Re “Show people changing their mind”, that’s at the top of my list for ideas for a third comic. (In association with “Learn how to lose” as applied to ideas—that before you can have a meaningful victory, defeat has to be at least conceivable. Probably throwing in a Litany of Tarski while I’m at it.)
Content-wise: I have two justifications for what you disagree with, one involving taking broad principles and narrowing them down into “do it today” tactics, the other involving writing about a topic the intended audience wants to read about. The latter is more important—if I’m not going to talk to a target audience about that which makes them a target audience, that doesn’t leave me much to hang a comic on that they’ll want to read.
I don’t think Rationality Matters could be generalized to be appealing to all audiences while still being appealing—to interest different groups, I’d have to comic up with comics that focus on their particular areas of interest… and I know more about the current targets than I do most other groups, so a re-aimed comic would likely do more poorly. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that I don’t think I’ve got the chops to do it.
I don’t think Rationality Matters could be generalized to be appealing to all audiences
The outside view (sellout!) confirms this. Also, Eagles will like a comic more if only fellow Eagles like it than if both Eagles and Rattlers do.
(Does that count as changing my mind about how often I have occasion to reply with arguments for more agreement rather that arguments for disagreement? Pretty please?)
(Does that count as changing my mind about how often I have occasion to reply with arguments for more
agreement rather that arguments for disagreement? Pretty please?)
I’m afraid that I’m going to appeal that one to the harshest judge I can imagine—your own honest self-assessment. :)
Re “Show people changing their mind”, that’s at the top of my list for ideas for a third comic. (In association with “Learn how to lose” as applied to ideas—that before you can have a meaningful victory, defeat has to be at least conceivable. Probably throwing in a Litany of Tarski while I’m at it.)
Content-wise: I have two justifications for what you disagree with, one involving taking broad principles and narrowing them down into “do it today” tactics, the other involving writing about a topic the intended audience wants to read about. The latter is more important—if I’m not going to talk to a target audience about that which makes them a target audience, that doesn’t leave me much to hang a comic on that they’ll want to read.
I don’t think Rationality Matters could be generalized to be appealing to all audiences while still being appealing—to interest different groups, I’d have to comic up with comics that focus on their particular areas of interest… and I know more about the current targets than I do most other groups, so a re-aimed comic would likely do more poorly. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that I don’t think I’ve got the chops to do it.
The outside view (sellout!) confirms this. Also, Eagles will like a comic more if only fellow Eagles like it than if both Eagles and Rattlers do.
(Does that count as changing my mind about how often I have occasion to reply with arguments for more agreement rather that arguments for disagreement? Pretty please?)
I’m afraid that I’m going to appeal that one to the harshest judge I can imagine—your own honest self-assessment. :)