(Comment reinstated upon reflection and noticing that other comments make similar points:)
“It reads as a self-deception, a self-sabotage, an attempt to justify a continued refusal to pay the prices required to experience their desired outcomes.” Why? This is a pretty serious accusation to make( or implication at least). I think it should be substantiated.
“The question I thought should obviously be consuming the author, namely, how to successfully navigate the system that actually exists, was only briefly considered before it was rejected as intolerable.” Whether or not it needs to ‘consume’ the author, I agree that it would be, or at least would have been/was, helpful to the to consider this question, but this does not mean that the essay is worse because they haven’t discussed it. The essay’s primary topic seems, as far as I can tell, to be the way in which the structure of the education system suppresses and interferes with learning, not the authour themselves.
“Instead, the topic of the essay was how incorrect the system was for not granting the author something they appear to feel owed.” I think this requires very strong evidence as a claim, and that making assertions like this about other peoples’ internal states should be discouraged in general on Lesswrong, although I could well simply have missed the part of the essay where the author mentions this.
“Emergent systems like society are not necessarily just, fair, or even logical. They rarely do everything we want them to, as well as we want them to, or grant us the objects of our desire. We live in the world that exists, not the world we wish existed. ”
This is not a rebuttal of the essay. It appears (correct me if I’m wrong because I’m about to engage in the thing for which I just criticized you, with respect to you) to be an attempted criticism or response to the author’s inferred beliefs, but it is not at all contrary to the post. Further, I expect that the author would actually agree with it, although not with the claim that it should be true, which I think is fairly obviously false. If I’ve completely misinterpreted this, then I’d like to ask what you (zoop) mean by it, or why you think it’s relevant.
“While we know the author spent lots of time on their essay, we don’t know how good the essay was. They have no grades or achievements to tell us of.” I don’t think we really need them to evaluate the Lesswrong essay, because, whether or not it’s true that the author themselves was rejected for insufficient/unfair reasons, their description of the education system suggests that it’s almost inevitable that it is true of someone, and that for structural reasons, that is or would be enough to doom that person, unless they are an exceptionally talented autodidact. [1] The Lesswrong essay makes general, ‘theoretical’ claims about the education system, such that their particular example probably has much more value as something like a ‘thought experiment’ , than it ever could have as a single piece of anecdotal evidence even if it was verified.
“In fact, were I on the admissions committee, this essay alone would disqualify the candidate.”
Why?
“It could not be more normal for a human to find themselves unanointed by elite institutions. The majority of those so afflicted are able to live fulfilling lives, though admittedly not necessarily in the exact manner of their choosing.”
This does not preclude a loss of a potentially incalculably vast amount of expected value which could otherwise have been generated by people whose lives could have been fulfilling in a way they did chose. Additionally, there may be outliers, such as @L.M.Sherlock believes they are if I understand them, for whom this is not true. Even if they are few in number, they could still represent a significant loss of value if their status as an outlier applies as much to their counterfactual intellectual achievements as it does to their academic, test-taking ability.
“No tests need to be taken to start a business. The joy of having a family is not reserved for those with diplomas. ”
I don’t see in what way this is relevant to the essay by @L.M.Sherlock . Did they claim otherwise? (Again, I should note that I haven’t read the entirety of it, so this is not a rhetorical question.)
“My failure to engage with the criticisms of the system was entirely intentional.” If your implication here is that you decided not to engage with something you thought was completely wrong or misdirected, then I think you should justify it.
“If you want benefit in life, you must frequently pay the stated price. If you refuse to pay the price, you cannot demand the benefit.”
It would be correct to say : “If you are to benefit in life, it is frequently the case that you must pay the stated price. If you refuse to pay the price, then you will often be disappointed if you expect your criticisms of the system to be taken seriously. ”
This statement does not contradict @L.M.Sherlock or demonstrate that their essay misses the point (which I assume you think is something to do with whether they can obtain the academic success they might like) . Your statement itself, however, is false, and does not show that it ought to be true. I get the impression (again, I apologize if I misinterpret your internal state) that you have confused an ‘is’ with an ‘ought’. It is true that, unless I’ve made a mistake, my modified version of your statement is correct, but this does not mean that it should be.
Sorry if my @Said Achmiz- style criticism of your comment is overly abrasive or long, but I think it’s necessary that I make it and down vote your comment until/unless you respond with clarifications which render my attacks ‘non—damaging’ .
Here I may be embedding some of my own beliefs into my model of parts of the original post which I did not read, in the assumption that because these beliefs are fairly powerful ‘basins of attraction’, they are at least implications of what the post actually says.
