[dingfeng_quek]

ahoyhere and pg's argument isn't clashing - while pg wrote his essay from his personal experience, ahoyhere demands (or at least appeals to) the consideration of a broad set of ideas related to a long history of thought and research.

However, pg's essay is clear that it doesn't aim to be a well-founded research paper. Although ahoyhere is right that pg's essay will never be recognized as a good research paper (by intelligent people, i.e. not those who were conned by the sokhal hoax), the essay is not designed to be one.

pg: I can give examples of great scholarly works where the author is confused, but the domain is highly specific, and probably outside of your interests. For less technical subjects outside of expert-to-expert communication where some spend years to develop new ideas, there's generally less preference for insight over clarity.

ahoyhere: If you're looking for well-researched expositions in this area, I'm sure you already know where to look. Hm... But I think today's social-psych/cognitive research is better than what Aristotle says.

[ahoyhere]

PG once wrote:

"I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before. This sort of thing happens to a lot of people, and I would really like to avoid it"

Here I am, helping… by not letting him get away with saying stupider stuff than he has in the past.

I am not looking for a "well-researched exposition in this area." I'm looking for an essay that states baldly things such as "They're certainly inferior to the written word as a source of ideas." to actually back it up with some cogent argument.

That's not all that much to ask.

Also: Hm... But I think today's social-psych/cognitive research is better than what Aristotle says. That implies that social psych cognitive research backs up what pg wrote, and of course, it does not.