Curiosity – Individualized Attention Policy

To begin with for this policy, I’m going to start heavily deprioritizing people who haven’t engaged with my highest effort recent work:

Philosophical analysis of Steven Pinker passage | Everything explained from grammar to arguments [CF Video]

Feedback doesn’t have to be clever to be good.

This is the reason most of the times I stop giving any feedback. I fell like what I have to say is not even feedback worthy. I think that what I have to say isn’t gonna provide value to you.

Besides giving feedback, people could also post about why they find that hard, why they get stuck, why they don’t want to, what blocks them, what stops them, etc. Criticism of my policy would be good too.

Silence is ambiguous between “want to give feedback but there is a problem” and alternatives more like “don’t care” or “not interested”.

A post was merged into an existing topic: Doubtingthomas Topic

This is still active/valid.

Also I’d appreciate it if someone would fix Wikipedia (I guess that means reverting all the CritRat edits and monitoring, talking to admins and following up as necessary if the problems don’t stay reverted. I don’t want to micromanage it or be involved further.)

If you still haven’t commented on that video at all, please provide some information about why.

I edited the wikipedia entry and forgot to comment on the video.

That’s a misleading thing to say when you:

  • didn’t follow the instructions Elliot gave
  • didn’t solve the problem
  • posted disagreeing with Elliot on this issue
  • received criticism (that links to the first of 3 posts)
  • didn’t reply to the criticism

Your comment now acknowledges or addresses none of these things. I doubt you will seriously dispute that my five points are true, so the situation is weird (maybe you just didn’t think about it?). Your comment now appears intended to imply that you did follow the instructions and solve the problem, which is false.

I started watching the video twice. Never got more than a few minutes in. Never went back to it.

My perspective is that I didn’t find the topic interesting enough not to get distracted by other things or make a concrete plan to re-engage at another time. It’s possible something else is going on though.

I really don’t get why you’re at my forum if you don’t like me doing high-effort critical analysis of text from a public intellectual.

A lot of what I do is either critical thinking like that or about skills and knowledge that enable critical thinking like that.

I acknowledge the accuracy of this summary. I thought raising those issues might not be welcomed or considered relevant in this thread so I decided to be as brief as possible in my description.

Some things I’ve noticed:

  • I like most of what you write. I like your videos less often. This is exactly the reverse of fiction / entertainment media where I prefer videos to text.
  • Regardless of format, text analysis is the CF topic I seem least interested in. I like other topics you write about more.
  • Someone being a public intellectual doesn’t seem to raise my interest level. I think partly this is because I have associations between academia and public intellectuals and I don’t like academia. Partly it is because I agree with your general criticisms of public intellectuals like that they have no reliable paths forward and are social climbers + have the excuse that they’re “busy”. So: I’d guess the chances that Pinker would ever watch your video and respond productively are less than some random non-public intellectual who wrote the same text. Which leads to…
  • I have noticed that I have a strong bias toward interactivity rather than effort. Stuff where there’s back and forth or at least a strong possibility of it (like with EA) are more interesting than stuff where I guess that’s unlikely, even if the stuff where interactivity is unlikely was higher effort.