I have read Ayn Rands published works and loved the stories and most of the message. The characters always seemed like titans that were far and above me, but now, I’ve seen a character that is a bit more approachable.
I can’t comment on your intelligence but as a general rationality issue this sets off warning bells. Fictional characters exist in fictional worlds. Their authors often construct those worlds and those characters to portray their worldviews most favorably. In general, relying on fictional characters to either interest one in any idea is potentially dangerous and taking ideas seriously primarily due to associated fictional characters is a good way to have a set of worldviews that reflect who happens to write well. Determining truth by who writes well is not a good epistemological system.
I completely agree with you that fiction should neither be a primary source of information and philosophy nor should it be my only source of inspiration. I don’t like to think of myself as delusional, but I do like to be inspired by the works of others. I’m hoping to eventually develop my learning “tastes” so that I won’t use fiction as such a crutch. What do you think?
I like to be inspired by the works of others as well. I just have to remember what isn’t real about them!
When you find yourself impressed by fiction, it might be interesting to try to consciously think about what the author has glossed over, or the unrealistic leaps they take. Other commenters have mentioned that authors construct their works to be most favorable to presenting their worldviews—you might also note that, for example, Ayn Rand does not exactly include many technological details in her works on fiction: she doesn’t know, the characters don’t know. Much less impressive that way. What else are you impressed by that isn’t real? And then—what’s left that is real?
Not enough detail to make an assessment. I’ve only seen a single warning sign so I don’t have enough data to see any general patterns. But I would suggest that in might help to pay particular attention to Sarah’s comment and Jsalv’s comments which seem relevant.
I can’t comment on your intelligence but as a general rationality issue this sets off warning bells.
As written sounds like: No offense, but the fact you said this makes me think you’re dumb.
Better: Fictional characters (especially those in works of propaganda) are designed to seem super smart, super rational, super moral and so on. Don’t make yourself feel stupid by comparing yourself to impossible ideals—even Einstein didn’t do things as impressive as Galt, the fact you feel inferior to them doesn’t tell you much about how smart you are.
Interesting. I’m a bit confused as how it does that especially given that I specifically am talking about rationality not intelligence (and those are very much not the same thing). I can see that your rewrite is fine but I can’t see what is bad about the original.
The author asked “Do I have a chance at becoming intelligent?” It appears as though he’s interested in becoming a stronger thinker/rationalist and that he’s worried that he might not be capable. With this as context, the comment
I can’t comment on your intelligence but as a general rationality issue this sets off warning bells.
could be read as “I have doubts as to your ability to be rational” which is both potentially misleading and potentially discouraging. I know that you may not have meant your comment with this connotation—just explaining how it initially came across to me.
A sample rephrasing that would have avoided this issue is:
“It’s possible to improve as a rationalist and I think that your posting here asking for suggestions is a move in the right direction. While I’m glad that the works of Ayn Rand and Eliezer have gotten you interested in rationality, one initial suggestion that I have is to avoid placing too much stock in the appeal of fictional characters in informing your beliefs about the world. Fictional characters exist in fictional worlds. Their authors often construct those worlds and those characters to portray their worldviews most favorably, and an author’s ability to do so has little to do with whether or not his or her worldview is correct.”
I can’t comment on your intelligence but as a general rationality issue this sets off warning bells. Fictional characters exist in fictional worlds. Their authors often construct those worlds and those characters to portray their worldviews most favorably. In general, relying on fictional characters to either interest one in any idea is potentially dangerous and taking ideas seriously primarily due to associated fictional characters is a good way to have a set of worldviews that reflect who happens to write well. Determining truth by who writes well is not a good epistemological system.
I completely agree with you that fiction should neither be a primary source of information and philosophy nor should it be my only source of inspiration. I don’t like to think of myself as delusional, but I do like to be inspired by the works of others. I’m hoping to eventually develop my learning “tastes” so that I won’t use fiction as such a crutch. What do you think?
I like to be inspired by the works of others as well. I just have to remember what isn’t real about them!
When you find yourself impressed by fiction, it might be interesting to try to consciously think about what the author has glossed over, or the unrealistic leaps they take. Other commenters have mentioned that authors construct their works to be most favorable to presenting their worldviews—you might also note that, for example, Ayn Rand does not exactly include many technological details in her works on fiction: she doesn’t know, the characters don’t know. Much less impressive that way. What else are you impressed by that isn’t real? And then—what’s left that is real?
Not enough detail to make an assessment. I’ve only seen a single warning sign so I don’t have enough data to see any general patterns. But I would suggest that in might help to pay particular attention to Sarah’s comment and Jsalv’s comments which seem relevant.
The tone of this comment seems to me unnecessarily caustic—the points that you make therein can be made in a more friendly and welcoming way.
Can you point out specific aspects that seem overly caustic? I’m having trouble seeing that.
As written sounds like: No offense, but the fact you said this makes me think you’re dumb.
Better: Fictional characters (especially those in works of propaganda) are designed to seem super smart, super rational, super moral and so on. Don’t make yourself feel stupid by comparing yourself to impossible ideals—even Einstein didn’t do things as impressive as Galt, the fact you feel inferior to them doesn’t tell you much about how smart you are.
Interesting. I’m a bit confused as how it does that especially given that I specifically am talking about rationality not intelligence (and those are very much not the same thing). I can see that your rewrite is fine but I can’t see what is bad about the original.
Sure.
The author asked “Do I have a chance at becoming intelligent?” It appears as though he’s interested in becoming a stronger thinker/rationalist and that he’s worried that he might not be capable. With this as context, the comment
could be read as “I have doubts as to your ability to be rational” which is both potentially misleading and potentially discouraging. I know that you may not have meant your comment with this connotation—just explaining how it initially came across to me.
A sample rephrasing that would have avoided this issue is:
“It’s possible to improve as a rationalist and I think that your posting here asking for suggestions is a move in the right direction. While I’m glad that the works of Ayn Rand and Eliezer have gotten you interested in rationality, one initial suggestion that I have is to avoid placing too much stock in the appeal of fictional characters in informing your beliefs about the world. Fictional characters exist in fictional worlds. Their authors often construct those worlds and those characters to portray their worldviews most favorably, and an author’s ability to do so has little to do with whether or not his or her worldview is correct.”
Thanks. That makes sense.