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.

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.

> "even the rare one that contains some good ideas"

"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."

▲

alexwennerberg 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> "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."

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.

▲

jodrellblank 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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:

- "It's because you read too slowly."

- "Most of them are too smart to have brief thoughts, but not smart enough to have succinct ones"

- "they confuse their ideological preference with rationality"

- "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."

- "a culture of not knowing when to stop posting and touch grass"

- "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."

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).

▲

alexwennerberg 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

jodrellblank 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You aren't being asked to speak on behalf of Hacker New commenters, I'm asking you things like:

- why are you surprised that anyone doesn't like being sneered at?

- do you think those 'sneering' comments I quoted are good and interesting, would you like it if there were more of them?

- 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?

- 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?

	▲	alexwennerberg 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.