They don’t feel they can just make an argument because normally when they try doing that their audience will interject with some ridiculous cope thing, and the ridiculous cope is different for different people and it’s difficult to know in advance which ridiculous cope thing the audience will want you to respond to. So what the book does is interrupt itself constantly to try and head off some aside or point that the imagined reader might make there
I dont see why that’s a bad thing, or fundamentally different to making an argument.: making a case and refuting objections as you go along, is a stronger form of argumentation than just making a case.
Well it’s a bad thing because it makes it harder to follow what they’re trying to say. It’s also a necessary thing for this subject and kind of the core question that the book has to answer is “how do we anticipate people’s objections and get past them?” and the book represents one hypothesis for how to do that. I am doubtful that it is a correct hypothesis, the reception to it doesn’t seem very positive BUT the reviews we’re getting are not from the target audience and as Scott Alexander said in his review Yudkowsky is a genius who has a history of seeing memetic opportunities that other people do not. So I feel comfortable noting I am doubtful and otherwise letting the reaction tell the story.
Well it’s a bad thing because it makes it harder to follow what they’re trying to say
If you don’t dont, you end up with in a position where the audience can read a short book, and know what your claim is, and disagree with it because of one of the unanswered objections.
and the book represents one hypothesis for how to do that. I am doubtful that it is a correct hypothesis
I dont see why that’s a bad thing, or fundamentally different to making an argument.: making a case and refuting objections as you go along, is a stronger form of argumentation than just making a case.
Well it’s a bad thing because it makes it harder to follow what they’re trying to say. It’s also a necessary thing for this subject and kind of the core question that the book has to answer is “how do we anticipate people’s objections and get past them?” and the book represents one hypothesis for how to do that. I am doubtful that it is a correct hypothesis, the reception to it doesn’t seem very positive BUT the reviews we’re getting are not from the target audience and as Scott Alexander said in his review Yudkowsky is a genius who has a history of seeing memetic opportunities that other people do not. So I feel comfortable noting I am doubtful and otherwise letting the reaction tell the story.
If you don’t dont, you end up with in a position where the audience can read a short book, and know what your claim is, and disagree with it because of one of the unanswered objections.
What’s the right way?