I do not mean to offend. However, your particular style of writing would not be considered standard within the fields in which I am familiar, nor is it considered standard within Lesswrong. As such, if you wish to make yourself better understood, you may wish to revise your style.
Huh. This is the first case I have seen of “I do not mean to offend. However,” actually meaning its denotation. You gain a permanent +1 Charisma boost.
I must confess that I went for substance and not style. Would you mind spending a moment and letting me know what your problem is with the style? No offense taken. I promise.
My outlook comes from my certainty that some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions, and my certainty that some other minds are susceptible to a need to supply such compulsions, sometimes as themselves as the authority, and sometimes as representatives of higher authority.
This sentence is problematic both stylistically and in terms of substance. You make two assertions (some minds seek religious compulsions and some minds need to supply them) without providing any warrant beyond your own certainty. If it is indeed the case that some people are psychologically dependent on religion (not just because they think they are, or think they should be, or have never really considered the question) that would be of interest to most people on LessWrong. Link to studies that back this up.
Stylistically, the sentence uses unnecessarily vague and wordy language. The line ” some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions” requires the reader to figure out a lot by themself. Mind-design space is enormous; no one will contest that a mind could exist that requires religion. Assuming your assertion is specific to humans, try “some people” instead of “some minds”. Next, what does it mean to be “susceptible to seeking compulsions”? Under my understanding, a compulsion is a strong desire or need to do something, not something you would seek in itself.
“Some people feel compelled to seek religion, and other people feel compelled to spread religious memes” seems to get across the point of the sentence with fewer words and less ambiguity. If this accurately summarizes your intent, you could try going through the rest of the article and making similar changes.
I cannot help but wonder whether or not you stopped reading after the second sentence. Right after that short first paragraph the piece states that everything that follows depends on whether the personal outlook I had stated has merit. If yes, then I stated a possible solution which, due to clever word-smithing, is supposed to indicate that what is to follow is in at least semi-jest. No assertions were made in the piece, so I can’t imagine how you found yourself burdened by unsubstantiated assertions.
I think I now understand our main point of disagreement. Claims backed only by personal opinion are still assertions. (I should add that there’s nothing wrong with posts in the discussion session relying on personal feelings and results, as long as you avoid generalizing from one example and other-optimizing.)
For an article predicated so heavily on the assumption that religion is necessary and inevitable, a failure to explain how you reached that conclusion is confusing. Presenting a controversial premise without explaining how you arrived at it is likely to result in downvotes, which I urge you not to take personally. The rest of the downvotes likely come from the lack of clarity, which (I think) just makes it harder for people to realize that your article was “at least semi-jest”. You seem a little shell-shocked at the reaction to this post; downvoting just means “I want less of this”, not “I hate this” and certainly not “what an idiot”.
I hope this is helpful for understanding the LessWrong reaction to your post.
“My outlook comes from my certainty that some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions, and my certainty that some other minds are susceptible to a need to supply such compulsions, sometimes as themselves as the authority, and sometimes as representatives of higher authority.”
This sentence is wordy indeed, but it seems to express a specific thought that is not expressed with as much clarity in your version. Prior to that sentence she/he is first admitting that his/her own certainty is the only foundation the reader shall receive, and she admits that the following shall denote no more or less than the limits of his/her imagination. Then she/he references the previous sentence as example of a type of compulsion that may or may not have a religious component, though I understand why you combined the given examples into religion. .
[EDIT: It appears that thre3e created several accounts to promote eir own post. I’m leaving this here, but I won’t be engaging further since it doesn’t appear Tamara is a unique user.]
Fair enough. Perhaps a better summary of thre3e’s sentence would be:
I feel that some people depend on religious laws and expectations for behavior, and some people feel compelled to spread religious memes (either to bolster their own authority or that of a higher power).
(I would later develop the specific examples of “sex-related, murder-related, and god-worship related behaviors.)
You’re probably right that thre3e’s declaration of “certainty” was intended to signal the basis for eir assertions, but declarations of “certainty” set off alarm bells in my head, especially when they are presented without evidence.
But my intent isn’t to put words into thre3e’s mouth; if I’m not expressing eir ideas properly, I hope ey will correct me. I’m just trying to express what stylistic issues with the original may have detracted from clarity.
