We see what we see for adaptive reasons, not because it is the truth.
Contrast:
Nature cannot be fooled.
-- Feynman
One might even FTFY the first quote as:
“We see what we see for adaptive reasons, because it is the truth.”
This part:
Nerds are the ones who notice that something is off—and want to see what’s really going on.
is contradicted by the context of the whole article. The article is in praise of insight porn (the writer’s own words for it) as the cognitive experience of choice for nerds (the writer’s word for them, in whom he includes himself and for whom he is writing) while explicitly considering its actual truth to be of little importance. He praises the experience of reading Julian Jaynes and in the same breath dismisses Jaynes’ actual claims as “batshit insane and obviously wrong”.
In other words, “Nerds … want to see what’s really going on” is, like the whole article, a statement of insight porn, uttered for the feeling of truthy insight it gives, “not because it is the truth”.
How useful is this to someone who actually wants “to see what’s really going on”?
Contrast:
-- Feynman
One might even FTFY the first quote as:
“We see what we see for adaptive reasons, because it is the truth.”
This part:
is contradicted by the context of the whole article. The article is in praise of insight porn (the writer’s own words for it) as the cognitive experience of choice for nerds (the writer’s word for them, in whom he includes himself and for whom he is writing) while explicitly considering its actual truth to be of little importance. He praises the experience of reading Julian Jaynes and in the same breath dismisses Jaynes’ actual claims as “batshit insane and obviously wrong”.
In other words, “Nerds … want to see what’s really going on” is, like the whole article, a statement of insight porn, uttered for the feeling of truthy insight it gives, “not because it is the truth”.
How useful is this to someone who actually wants “to see what’s really going on”?
.
Insight porn, in other words?