(Comment reinstated upon reflection and noticing that other comments make similar points:)
“It reads as a self-deception, a self-sabotage, an attempt to justify a continued refusal to pay the prices required to experience their desired outcomes.” Why? This is a pretty serious accusation to make( or implication at least). I think it should be substantiated.
“The question I thought should obviously be consuming the author, namely, how to successfully navigate the system that actually exists, was only briefly considered before it was rejected as intolerable.” Whether or not it needs to ‘consume’ the author, I agree that it would be, or at least would have been/was, helpful to the to consider this question, but this does not mean that the essay is worse because they haven’t discussed it. The essay’s primary topic seems, as far as I can tell, to be the way in which the structure of the education system suppresses and interferes with learning, not the authour themselves.
“Instead, the topic of the essay was how incorrect the system was for not granting the author something they appear to feel owed.” I think this requires very strong evidence as a claim, and that making assertions like this about other peoples’ internal states should be discouraged in general on Lesswrong, although I could well simply have missed the part of the essay where the author mentions this.
“Emergent systems like society are not necessarily just, fair, or even logical. They rarely do everything we want them to, as well as we want them to, or grant us the objects of our desire. We live in the world that exists, not the world we wish existed. ”
This is not a rebuttal of the essay. It appears (correct me if I’m wrong because I’m about to engage in the thing for which I just criticized you, with respect to you) to be an attempted criticism or response to the author’s inferred beliefs, but it is not at all contrary to the post. Further, I expect that the author would actually agree with it, although not with the claim that it should be true, which I think is fairly obviously false. If I’ve completely misinterpreted this, then I’d like to ask what you (zoop) mean by it, or why you think it’s relevant.
“While we know the author spent lots of time on their essay, we don’t know how good the essay was. They have no grades or achievements to tell us of.” I don’t think we really need them to evaluate the Lesswrong essay, because, whether or not it’s true that the author themselves was rejected for insufficient/unfair reasons, their description of the education system suggests that it’s almost inevitable that it is true of someone, and that for structural reasons, that is or would be enough to doom that person, unless they are an exceptionally talented autodidact. [1] The Lesswrong essay makes general, ‘theoretical’ claims about the education system, such that their particular example probably has much more value as something like a ‘thought experiment’ , than it ever could have as a single piece of anecdotal evidence even if it was verified.
“In fact, were I on the admissions committee, this essay alone would disqualify the candidate.”
Why?
“It could not be more normal for a human to find themselves unanointed by elite institutions. The majority of those so afflicted are able to live fulfilling lives, though admittedly not necessarily in the exact manner of their choosing.”
This does not preclude a loss of a potentially incalculably vast amount of expected value which could otherwise have been generated by people whose lives could have been fulfilling in a way they did chose. Additionally, there may be outliers, such as @L.M.Sherlock believes they are if I understand them, for whom this is not true. Even if they are few in number, they could still represent a significant loss of value if their status as an outlier applies as much to their counterfactual intellectual achievements as it does to their academic, test-taking ability.
“No tests need to be taken to start a business. The joy of having a family is not reserved for those with diplomas. ”
I don’t see in what way this is relevant to the essay by @L.M.Sherlock . Did they claim otherwise? (Again, I should note that I haven’t read the entirety of it, so this is not a rhetorical question.)
“My failure to engage with the criticisms of the system was entirely intentional.” If your implication here is that you decided not to engage with something you thought was completely wrong or misdirected, then I think you should justify it.
“If you want benefit in life, you must frequently pay the stated price. If you refuse to pay the price, you cannot demand the benefit.”
It would be correct to say : “If you are to benefit in life, it is frequently the case that you must pay the stated price. If you refuse to pay the price, then you will often be disappointed if you expect your criticisms of the system to be taken seriously. ”
This statement does not contradict @L.M.Sherlock or demonstrate that their essay misses the point (which I assume you think is something to do with whether they can obtain the academic success they might like) . Your statement itself, however, is false, and does not show that it ought to be true. I get the impression (again, I apologize if I misinterpret your internal state) that you have confused an ‘is’ with an ‘ought’. It is true that, unless I’ve made a mistake, my modified version of your statement is correct, but this does not mean that it should be.
Sorry if my @Said Achmiz- style criticism of your comment is overly abrasive or long, but I think it’s necessary that I make it and down vote your comment until/unless you respond with clarifications which render my attacks ‘non—damaging’ .
Here I may be embedding some of my own beliefs into my model of parts of the original post which I did not read, in the assumption that because these beliefs are fairly powerful ‘basins of attraction’, they are at least implications of what the post actually says.