I do not mean to offend. However, your particular style of writing would not be considered standard within the fields in which I am familiar, nor is it considered standard within Lesswrong. As such, if you wish to make yourself better understood, you may wish to revise your style.
Huh. This is the first case I have seen of “I do not mean to offend. However,” actually meaning its denotation. You gain a permanent +1 Charisma boost.
i DON’T GET IT.
I must confess that I went for substance and not style. Would you mind spending a moment and letting me know what your problem is with the style? No offense taken. I promise.
For example:
This sentence is problematic both stylistically and in terms of substance. You make two assertions (some minds seek religious compulsions and some minds need to supply them) without providing any warrant beyond your own certainty. If it is indeed the case that some people are psychologically dependent on religion (not just because they think they are, or think they should be, or have never really considered the question) that would be of interest to most people on LessWrong. Link to studies that back this up.
Stylistically, the sentence uses unnecessarily vague and wordy language. The line ” some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions” requires the reader to figure out a lot by themself. Mind-design space is enormous; no one will contest that a mind could exist that requires religion. Assuming your assertion is specific to humans, try “some people” instead of “some minds”. Next, what does it mean to be “susceptible to seeking compulsions”? Under my understanding, a compulsion is a strong desire or need to do something, not something you would seek in itself.
“Some people feel compelled to seek religion, and other people feel compelled to spread religious memes” seems to get across the point of the sentence with fewer words and less ambiguity. If this accurately summarizes your intent, you could try going through the rest of the article and making similar changes.
I cannot help but wonder whether or not you stopped reading after the second sentence. Right after that short first paragraph the piece states that everything that follows depends on whether the personal outlook I had stated has merit. If yes, then I stated a possible solution which, due to clever word-smithing, is supposed to indicate that what is to follow is in at least semi-jest. No assertions were made in the piece, so I can’t imagine how you found yourself burdened by unsubstantiated assertions.
I think I now understand our main point of disagreement. Claims backed only by personal opinion are still assertions. (I should add that there’s nothing wrong with posts in the discussion session relying on personal feelings and results, as long as you avoid generalizing from one example and other-optimizing.)
For an article predicated so heavily on the assumption that religion is necessary and inevitable, a failure to explain how you reached that conclusion is confusing. Presenting a controversial premise without explaining how you arrived at it is likely to result in downvotes, which I urge you not to take personally. The rest of the downvotes likely come from the lack of clarity, which (I think) just makes it harder for people to realize that your article was “at least semi-jest”. You seem a little shell-shocked at the reaction to this post; downvoting just means “I want less of this”, not “I hate this” and certainly not “what an idiot”.
I hope this is helpful for understanding the LessWrong reaction to your post.
“My outlook comes from my certainty that some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions, and my certainty that some other minds are susceptible to a need to supply such compulsions, sometimes as themselves as the authority, and sometimes as representatives of higher authority.”
This sentence is wordy indeed, but it seems to express a specific thought that is not expressed with as much clarity in your version. Prior to that sentence she/he is first admitting that his/her own certainty is the only foundation the reader shall receive, and she admits that the following shall denote no more or less than the limits of his/her imagination. Then she/he references the previous sentence as example of a type of compulsion that may or may not have a religious component, though I understand why you combined the given examples into religion. .
[EDIT: It appears that thre3e created several accounts to promote eir own post. I’m leaving this here, but I won’t be engaging further since it doesn’t appear Tamara is a unique user.]
Fair enough. Perhaps a better summary of thre3e’s sentence would be:
I feel that some people depend on religious laws and expectations for behavior, and some people feel compelled to spread religious memes (either to bolster their own authority or that of a higher power).
(I would later develop the specific examples of “sex-related, murder-related, and god-worship related behaviors.)
You’re probably right that thre3e’s declaration of “certainty” was intended to signal the basis for eir assertions, but declarations of “certainty” set off alarm bells in my head, especially when they are presented without evidence.
But my intent isn’t to put words into thre3e’s mouth; if I’m not expressing eir ideas properly, I hope ey will correct me. I’m just trying to express what stylistic issues with the original may have detracted from clarity.
By the way, Welcome to Less Wrong!. You should introduce yourself; it’s free karma.