacks, gut feelings, and instead focus on evidence, logic and reasoning, is particularly against the things they are trying to avoid?
In your original comment, you quoted my text. In the follow-up, you changed the subject, talking about a bunch of other comments (most of which are heavily downvoted). My reply was a commentary on my text, not what anyone else said. My point was that you took one mildly acerbic offhand comment and made it out to be something that it was not (i.e. unfairly cruel and hostile). This is because you interpreted offhand dismissal as "sneering." Frankly, your reply was far ruder and more sarcastic than anything I said.