This kind of writing direction strenghtens -isms which I don’t particulalry like. In the capacity of “there is all these new directions to approach from” it is kind of acceptable but as “these are the only options” or “these are the groups of advocates” it is more problematic. I like to keep the spine and fudge different and one problem when using too much isms is that people are not consistent with the fudge. When people make different repairs, assumtions get smuggled in.
Like with political tribes I don’t like bluism and greenism (comment I wanted to link back I don’t have access to no longer so replicating some bits)
How should sky color be approached? A) bluism B) greenism
How should gem valuation approached? A) bluism B) greenism
An alternative way to phrase about the same guestions
What color is the sky?
A) blue B) green
What is the most valuable gem color?
A) blue B) green
With this approach “blue sky, green gems” stances don’t get rounded of into big formless categories.
Hmm, I hoped that I clearly communicated that none of these views is satisfactory on its own. I believe that these are just possible ways of approaching the same matter. In this sense, we don’t disagree. Have I misunderstood your position?
Analysis and dissolution reveal details. Mapping a lot of details in mysterious isms hides and groups details. “This is yet another way you could be confused about this topic” is not typically furthering understanding. Increasing sophistry does not always increase clarity or competence.
This kind of writing direction strenghtens -isms which I don’t particulalry like. In the capacity of “there is all these new directions to approach from” it is kind of acceptable but as “these are the only options” or “these are the groups of advocates” it is more problematic. I like to keep the spine and fudge different and one problem when using too much isms is that people are not consistent with the fudge. When people make different repairs, assumtions get smuggled in.
Like with political tribes I don’t like bluism and greenism (comment I wanted to link back I don’t have access to no longer so replicating some bits)
An alternative way to phrase about the same guestions
With this approach “blue sky, green gems” stances don’t get rounded of into big formless categories.
Hmm, I hoped that I clearly communicated that none of these views is satisfactory on its own. I believe that these are just possible ways of approaching the same matter. In this sense, we don’t disagree. Have I misunderstood your position?
simplified I am going “isms boo, you used isms”
Analysis and dissolution reveal details. Mapping a lot of details in mysterious isms hides and groups details. “This is yet another way you could be confused about this topic” is not typically furthering understanding. Increasing sophistry does not always increase clarity or competence.