It seems like your implied objection is that Robinson Crusoe and time-travel stories are fantastical; the one being extreme edge cases, the other being impossible, and both being fictional; and that therefore they are bad examples of “the ordinary means by which [people] navigate their lives.” This is true.
The reason I cited such bad examples is that good examples of an activity people obviously have done a lot of—investigate and figure things out about their perceived environment and not just the symbolic simulacrum of that environment—are underrepresented in literature, vs drama and symbol-manipulation. Ayn Rand singled out Calumet K, for instance, as a rare example of a novel about a person at work solving problems that were not just drama. Eliyahu Goldratt’s books have similar virtues.
they are bad examples of “the ordinary means by which [people] navigate their lives.”
Right. Except that I’d go further (or perhaps we can say: more categorical) than “bad examples”. They’re not examples of that thing, period. Like, at all. Because they’re (a) completely fictional (not even “historical fiction based on a pastiche or amalgam of real events” or “fictionalized version of real events” or anything like that, just entirely made-up), and (b) even within the fictional frame, the described scenarios are just about the furthest thing from “the ordinary means by which [people] navigate their lives”!
The reason I cited such bad examples is that good examples of an activity people obviously have done a lot of—investigate and figure things out about their perceived environment and not just the symbolic simulacrum of that environment—are underrepresented in literature, vs drama and symbol-manipulation.
Well, ok, but:
If you don’t have any good examples to support a claim, then that should in fact reduce both your readers’ and your own confidence in the claim.
If you don’t have any good examples to support a claim, then citing bad examples (a.k.a. “not-at-all-examples”) instead seems like… an obviously bad move? I mean, why… would you do that?
Even if you didn’t have real examples, surely there are better fictional examples than “time travel”, which is (as far as we know) literally forbidden by the laws of physics?
In case my point was obscure—time travel stories aren’t real, and Robinson Crusoe is also fictional. The sorts of skills that fictional characters use in stories like this, bear, for the most part, little resemblance to the sorts of skills that ordinary, real people use to navigate their ordinary, real lives.
I mean, it’s been seven years and critiquing this old post is not all that important at this point. But since you brought it up—my point was, and remains, that the use of examples like “Robinson Crusoe” and “time-travel stories” when thinking about stuff like this, is a deep and serious mistake in reasoning, which can lead us very far astray (and which is distressingly common in “rationalist” writing, where it routinely does indeed lead the writer very far astray). It’s not a nitpick, or a superficial bit of mockery, or any such thing. It is a central criticism.
I don’t think those are good examples to emulate; they were, however, some of the nearer things I’d been exposed to as a teenager, to the sort of mindset I’m arguing for, and some of the nearer things I expect the typical reader here has been exposed to, to what I mean. The following paragraph is where I bring up specific nonfictional examples of the sort of thing I mean (Feynman’s explanation of triboluminescence, explanations of early metalworking, etc.) If I were writing the article now, I’d make that distinction much more clear and explicit; maybe that would be the core point, even.
Possibly I should instead try to get to know and talk with the more curious and conscientious sorts of auto mechanics, inventors, etc, and seek out social contexts where material problems are being investigated and solved routinely instead of posting here.
Robinson Crusoe type stories and time-travel stories are appealing in part because they can inflate the density at which such undersupplied problem-solving stories show up in a single narrative. This doesn’t seem the best, much like I would rather not learn about the ethics of conflict through The Lord of the Rings. Maybe it was unclear that I was trying to report an unmet need and then suggest a solution, much as someone might describe their prior pastry addiction before describing the benefits of a breakfast of fresh fruit.
On the other hand, I think there ought to be room for writing from a confused perspective trying to become unconfused.
I don’t think those are good examples to emulate …
Right, yes, I understand that; I didn’t think that you were suggesting emulating those things, exactly…
Robinson Crusoe type stories and time-travel stories are appealing in part because they can inflate the density at which such undersupplied problem-solving stories show up in a single narrative. This doesn’t seem the best, much like I would rather not learn about the ethics of conflict through The Lord of the Rings.
This is something like my point, yeah.
Basically, one who reads such stories[1] thinks: “there exists a mindset that enables one to solve problems like the ones that occur in these stories!”. And the problem is not that the stories mis-describe this mindset. The problem is that the stories are, to begin with, the reason why this person thinks that there is such a mindset; and that it does indeed allow one to solve “such problems”. But there is (to a first approximation) no such mindset! If you go looking for it elsewhere, you won’t find it. (I also made more or less this point seven years ago.)
So, maybe an even better example than The Lord of the Rings would be The Chronicles of Narnia. Like, if you read the latter, and thought something like “I need a better source from which to learn how to accept Jesus into my life, the better to solve my problems”… that would be a pretty fundamental mistake, right? It’s not just that you’re learning something from a source that is bad at teaching you that thing; the lesson itself is just wrong. (And while there may be nearby lessons which are worth learning, one must be exceptionally careful in identifying them…)
Maybe it was unclear that I was trying to report an unmet need and then suggest a solution, much as someone might describe their prior pastry addiction before describing the benefits of a breakfast of fresh fruit.
Hmm… I’m not sure that I like this analogy. Part of my point is that it’s not a need at all. It would be more like… a heroin addiction. The right conclusion isn’t “I need a better, more healthier way to regularly consume opiates”, is it?
