I must disagree with you on both points. The introduction to the piece takes up most of it, I acknowledge, and this is intended as an introduction to a later piece.
People complained that previous posts were too long, so I thought I’d try to keep this short and incremental.
It boggles my mind that you, in disagreeing with the assertion that your article lacks a thesis or takeaway, do not explicitly state what you claim to be the thesis and takeaway.
I don’t think anyone was telling you to repeat yourself. JGWeissman seems to ask you to make your thesis and/or takeaway explicit. For example, “My thesis is X” or “I argue that X” or “To sum up, X” or “therefore, X”.
Thesis: the mind is made out of ‘layers’ of modules and functions, starting with the most rudimentary, basic, and primitive, and moving to the most complex and subtle.
Takeaway: all inhibition can fail. The more powerful the activity of the lower processes, the less likely it will be that the frontal lobes will be able to control them. Faced with more than it can handle, the ‘angel brain’ can be overwhelmed, letting the more basic modules to influence behavior and thinking.
People complained that previous posts were too long, so I thought I’d try to keep this short and incremental.
I believe the relevant aphorism here is “make it as short as possible, but no shorter”. People complaining about length is preferable to incomplete thoughts.
Sure, but this is basically only worthwhile to us as an introduction...meaning you just gave us an introduction, the point of which is for something more substantial to come after it. Neat example yes, but still wordy for that neat example. This could’ve been two paragraphs.
I agree; I have the impression that the takeaway is going to be that “IQ isn’t adequate to access someone’s intellectual capacity”, which will be explained in another post. Bit of a tease. :)
This article seems to be missing either a thesis or a takeaway.
I must disagree with you on both points. The introduction to the piece takes up most of it, I acknowledge, and this is intended as an introduction to a later piece.
People complained that previous posts were too long, so I thought I’d try to keep this short and incremental.
It boggles my mind that you, in disagreeing with the assertion that your article lacks a thesis or takeaway, do not explicitly state what you claim to be the thesis and takeaway.
I have one person telling me to be terse and succinct, and another insisting that I should repeat myself.
I can’t do both.
I don’t think anyone was telling you to repeat yourself. JGWeissman seems to ask you to make your thesis and/or takeaway explicit. For example, “My thesis is X” or “I argue that X” or “To sum up, X” or “therefore, X”.
Thesis: the mind is made out of ‘layers’ of modules and functions, starting with the most rudimentary, basic, and primitive, and moving to the most complex and subtle.
Takeaway: all inhibition can fail. The more powerful the activity of the lower processes, the less likely it will be that the frontal lobes will be able to control them. Faced with more than it can handle, the ‘angel brain’ can be overwhelmed, letting the more basic modules to influence behavior and thinking.
In my humble opinion, splitting long articles up is cheating. You should actually make them more concise.
I believe the relevant aphorism here is “make it as short as possible, but no shorter”. People complaining about length is preferable to incomplete thoughts.
Sure, but this is basically only worthwhile to us as an introduction...meaning you just gave us an introduction, the point of which is for something more substantial to come after it. Neat example yes, but still wordy for that neat example. This could’ve been two paragraphs.
I agree; I have the impression that the takeaway is going to be that “IQ isn’t adequate to access someone’s intellectual capacity”, which will be explained in another post. Bit of a tease. :)