Really? The main claim is presented “in an outrageous way”?
I can imagine reading the post and being unconvinced by the evidence presented. In fact, that was my reaction (although I haven’t watched the videos yet). But… being outraged?
Posts should not make large, unsupported claims, and criticism should not be hyperbolic. Here is what I have learned from your critique:
You think that StyleOfDog writes “maniacally” and uses “meme-speak” too much.
Unclear why I should care. Not my favorite style of writing, but I understood what they were trying to say, and so communication occurred. It’s not obvious to me that marginally more “meme-speak” would be bad for the site. It just read informally to me, which I don’t mind for this kind of “fun / curiosity” post.
Ironically, your comment is hard to parse. The structure is scattered, which disorients me as I read your critique. In particular, you include two footnotes in quick succession, destroying flow. You could have just left them in the body of the comment.
You found the main claim unclear.
At least you formulated a hypothesis? I’m unsure why you found it unclear.
You are outraged.
Since you made a new account, I can’t even Bayes-update based on existing reputation.
StyleOfDog didn’t mention the field of comparative cognition.
Thank you. This is a substantive critique, and a field I didn’t know how to name.
You worry about cherry-picking.
Ideally, you would have pointed to specific videos. No problem that you didn’t.
Sorry for over-reacting to what I perceived as essentially a curated list of youtube videos with no real context. I made a probably more substantial comment as an answer to the OP.
Really? The main claim is presented “in an outrageous way”?
I can imagine reading the post and being unconvinced by the evidence presented. In fact, that was my reaction (although I haven’t watched the videos yet). But… being outraged?
Posts should not make large, unsupported claims, and criticism should not be hyperbolic. Here is what I have learned from your critique:
You think that StyleOfDog writes “maniacally” and uses “meme-speak” too much.
Unclear why I should care. Not my favorite style of writing, but I understood what they were trying to say, and so communication occurred. It’s not obvious to me that marginally more “meme-speak” would be bad for the site. It just read informally to me, which I don’t mind for this kind of “fun / curiosity” post.
Ironically, your comment is hard to parse. The structure is scattered, which disorients me as I read your critique. In particular, you include two footnotes in quick succession, destroying flow. You could have just left them in the body of the comment.
You found the main claim unclear.
At least you formulated a hypothesis? I’m unsure why you found it unclear.
You are outraged.
Since you made a new account, I can’t even Bayes-update based on existing reputation.
StyleOfDog didn’t mention the field of comparative cognition.
Thank you. This is a substantive critique, and a field I didn’t know how to name.
You worry about cherry-picking.
Ideally, you would have pointed to specific videos. No problem that you didn’t.
Sorry for over-reacting to what I perceived as essentially a curated list of youtube videos with no real context. I made a probably more substantial comment as an answer to the OP.
FWIW, I do not think you over-reacted, nor do I think I agree with any of the criticisms of the comment above.