[madair]

When N+1 is good, they are really good.

When N+1 hosts writers just out of college, this is what we get. It happens.

This is your typical "we're special because of xyz" conceit.

We all know what that is. We've all been there, and fortunately many of of have noticed and the next time is less severe.

The "we're special because humans never before did x" has been around since the beginning of time, and it's always right on some vapid level. The exciting thing is, we all still have blood, and thin skins, and bacteria who want to live in us but also want to eat us, and viruses who just want to subvert us. That doesn't change that much. Sure, lifespan doubles, hurrah.

This conceit is a cousin of ludditism, a 1st cousin that is, just with a different twist.

Enjoy your college writers. They are great entertainment. Nothing more.

[astrofinch]

You realize that your post only discusses the fashions in writing that the essay may or may not be part of and not its actual thesis, no?

Personally I prefer to discuss actual reality as opposed to social reality.

[madair]

my post discusses exceptionalism, a conceit which blinds us from reality by convincing us that we are different, a notion frequently addressed:

-- everything is new again just like before

-- there is nothing new under the sun ~ all is vanity

-- the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn

for a more culturally correct critique, though less direct, i.e. more metaphorical: this article is a micro-benchmark with a sample size of 1 and not having adequate controls when measuring in a noisy environment.

this is more or less a cousin of what you're saying to me. although it's humorous that you're making it as a critique of me and not of the article when in fact it and i are both painted with that brush.

and while i can just as easily make the same critique, i dispute it as a another conceit: the physical sciences' over-reliance on rationality in a universe that is not fully understood. an old philosophical problem, and one at the core of feynman's overestimated notions of superiority, brilliant as he was, he'll gladly cut down the social sciences and simultaneously provide us with high-quality tools for mass devastation.

ah, the fraternal sciences, one of whom is convinced it is no sibling, but rather the ubermensch already come.

but, yeah, that sort of micro-benchmark metaphor can be popular when misapplied to the humanities. and what do we get out of that?: economics. woohoo! i'm on fire! now, peeps, hurry with the down votes.

so, explain to me reality again, social what? ;)