|
|
|
|
|
|
by neurosphere
3565 days ago
|
|
|
Bit of a harsh critique, though I appreciate reading people's comments on my writing. Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly. I'm sorry that what I wrote wasn't sufficiently comprehensible :-( Also, I never took a philosophy class. None of what I said was meant to be pretentious or superior - I was just putting out there some concepts I found interesting. |
|
|
The authors I really want to hit with this kind of critique are the ones who aren't embracing what you describe here:
> Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly.
There's a troublingly large contingent out there that, as XKCD put it, [communicates badly and then acts smug when it's misunderstood][1], [confused about how communication works][2]. These are the ones I really take issue with: the ones who are pleased when the audience who can absorb their material is small, interpreting it as validation of their own abilities (thinking "I'm one of a few people who can understand this"), instead of a refutation of them.
[1]: https://xkcd.com/169/
[2]: https://xkcd.com/1028/ "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."
I particularly apologize for the part about it being pretentious to mention the Cartesian Theatre. While I would cut that in later drafts for being irrelevant (which, like all irrelevant material, confuses the subject), it really doesn't come across as anything more than that, and I was especially projecting my frustrations from other stuff I've read when I characterized it like that.