It seems that I need to read Luke’s huge article before even starting on this sequence. I’d wanted to read it anyway, but you will have more readers if you can lower the entrance requirements. (Of course, that may be impossible.)
As far as your footnotes just refer to references available online, why not use hyperlinks? “(Adapted from Schroeder et al., 2010)” is nicer than “[1]”.
While your subject is interesting, this post mostly consist of referrals to some theories I don’t really know. Some examples/”shiny stories” may be nice; or you may want to merge the first two posts next time.
Anyway, this seems like it will be interesting, so thanks for writing it!
I’m trying to keep the entrance requirements reasonably low so that someone without a background in neuroscience and philosophy can still easily understand. But I most likely won’t be able to achieve that. There’s a lot of technical language, especially on the neuroscience part. Some of it I don’t fully understand. There’s much that I am still learning. From my experience, understanding the applications of neuroscience (such as that in Luke’s “Crash Course Human Motivation”) gets a lot easier with understanding the fundamentals. It lessens the “hazzy fog” experience.
I’m seriously considering your second suggestion. If it makes it easier for y’all to read, I’m happy to make the switch. I personally like the footnotes. But I’m writing this to help others, not for my pleasure.
I have loads of examples and stories for the neuroscience part. This post was just to give a lay of the land, so you can see where I’m headed. Whenever possible, I try to break down my work into smaller, more manageable parts. I’ve tried writing long essays before, and they just become a time sink.
Since you asked for feedback:
It seems that I need to read Luke’s huge article before even starting on this sequence. I’d wanted to read it anyway, but you will have more readers if you can lower the entrance requirements. (Of course, that may be impossible.)
As far as your footnotes just refer to references available online, why not use hyperlinks? “(Adapted from Schroeder et al., 2010)” is nicer than “[1]”.
While your subject is interesting, this post mostly consist of referrals to some theories I don’t really know. Some examples/”shiny stories” may be nice; or you may want to merge the first two posts next time.
Anyway, this seems like it will be interesting, so thanks for writing it!
I’m trying to keep the entrance requirements reasonably low so that someone without a background in neuroscience and philosophy can still easily understand. But I most likely won’t be able to achieve that. There’s a lot of technical language, especially on the neuroscience part. Some of it I don’t fully understand. There’s much that I am still learning. From my experience, understanding the applications of neuroscience (such as that in Luke’s “Crash Course Human Motivation”) gets a lot easier with understanding the fundamentals. It lessens the “hazzy fog” experience.
I’m seriously considering your second suggestion. If it makes it easier for y’all to read, I’m happy to make the switch. I personally like the footnotes. But I’m writing this to help others, not for my pleasure.
I have loads of examples and stories for the neuroscience part. This post was just to give a lay of the land, so you can see where I’m headed. Whenever possible, I try to break down my work into smaller, more manageable parts. I’ve tried writing long essays before, and they just become a time sink.
You’re quite welcome. Thanks for the feedback!