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.”
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.