I’ll share links here with low or no explanation. Why?
It lets people form (and say) their own opinions with less bias.
People here are interested in whatever I consider worth sharing.
My prior writing often already said my opinion.
Questions are fine. I’m just not going to preemptively explain everything.
Other people, when sharing a link at this forum, should express an opinion or goal. Opinions include what you think is good or bad, or agree or disagree with. A goal can be a question you’re trying to answer about the link, or any other reason you’re sharing it (such as providing useful, relevant information in reply to someone, or providing footnote-like information with an inline link).
I have an ongoing goal in this thread beyond sharing stuff: to provide opportunities for unbounded discussion, including criticism and feedback. I recommend replying to lots of stuff with short comments, particularly saying short opinions, questions and problems/disagreements. People didn’t reply much in last year’s topic and I think they were wrong. When I was learning from DD, I would never have commented so little on stuff he shared.
As a male, it’s not intuitive to me how much adults creep on teens. I didn’t experience that because I’m not a non-ugly female. (Conventionally “ugly” females also get treated badly way more than men, but in different ways.) It’s good to have some exposure to other common experiences in our culture. That’s one of the reasons I’ve shared videos about harassment of women (I don’t recall anyone asking why those matter, agreeing about it, or saying anything about the importance of those videos).
Claims analog computing will have high value in the future despite its disadvantages. This may be relevant to CF’s claim that binary/digital epistemology is superior to the analog epistemology of degrees of goodness of ideas. Part 1 is most explaining context and seems reasonable. There will be a part 2 video with more info about what analog computers some startups are currently working on and why.
Those “pick-up artists” on Twitter are so bad. Decent critical commentary.
It’s similar to how Twitter “CritRats” give real Popperians a bad name. They contribute to e.g. lots of Objectivists or mainstream philosophers (like most people studying philosophy in university and their professors) not respecting Popper.
Decent theory on one way most people’s psychology is broken (and how to manipulate them).
It intuitively struck me as objectionable and transparently manipulative, but I’m a bad test case, and I find it plausible that it would work well with many people.
It’s also interesting how the creator doesn’t admit he’s advocating manipulation. He presents it more like he’s teaching effective communication.
One problem might be that it seems like it would take a lot of work to find where in the 100+ hours of videos the “practice activities” can be found. Another issue is that—in contrast to written material—it would be a lot of work to find which parts of which videos are relevant to one’s own problems.
Most videos have some activities that you could practice.
Another issue is that—in contrast to written material—it would be a lot of work to find which parts of which videos are relevant to one’s own problems.
I think you’d have a hard time finding any irrelevant video. They are largely the same stuff I’d teach anyone else – CF stuff and some stuff related to common problems like motivation and procrastination. Did you try some and find that they were irrelevant?
Do you skip much of my written material as irrelevant? I’d be curious what/why, especially if it’s anything recent (last few years).
I think I listened to like 30 minutes of the very first Max tutoring video. You guys were talking about grammar, which is at the very bottom of my to-do list. I also already knew most the grammar stuff that you were discussing with him.
A while ago I listened to the two YesNo philosophy ones. They were relevant, but I don’t recall any talk of “practice activities.”
No, I don’t recall intentionally skipping CF/FI articles. Some of your forum posts aren’t interesting to me, but I don’t think that’s what you are referring to.
The reason I brought up and taught grammar is because I think it’s generically important and should be a priority for people interested in philosophy. It’s an intentional design decision and topic choice by me, which I would do with ~anyone. It was not a request or choice by the student, nor a customization to cover a weakness of theirs.
If you already know parts of speech, clauses/phrases, sentence diagramming, and the material in Peikoff’s grammar course, you could skip a few bits. But I think you’d still find some things you don’t know in my grammar article. And I’d still think learning grammar trees is worthwhile (those are not standard knowledge that you would already know, though some grammarians already know them), and is a good way to build up to analyzing and making trees for texts.
Was rereading this after it was linked today and I really like it.
It can be dangerous for people with revolutionary, rationalist, anti-tradtionalist and arrogant tendencies though, who will infer from it a bunch of changes to their lives that I didn’t actually say (and then either actually do stuff or feel bad about not doing it).
