I mean, I understand that accurate reading is really difficult for some people, but surely even if you’re severely dyslexic you can see that “I santo talk” isn’t what you meant (presumably “I want to talk”), and likewise for “what I aNto see” (“what I want to see”). And any time you have a sentence over (say) 50 words, or more than 30 consecutive words with no punctuation at all, can’t you tell that something’s gone wrong?
Writing without fixing such things indicates one of three things: (1) you really literally aren’t capable of doing better, or (2) you value your own time so much more than your readers’ that you won’t take a minute of your time to save probably multiple minutes for each of several readers, or (3) you aren’t actually writing with the intention of communicating with others at all.
If #1: damn, that can’t be any fun, and I’m sorry; you’ll probably just have to live with knowing that some of what you write will be nigh-incomprehensible to others. If #2: if that’s your attitude to my time, I don’t feel much inclined to expend any of that time figuring out what you mean. If #3: you should not be doing this on Less Wrong.
(I paraphrase your comment thus: “I want to talk about politicians rather than politics for a moment. People underestimate how deterministically they behave: they just do whatever signals party affiliation on current issues. They are strongly incentivized to do this for fear of getting crucified in the media. We might promote real change by having a TV show that showcases political changes that improve the world despite being unpopular, except that the oligopoly of existing broadcast television channels would never buy it.” If that’s something like right—which it might well not be—then I’m not sure it’s that much more coherent after fixing the superficial problems. How would such a TV show actually get rid of (or outweigh) the incentives that make politicians over-conformist and over-concerned with party affiliation? And why is how deterministic politicians are the problem, rather than what determines their actions? Politicians who deterministically tried to maximize utility, or to do what the majority of the electorate wants, or to maximize GDP, might not be so bad, although all those have their failure modes.)
It looks a lot like laziness, I’m afraid.
I mean, I understand that accurate reading is really difficult for some people, but surely even if you’re severely dyslexic you can see that “I santo talk” isn’t what you meant (presumably “I want to talk”), and likewise for “what I aNto see” (“what I want to see”). And any time you have a sentence over (say) 50 words, or more than 30 consecutive words with no punctuation at all, can’t you tell that something’s gone wrong?
Writing without fixing such things indicates one of three things: (1) you really literally aren’t capable of doing better, or (2) you value your own time so much more than your readers’ that you won’t take a minute of your time to save probably multiple minutes for each of several readers, or (3) you aren’t actually writing with the intention of communicating with others at all.
If #1: damn, that can’t be any fun, and I’m sorry; you’ll probably just have to live with knowing that some of what you write will be nigh-incomprehensible to others. If #2: if that’s your attitude to my time, I don’t feel much inclined to expend any of that time figuring out what you mean. If #3: you should not be doing this on Less Wrong.
(I paraphrase your comment thus: “I want to talk about politicians rather than politics for a moment. People underestimate how deterministically they behave: they just do whatever signals party affiliation on current issues. They are strongly incentivized to do this for fear of getting crucified in the media. We might promote real change by having a TV show that showcases political changes that improve the world despite being unpopular, except that the oligopoly of existing broadcast television channels would never buy it.” If that’s something like right—which it might well not be—then I’m not sure it’s that much more coherent after fixing the superficial problems. How would such a TV show actually get rid of (or outweigh) the incentives that make politicians over-conformist and over-concerned with party affiliation? And why is how deterministic politicians are the problem, rather than what determines their actions? Politicians who deterministically tried to maximize utility, or to do what the majority of the electorate wants, or to maximize GDP, might not be so bad, although all those have their failure modes.)