Your title and section titles seem like they were optimized to be clever out-of-context, and then tacked on without anything to specifically inform them. For example, I’d like to have some mention of a brontosaurus in a section whose title contains a brontosaurus.
They were references—Hitchhicker’s Guide to the Galaxy and Monty Python, respectively. I didn’t expect everyone to get them, and perhaps I should have taken them out, but the alternative seemed too damn serious and I thought it worth entertaining some people at the cost of leaving others (hopefully not many, in this crowd of geeks) scratching their heads.
I hope that clarifies. In general, if it seems surrealistic and out of place, it’s probably a reference.
Even references need to be motivated by textual concerns. For example, if you had a post titled “Mostly Harmless” because it talked about the people of Earth but it did not say anything related to harmlessness or lack thereof, it would not be a good title.
Counter-suggestion: Only use references that you either expect everyone to pick up on, or ones which are mostly invisible to people who don’t recognize them. It’s tasteless to add incongruous references and then expect people to follow your link which describes the clever aside you just made.
I suppose it would be asking too much to just suggest that if a sentence or phrase seems out of place or perhaps even surreal, that readers could just assume it’s a reference they don’t get, and skip it?
If the resulting argument doesn’t make sense, then there’s a legit criticism to be made.
For what it’s worth, here are the references. I’ll add a link here from the main post.
“Spot the Loonie!” was a Monty Python satire of a game show. I’m using it here to refer to the idea of being able to tell when someone’s argument doesn’t make sense.
“How to Identify the Essential Elements of Rationality from Quite a Long Way Away” refers to the title of a Monty Python episode whose title was, I think, “How to Identify Different Types of Trees from Quite a Long Way Away”.
“Seven and a Half Million Years Later” refers to the length of time it took the computer Deep Thought, The Second-Greatest Computer in All Time and Space, to calculate The Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, And Everything (in The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, aka H2G2).
“I really have no idea if you’re going to like it” refers to Deep Thought’s reluctance, seven and a half million years later, to divulge The Answer: “You’re really not going to like it.” “is… is...” refers to this same dialogue, where Deep Thought holds off actually giving The Answer as long as possible.
“The Question to the Ultimate Answer” refers to the fact that, having divulged The Answer, it pretty quickly became clear that it was necessary to know what the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, And Everything actually was, in order for the answer to make any sense.
“So, have we worked out any kind of coherent picture… Well no...” refers to a scene in H2G2 where usage of The Infinite Improbability Drive gives rise (quite improbably) to the existence of “a bowl of petunias and a rather surprised-looking sperm whale”, the latter of which immediately begins trying to make cognitive sense of his surroundings. After assigning names (amazingly, they are the correct English words) to several collections of perceptions in his immediate environment, he pauses to ask “So, have we built up any coherent picture of things? Well… no, not really”… or something like that.
“A Theory About the Brontosaurus” refers to a Monty Python sketch in which a talk show interviewee has a theory (about the brontosaurus) which she introduces many times (“This is my theory. (cough cough) It goes like this. (cough) Here is the theory that I have (cough cough cough) My Theory About the Brontosaurus, and what it is too. Here it goes.”) before finally revealing her utterly trivial and non-enlightening conclusion.
“ahem ahem” refers to the interviewee’s repeated coughing-delays in the above sketch.
I can certainly attempt that. I considered doing so originally, but thought it would be too much like “explaining the joke” (a process notorious for efficient removal of humor). I also had this idea that the references were so ubiquitous by now that they were borderline cliche. I’m glad to discover that this is not the case… I think.
Two years ago, I wouldn’t have gotten the brontosaurus reference. I got it today only because last year someone happened to include “Anne Elk” in their reference and that provided enough context for a successful Google. There are no ubiquitous references.
That said, cata has a point too, as do you with the thing about explaining jokes. Like everything else in successful communication, it comes down to a balancing act.
My take on references I don’t get is either to ignore them, to ask someone (“hey, is this a reference to something? I don’t get why they said that.”), or possibly to Google it if looks Googleable.
I don’t think it should be a cause for penalty unless the references are so heavy that they interrupt the flow of the argument. It’s possible that I did that, but I don’t think I did.
The problem is that the references have such a strained connection to what you’re talking about that they are basically non sequiturs whether you understand them or not.
Your title and section titles seem like they were optimized to be clever out-of-context, and then tacked on without anything to specifically inform them. For example, I’d like to have some mention of a brontosaurus in a section whose title contains a brontosaurus.