Possibly I should instead try to get to know and talk with the more curious and conscientious sorts of auto mechanics, inventors, etc, and seek out social contexts where material problems are being investigated and solved routinely instead of posting here.
This sounds like (a) an excellent idea, (b) not at all easy to actually do (but by all means go for it!), (c) something which I’d very much like to see you post about, if you did it!
Does this apply to you, in particular? Well… maybe, maybe not; I suspect that it does, or at least did, but if you deny it, I won’t insist otherwise; but absolutely it applies to many others, including many “rationalists”.
It seems like your implied objection is that Robinson Crusoe and time-travel stories are fantastical; the one being extreme edge cases, the other being impossible, and both being fictional; and that therefore they are bad examples of “the ordinary means by which [people] navigate their lives.” This is true.
The reason I cited such bad examples is that good examples of an activity people obviously have done a lot of—investigate and figure things out about their perceived environment and not just the symbolic simulacrum of that environment—are underrepresented in literature, vs drama and symbol-manipulation. Ayn Rand singled out Calumet K, for instance, as a rare example of a novel about a person at work solving problems that were not just drama. Eliyahu Goldratt’s books have similar virtues.
Right. Except that I’d go further (or perhaps we can say: more categorical) than “bad examples”. They’re not examples of that thing, period. Like, at all. Because they’re (a) completely fictional (not even “historical fiction based on a pastiche or amalgam of real events” or “fictionalized version of real events” or anything like that, just entirely made-up), and (b) even within the fictional frame, the described scenarios are just about the furthest thing from “the ordinary means by which [people] navigate their lives”!
Well, ok, but:
If you don’t have any good examples to support a claim, then that should in fact reduce both your readers’ and your own confidence in the claim.
If you don’t have any good examples to support a claim, then citing bad examples (a.k.a. “not-at-all-examples”) instead seems like… an obviously bad move? I mean, why… would you do that?
Even if you didn’t have real examples, surely there are better fictional examples than “time travel”, which is (as far as we know) literally forbidden by the laws of physics?
Also, I did just straightforwardly state my objection, less obliquely, in this comment which I wrote at the time:
(Also also here, and here, and here…)
I mean, it’s been seven years and critiquing this old post is not all that important at this point. But since you brought it up—my point was, and remains, that the use of examples like “Robinson Crusoe” and “time-travel stories” when thinking about stuff like this, is a deep and serious mistake in reasoning, which can lead us very far astray (and which is distressingly common in “rationalist” writing, where it routinely does indeed lead the writer very far astray). It’s not a nitpick, or a superficial bit of mockery, or any such thing. It is a central criticism.
I don’t think those are good examples to emulate; they were, however, some of the nearer things I’d been exposed to as a teenager, to the sort of mindset I’m arguing for, and some of the nearer things I expect the typical reader here has been exposed to, to what I mean. The following paragraph is where I bring up specific nonfictional examples of the sort of thing I mean (Feynman’s explanation of triboluminescence, explanations of early metalworking, etc.) If I were writing the article now, I’d make that distinction much more clear and explicit; maybe that would be the core point, even.
Possibly I should instead try to get to know and talk with the more curious and conscientious sorts of auto mechanics, inventors, etc, and seek out social contexts where material problems are being investigated and solved routinely instead of posting here.
Robinson Crusoe type stories and time-travel stories are appealing in part because they can inflate the density at which such undersupplied problem-solving stories show up in a single narrative. This doesn’t seem the best, much like I would rather not learn about the ethics of conflict through The Lord of the Rings. Maybe it was unclear that I was trying to report an unmet need and then suggest a solution, much as someone might describe their prior pastry addiction before describing the benefits of a breakfast of fresh fruit.
On the other hand, I think there ought to be room for writing from a confused perspective trying to become unconfused.
Right, yes, I understand that; I didn’t think that you were suggesting emulating those things, exactly…
This is something like my point, yeah.
Basically, one who reads such stories[1] thinks: “there exists a mindset that enables one to solve problems like the ones that occur in these stories!”. And the problem is not that the stories mis-describe this mindset. The problem is that the stories are, to begin with, the reason why this person thinks that there is such a mindset; and that it does indeed allow one to solve “such problems”. But there is (to a first approximation) no such mindset! If you go looking for it elsewhere, you won’t find it. (I also made more or less this point seven years ago.)
So, maybe an even better example than The Lord of the Rings would be The Chronicles of Narnia. Like, if you read the latter, and thought something like “I need a better source from which to learn how to accept Jesus into my life, the better to solve my problems”… that would be a pretty fundamental mistake, right? It’s not just that you’re learning something from a source that is bad at teaching you that thing; the lesson itself is just wrong. (And while there may be nearby lessons which are worth learning, one must be exceptionally careful in identifying them…)
Hmm… I’m not sure that I like this analogy. Part of my point is that it’s not a need at all. It would be more like… a heroin addiction. The right conclusion isn’t “I need a better, more healthier way to regularly consume opiates”, is it?
This sounds like (a) an excellent idea, (b) not at all easy to actually do (but by all means go for it!), (c) something which I’d very much like to see you post about, if you did it!
Does this apply to you, in particular? Well… maybe, maybe not; I suspect that it does, or at least did, but if you deny it, I won’t insist otherwise; but absolutely it applies to many others, including many “rationalists”.