I do believe that authors should do the leg work of connecting their frames with other frames made by other people previously themselves, to save disproportionally much more cognitive effort for the readers of connecting concepts in their heads and to prevent misinterpretations. In academia, this is called “citing prior work”. Citing zero prior work is bad style and correctly shunned, a-la Wolfram.
My new comment applies in general—notice that I mentioned “misinterpretations”. If I did this misinterpretation originally it means that probably many other people also did it, and to increase the % of people who interpreted your text correctly you would better have included a paragraph like “Note that this idea is distinct from Moloch, because …”, or “This idea is a spin on some earlier ideas, …”.
I maintain that “readers should read better and decipher and interpret correctly what I’ve written, and if they failed, so it worse for them” is a bad attitude and strategy for academic and philosophical writing (even though it’s widespread in different guises).
Well, I perfectly agree with you then. This is why I’ve never written anything I’d intend to publish in an academic setting nor anything I’d consider to be pure philosophy.
I do believe that authors should do the leg work of connecting their frames with other frames made by other people previously themselves, to save disproportionally much more cognitive effort for the readers of connecting concepts in their heads and to prevent misinterpretations. In academia, this is called “citing prior work”. Citing zero prior work is bad style and correctly shunned, a-la Wolfram.
See what I previously wrote, in my opinion you should make an effort to read rather than pattern match to existing concepts.
My new comment applies in general—notice that I mentioned “misinterpretations”. If I did this misinterpretation originally it means that probably many other people also did it, and to increase the % of people who interpreted your text correctly you would better have included a paragraph like “Note that this idea is distinct from Moloch, because …”, or “This idea is a spin on some earlier ideas, …”.
I maintain that “readers should read better and decipher and interpret correctly what I’ve written, and if they failed, so it worse for them” is a bad attitude and strategy for academic and philosophical writing (even though it’s widespread in different guises).
Well, I perfectly agree with you then. This is why I’ve never written anything I’d intend to publish in an academic setting nor anything I’d consider to be pure philosophy.