[civilized]

That isn't really the point. The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines. Although some very adept scientists, like Kolmogorov, have managed in situations like this.

More than once I've gotten the impression that people who criticize Scott for verbosity assume he's blah blah blahing about stuff they already understand, when in reality he's thinking a couple levels deeper than they're accustomed to from a blog.

[throwaway81523]

"The essay is about how anti-human it is to force truly independent thinkers into a box where they're allowed to freely make technical contributions but have to steer clear of sociocultural landmines."

Ok, that is a reasonable distillation. And you just said it in one sentence. Why does it take Scott 20 pages?

[civilized]

Because he's not just making that claim, he's immersing you in why he thinks it's true. By walking you through that world like it's a movie, and pointing out all the inescapable cultural corrosion that follows from letting the world be that way.

Scott knows that people will blithely accept his thesis as obvious... until the moment it matters most, when there is social pressure to accept something untrue. He wants you to feel the price you'll pay if you cave.

[throwaway81523]

Shrug, dystopian novels like 1984 serve that purpose and do a better job imho. I can't speak for other readers but I don't think I got anything from that particular article that I wouldn't have gotten from a version condensed to a few bullet points. There are other SSC/AC10 articles that I liked more, so I do keep reading it sometimes.