I was careful to include a qualifier with my statement, which is “when one should have known better.” You seem to be criticizing my statement as if those words were not present. If any use of a bad method resulted in careless guesses, then, given human fallibility, every guess might be a careless guess, since there could always be a better method one has yet failed to dsicover. That’s not what I was saying or implying.
This is one of the most important facts about them, especially for purposes of identification.
I think a failure to use reasonable methods is problematic. So is a failure to engage with criticism when errors are pointed out. You should correct all the errors you do or reasonably should know about. Failing to do that is wasting time and energy (and your life).
This is similar to the other thread where you tried to frame things as people asking you to do giant replies all at once in order to rationalize not replying at all. Here, you’re trying to rationalize using bad/broken methods by bringing up the specter of having to be some super studious striver who’s afraid to make a mistake. False dichotomy.
FWIW, Peikoff’s logic course has a whole section on dealing with definitions and whether they’re too narrow, too wide, have other problems etc, was one of my favorite parts of course.
There’s a lot going on in this issue and I’m not able to process it all at once. I’m going to reply to this part for now because as far as I can tell it’s central and resolving it may allow a lot of other things to fall into place.
This is my initial reply to anon86:
I looked at what anon86 said. I picked a part that I was interested in replying to at that time. I explained a problem with it.
I have absolutely no idea why you think that my initial reply was hostile and disengaged. Which part was hostile? Which part was disengaged?
I feel like I’ve already responded extensively regarding lack of engagement point. You didn’t even try looking at a single example anonymous86, and you still haven’t. You offered some poor rationalizations for doing that. You are expressly treating this forum as a place where you expect low-quality, ignorant criticism. And you set unreasonably high barriers for replying that nobody asked you to do; they exist only in your own head, and not in any text anyone wrote.
EDIT: The lack of even attempting to engage with a single example was the problem with this initial post. The other stuff I mentioned happened later on, though it’s consistent with the theme of not wanting to engage, rationalizing that lack of engagement, etc.
I didn’t see the hostility at first in this post. I still don’t see it radiantly clearly. The hostility in your cargo culting/entitlement accusation post was quite clear to me, though. But given that you soon started tossing around accusations of entitlement and cargo culting after this post, hostility seems like a plausible reading on this post too. I don’t think it is likely that you went from total equanimity to extremely hostile. I’m just not that good at detecting such hostility early on. It’s possible other forum members might be able to help you more here. Unfortunately, you are not giving people incentives to reply to you, and are actively looking for reasons to disregard criticism you get on here, so you’ll probably have to change that attitude to get productive, helpful replies from other people.
One definition of hostile is “unfriendly, antagonistic”. I don’t think your reply was friendly, and you were definitely trying to oppose/argue with the implied criticism you received, so that seems antagonistic. Another definition is “marked by resistance especially to new ideas”. You were definitely resisting the new (to you) idea that the examples pointed out might have involved careless guesses.
One way to thing of it might be: in what ways did your reply fail to be a model of friendly curiosity? If we set the standard that high, perhaps that makes it easier to see warning signs of hostility.
That’s not really journalism. It’s vague, half-deniably smearing which doesn’t provide useful information to readers.
should be “half-deniable”
She has difficulty finding decent people to hire or promote for jobs that involving thinking.
should be “that involve thinking”
Dagny’s understanding of life, morality, etc., is enough of a thorough, integrated, ever-present part of her thinking that looking at the status is sufficient for her to know what it means.
should be “statue”
I re-read the first three chapters of Atlas Shrugged and have been reading Elliot’s close readings after each chapter. I’ve been through Elliot’s close readings before, and I have read AS many times, but I noticed myself missing certain things that Elliot noticed, despite having the benefit of these prior readings. Here’s one small example:
“In fact, that’s what I came here to tell you.”
Larkin finally tells the truth, but Hank doesn’t notice it contradicts some of Larkin’s previous statements.
I didn’t notice this contradiction either, I think partially because I read Larkin’s statement "“But no, no special trouble this time. I just thought I’d drop in to see you.” in social mode as opposed to in literal mode. People very commonly deny they have a particular motivation for seeing someone when they do, so I just assumed he was doing standard lying and didn’t notice when he contradicted himself. Another part of the story is I’m not great at keeping track of discussion context. Anyways, just thought it was interesting.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Thiamin, Vitamins and Derrick Lonsdale
General nutrition-related comment, not specific to the Lonsdale/Thiamin discussion: I recently started supplementing with an enzyme to help me with my low carb/keto diet and some side effects of that.
My initial impression is that it’s very helpful, but I am going to give it a few weeks before I come to a solid conclusion.
saw a post on LinkedIn from Alex Epstein. His quote (which he chose as the key point/teaser to get people to watch the video) seems to be focused on social status. He didn’t pick a quote about wanting to correct misconceptions that people have about fossil fuels, change minds, use reason. He picked one talking about wanting to have a Jordan Peterson-like status such that the mainstream media can’t ignore you. I thought this was notable. It seems bad.
Paths Forward is an alternative where ideas and criticisms wouldn’t just be arbitrarily ignored because the speaker doesn’t have high enough social status. The idea is to have a norm where ideas are dealt with rationally. Epstein is trying to win an irrational game instead of pushing for a more rational system. As his hero Ayn Rand said, that is counter-productive.