Or at least a link to this
They were references—Hitchhicker’s Guide to the Galaxy and Monty Python, respectively. I didn’t expect everyone to get them, and perhaps I should have taken them out, but the alternative seemed too damn serious and I thought it worth entertaining some people at the cost of leaving others (hopefully not many, in this crowd of geeks) scratching their heads.
I hope that clarifies. In general, if it seems surrealistic and out of place, it’s probably a reference.
Even references need to be motivated by textual concerns. For example, if you had a post titled “Mostly Harmless” because it talked about the people of Earth but it did not say anything related to harmlessness or lack thereof, it would not be a good title.
Yes, that is quite true. However, as you can see, I was indeed discussing how to spot irrationality, potentially from quite a long way away.
Suggestion: Supply links explaining references. You can’t achieve common knowledge unless you have common priors.
Counter-suggestion: Only use references that you either expect everyone to pick up on, or ones which are mostly invisible to people who don’t recognize them. It’s tasteless to add incongruous references and then expect people to follow your link which describes the clever aside you just made.
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I’m gonna go eat worms...
I suppose it would be asking too much to just suggest that if a sentence or phrase seems out of place or perhaps even surreal, that readers could just assume it’s a reference they don’t get, and skip it?
If the resulting argument doesn’t make sense, then there’s a legit criticism to be made.
But I like you!!! I like humans!!!
It’s just that I regard your expositions as disinformative.
Exposition… disinformative?… contradiction… illogical, illogical… Norman, coordinate!
For what it’s worth, here are the references. I’ll add a link here from the main post.
“Spot the Loonie!” was a Monty Python satire of a game show. I’m using it here to refer to the idea of being able to tell when someone’s argument doesn’t make sense.
“How to Identify the Essential Elements of Rationality from Quite a Long Way Away” refers to the title of a Monty Python episode whose title was, I think, “How to Identify Different Types of Trees from Quite a Long Way Away”.
“Seven and a Half Million Years Later” refers to the length of time it took the computer Deep Thought, The Second-Greatest Computer in All Time and Space, to calculate The Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, And Everything (in The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, aka H2G2).
“I really have no idea if you’re going to like it” refers to Deep Thought’s reluctance, seven and a half million years later, to divulge The Answer: “You’re really not going to like it.” “is… is...” refers to this same dialogue, where Deep Thought holds off actually giving The Answer as long as possible.
“The Question to the Ultimate Answer” refers to the fact that, having divulged The Answer, it pretty quickly became clear that it was necessary to know what the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, And Everything actually was, in order for the answer to make any sense.
“So, have we worked out any kind of coherent picture… Well no...” refers to a scene in H2G2 where usage of The Infinite Improbability Drive gives rise (quite improbably) to the existence of “a bowl of petunias and a rather surprised-looking sperm whale”, the latter of which immediately begins trying to make cognitive sense of his surroundings. After assigning names (amazingly, they are the correct English words) to several collections of perceptions in his immediate environment, he pauses to ask “So, have we built up any coherent picture of things? Well… no, not really”… or something like that.
“you know what I am saying, darleengs?” is a catchphrase used by Billy Crystal’s SNL parody of Fernando Lamas. (Note: comedian Billy Crystal should not be confused with evil neoconservative pundit Bill Krystol.)
“A Theory About the Brontosaurus” refers to a Monty Python sketch in which a talk show interviewee has a theory (about the brontosaurus) which she introduces many times (“This is my theory. (cough cough) It goes like this. (cough) Here is the theory that I have (cough cough cough) My Theory About the Brontosaurus, and what it is too. Here it goes.”) before finally revealing her utterly trivial and non-enlightening conclusion.
“ahem ahem” refers to the interviewee’s repeated coughing-delays in the above sketch.
I can certainly attempt that. I considered doing so originally, but thought it would be too much like “explaining the joke” (a process notorious for efficient removal of humor). I also had this idea that the references were so ubiquitous by now that they were borderline cliche. I’m glad to discover that this is not the case… I think.
Two years ago, I wouldn’t have gotten the brontosaurus reference. I got it today only because last year someone happened to include “Anne Elk” in their reference and that provided enough context for a successful Google. There are no ubiquitous references.
That said, cata has a point too, as do you with the thing about explaining jokes. Like everything else in successful communication, it comes down to a balancing act.
Yes, I agree, it’s a balancing act.
My take on references I don’t get is either to ignore them, to ask someone (“hey, is this a reference to something? I don’t get why they said that.”), or possibly to Google it if looks Googleable.
I don’t think it should be a cause for penalty unless the references are so heavy that they interrupt the flow of the argument. It’s possible that I did that, but I don’t think I did.
The problem is that the references have such a strained connection to what you’re talking about that they are basically non sequiturs whether you understand them or not.