I think some of my time spent reading articles in the sequences was well spent, and the rest was split between two alternatives: 1) in a minority of cases where the reading didn’t feel useful, it was about something I already felt I understood, and 2) in a majority of such cases, it wasn’t connected to something I was already curious about.
It’s explained a bit better in the longer version of the above comment (which now appears to be homeless). But I think the sequences, or at least the admonition to read them all, are targeted at someone who has done some reading or at least thinking about their subjects before. Not because they demand prior knowledge, but because they demand prior interest. You may have underestimated how much of a newbie you have on your hands.
It’s not that I’m claiming to be so smart that I can participate fully in the discussions without reading up on the fundamentals, it’s that participating or even just watching the discussion is the thing that’s piquing my interest in the subjects in the first place. It feels less like asking me to read about basic physics before trying to set up a physics experiment, and more like asking me to read about music theory without ever having heard any music. It’s just not as meaningful before having observed what it’s good for—and even a highly talented and technical musician would admit that attending a performance with other people is more interesting than doing theory homework, even if they have a very clever theory teacher who makes the lessons into little stories.
Just to put this into perspective, I don’t think any of the above is nearly as significant to my reading habits as the simple amount of material in the sequences. I do keep reading bits and pieces, but how much time in a day I’m able or even willing to focus on it is finite. I’ve spent a lot of time this week reading LW when I could have been out getting vitamin D or practicing the guitar, and at the current rate it would still take me quite a while to get through all the sequences (less, but not a trivial amount, to get through just the core sequences). That’s a time commitment it’s difficult to justify if I’m to make it before being allowed to discuss the ideas with human beings in the current blog.
I guess there are two theses here: that the sequences are good at bestowing information, but the current posts are better at garnering interest in them; and that the latter is simply more enjoyable, because it’s interactive. (I, like some other commenters here, read LW as play, not work; if it weren’t fun I wouldn’t be here.) If you want to convince people to read the sequences before participating, those are your obstacles.
and even a highly talented and technical musician would admit that attending a performance with other people is more interesting than doing theory homework, even if they have a very clever theory teacher who makes the lessons into little stories
I am struck by the inclusion of the seemingly unnecessary phrase “with other people”, which suggests that your real interest is social in nature. And sure enough, you confirm this later in the comment:
That’s a time commitment it’s difficult to justify if I’m to make it before being allowed to discuss the ideas with human beings in the current blog.
and
[current posts are] simply more enjoyable, because it’s interactive
It seems like an important point, and another argument in favor of additional (sub)forums. About that, I’m not sure what I think yet.
Incidentally, against the notion that attending performances is the most enjoyable part of the musical experience, here is Milton Babbitt on the subject:
“I can’t believe that people really prefer to go to the concert hall under intellectually trying, socially trying, physically trying conditions, unable to repeat something they have missed, when they can sit at home under the most comfortable and stimulating circumstances and hear it as they want to hear it. I can’t imagine what would happen to literature today if one were obliged to congregate in an unpleasant hall and read novels projected on a screen.
suggests that your real interest is social in nature
Well, to say it’s my “real” interest suggests that my interest in rationality is fake, which is false, but I am indeed a very social critter and a lot of the appeal of LW is being able to discuss, not just absorb. (I even get shiny karma points for doing it well!)
So, yes—and I was actually realizing that myself over the course of writing that comment (which necessarily involved thinking about why I’m here).
It seems like an important point
Despite the above, I’m not actually sure why it is.
and another argument in favor of additional (sub)forums
Well, I voted for ’em, so it’s good to hear that’s consistent. :)
here is Milton Babbitt
That quote is pretty funny. We clearly differ in at least these two ways: 1) I either don’t know or don’t care enough about music to be bothered by period distractions from it (I’m not sure how to tell the difference from inside my own head), and 2) I like the noisy hall.
He’s right about the novel, though, that would be appalling. (Difference being that verbal language breaks down a lot faster if you miss a piece.)
I can’t imagine what would happen to literature today if one were obliged to congregate in an unpleasant hall and read novels projected on a screen.
Oh, my. Fiction put in a good effort, but truth pulls ahead as always:
Nor is it precisely a theatricalization of the novel …. Rather, in “Gatz” … the text of “The Great Gatsby” is spoken aloud, all forty-nine thousand words of it
I think some of my time spent reading articles in the sequences was well spent, and the rest was split between two alternatives: 1) in a minority of cases where the reading didn’t feel useful, it was about something I already felt I understood, and 2) in a majority of such cases, it wasn’t connected to something I was already curious about.
It’s explained a bit better in the longer version of the above comment (which now appears to be homeless). But I think the sequences, or at least the admonition to read them all, are targeted at someone who has done some reading or at least thinking about their subjects before. Not because they demand prior knowledge, but because they demand prior interest. You may have underestimated how much of a newbie you have on your hands.
It’s not that I’m claiming to be so smart that I can participate fully in the discussions without reading up on the fundamentals, it’s that participating or even just watching the discussion is the thing that’s piquing my interest in the subjects in the first place. It feels less like asking me to read about basic physics before trying to set up a physics experiment, and more like asking me to read about music theory without ever having heard any music. It’s just not as meaningful before having observed what it’s good for—and even a highly talented and technical musician would admit that attending a performance with other people is more interesting than doing theory homework, even if they have a very clever theory teacher who makes the lessons into little stories.
Just to put this into perspective, I don’t think any of the above is nearly as significant to my reading habits as the simple amount of material in the sequences. I do keep reading bits and pieces, but how much time in a day I’m able or even willing to focus on it is finite. I’ve spent a lot of time this week reading LW when I could have been out getting vitamin D or practicing the guitar, and at the current rate it would still take me quite a while to get through all the sequences (less, but not a trivial amount, to get through just the core sequences). That’s a time commitment it’s difficult to justify if I’m to make it before being allowed to discuss the ideas with human beings in the current blog.
I guess there are two theses here: that the sequences are good at bestowing information, but the current posts are better at garnering interest in them; and that the latter is simply more enjoyable, because it’s interactive. (I, like some other commenters here, read LW as play, not work; if it weren’t fun I wouldn’t be here.) If you want to convince people to read the sequences before participating, those are your obstacles.
I am struck by the inclusion of the seemingly unnecessary phrase “with other people”, which suggests that your real interest is social in nature. And sure enough, you confirm this later in the comment:
and
It seems like an important point, and another argument in favor of additional (sub)forums. About that, I’m not sure what I think yet.
Incidentally, against the notion that attending performances is the most enjoyable part of the musical experience, here is Milton Babbitt on the subject:
Well, to say it’s my “real” interest suggests that my interest in rationality is fake, which is false, but I am indeed a very social critter and a lot of the appeal of LW is being able to discuss, not just absorb. (I even get shiny karma points for doing it well!)
So, yes—and I was actually realizing that myself over the course of writing that comment (which necessarily involved thinking about why I’m here).
Despite the above, I’m not actually sure why it is.
Well, I voted for ’em, so it’s good to hear that’s consistent. :)
That quote is pretty funny. We clearly differ in at least these two ways: 1) I either don’t know or don’t care enough about music to be bothered by period distractions from it (I’m not sure how to tell the difference from inside my own head), and 2) I like the noisy hall.
He’s right about the novel, though, that would be appalling. (Difference being that verbal language breaks down a lot faster if you miss a piece.)
Oh, my. Fiction put in a good effort, but truth pulls ahead as always:
Source; non-free, but includes a thorough abstract.
Thanks for a very thoughtful answer.
You’re quite welcome. I appreciate how much thought and respect you’re giving a newbie’s opinion.