There are a lot of important questions that Eric doesn’t say much about.
How to explain this? (I note that he not only fails to proactively address these questions, but also ignores them when others raise them, which seems totally inexplicable to me. Or at least this was my experience when I participated in the CAIS discussion when that came out.)
I feel like trying properly to explain it would veer more into speculating-about-his-psychology than I really want to. But it doesn’t seem totally inexplicable to me, and I’d imagine that an explanation might look something like:
Eric doesn’t think it’s his comparative advantage to answer these questions; he also sometimes experiences people raising them as distracting from the core messages he is trying to convey.
(To be clear, I’m not claiming that this is what is happening; I’m just trying to explain why it doesn’t feel in-principle inexplicable to me.)
How to explain this? (I note that he not only fails to proactively address these questions, but also ignores them when others raise them, which seems totally inexplicable to me. Or at least this was my experience when I participated in the CAIS discussion when that came out.)
I feel like trying properly to explain it would veer more into speculating-about-his-psychology than I really want to. But it doesn’t seem totally inexplicable to me, and I’d imagine that an explanation might look something like:
(To be clear, I’m not claiming that this is what is happening; I’m just trying to explain why it doesn’t feel in-principle inexplicable to me.)