Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Is English not your first language?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1) After the intro, prick. Reality, if you've not noticed, is pretty big, and complex.Where exactly do you get round to making a model of reality?
Certainly not within the first 1000 words.
Not much use if people get bored of all the waffle and give up reading it / listening to it before they hear your idea.
With respect, I am not interested in your C.V. - as you can see from my comments. Your response here indicates that you don't understand this point - why do people need your life history before they're presented the idea you claim to be outlining?
If you don't care: why should anyone else care?
And thus you lose your audience.
Your curriculum vitae may be of interest to you and potential employers, but there's no logical reason why it's relevant or necessary to understand your purported model of reality.
Communication comes in many forms. Dogs barking, for example, indicates their emotional states - but the informational content comparative to the noise is minimal. That's the same problem happening here: you've written a thousand words and said nothing relevant to the presentation of your idea.
It's not the length which is problematic: it's the content, or lack thereof as you can clearly see was the entire point of my feedback.
You're telling me again what I already read and gave you feedback saying: there's no value at all in doing this. No one who might be interested in your idea needs your life history first. Just spit it out.
One thing it certainly isn't is well-structured. If you handed this in as an essay, it would flunk.
Your ability to comprehend feedback is very poor.
I made no mention at all about what was later on in the tract, but rather pointed out to you that your potential audience is not likely ever to get to your point when you spend a thousand words saying nothing at all.
If you think your introduction is well structured, then I don't exactly hold out much hope that you're able to appraise your own ability.
And this is what I've got to say:
If you don't want feedback, were you just looking for someone to blow smoke up your arse?
Yes, english is not my first language, but regardless of that the worst mistake that I make is when I misuse or misunderstand figures of speech.Is English not your first language?
How the holy fuck would you know? Of course it doesn't seem rambling to you but, as somebody hugely experienced in absorbing complicated ideas sufficiently well to recapitulate them accurately, I'm more than merely confident that the problem is in your lack of coherence.The video is not rambling, maybe the problem is your attention span.
I have no argument against what you're proposing, because I can't tell what you're proposing, as it's full of guff.Me telling you that saying "[person]" followed by "[emotional reaction meme]" is not an argument, but childish behavior, is not [whatever you are trying to say], but a fact.
Then would you mind going to my initial post and quoting what part of it implied that your work was posted only for the benefit of the two people that opted to critique it for you, as opposed to being there for anyone willing to look at it?Yes, english is not my first language, but regardless of that the worst mistake that I make is when I misuse or misunderstand figures of speech.
You can say the same thing is any language, it's just the structure of how you say it that has to change.
Exactly this.given that I routinely read lengthy, technical scientific articles without having attention span problems, then I don't really think this would be accurate
This is the part:Not gonna lie, the only thing I'm curious about at this point is why you bothered to engage with us at all, if your response to two people giving you the same criticism of your opening is to assume that they're both just not capable of grasping your genius. Why waste your time on us at all?
Something just clicked, and I suddenly know who this guy reminds me of. Remember Edgar Postrado, a.k.a. Mr Intelligent Design?An accurate model of reality?
Well, fair enough. I see how you came to your conclusion, now.This is the part:
"why you bothered to engage with us at all"
"Why waste your time on us at all?"
Because you're part of anyone. Anyone is part of anyone. Anyone can be wrong and I've the freedom to talk to anyone as anyone has the freedom to not listen to me and vice versa.
It's normal that the average population of any place, be it virtual or physical, makes an "internal language" and creates an echo-chamber. I keep on forgetting it, but I hoped for someone, anyone, to actually have criticisms about my project instead of lamenting that they can't get to the end of a sentence without forgetting the beginning (not attacking you here).Well, fair enough. I see how you came to your conclusion, now.
Though to be honest, I highly doubt that the other regular posters would come to a different conclusion.
Which begs the question of why you're not getting on with explaining your model.1) If I'm describing reality I need to make a model about it.
The explanation should follow the description. Where's the description? I've read lots about you, but I have no idea of what your idea is. Are you presenting you or your idea? I'm sure your intent is the latter, but the impact is the former thus far.2) I explain it in the next section.
That's not what's happening here. We genuinely get that communicating ideas can be hard. Trust me, we here know that better than anyone, because we all present complicated technical stuff for lay audiences. It's pretty much what we do and who we are here.3) I've both problems communicating (I may be autistic, I'm doing the tests "now" and the results will come around tomorrow) and usually I don't talk in echo chambers or with friends, plus I try to make conversations about politics & Co. with people way different from me, like conservatives, republicans, democrats, socialists, and so on, so I get pushed back a lot more.
Does it not concern you that the members here, who not only most definitely have heard things about politics, but have between them definitely forgotten more about evolution than anybody you've ever met has known, are struggling to get to the meat of your idea? Seriously, I don't think there's an active member who hasn't written between thousands and millions of words on the subject. For example, I have on post on my blog purely about evolution, read almost 20,000 times on a niche science blog, and recommended by university level academics as an evolution primer to their students.4) Too bad, because I'm explaining what "a good source" is. My project is directed to anyone, even people that have never heard anything particular about politics or evolution.
This does exactly the opposite of helping. Epistemology is pragmatic. The idea should stand or fall on its own merits. Either it has legs or it doesn't, regardless not only of your personal ideology but also, critically, regardless of whether your ideology is what motivated it. The only things relevant are the data and whether they support your thesis.5) I show my political position to explain, in broad terms, what "I am like" and because so that people may not waste time trying to figure out from what POV my points are coming from. Both me and whoever would watch my project have biases, different biases, so I exposed mine.
That sort of thing shouldn't be anywhere near your opening presentation. They should be reserved for an appendix. Why? Because they constitute ramble here, but also for academic reasons, in that it's silly to restrict yourself up front when you have no idea what might motivate you to change your mind, such as a troublesome question from a knowledgeable academic who likes your idea but sees pitfalls. Saving them for an appendix allows you both to explain why you didn't (tensing it this way circumvents the potential for future contradictions) and cuts out the irrelevant rambling. Your opening should be contained to your idea and the problem you think it solves.6) Yes, words, that's one way in which humans communicate. Plus Here I was explaining WHY some arguments would not be in the project.
If it's more than two hours like this, I'd posit your thesis could be written on a post-it note. The signal-to-noise ratio is orders of magnitude out of balance.The project, mate, is more than two hours long. This is the opening to it.
If you sent a book with an intro like this to a publisher with whom you already had a book deal, they'd be seeking legal advice on escaping from contract. It's awful. Sorry. It simply doesn't convey anything useful.The initial draft was way more different because, as I was developing the project, I needed to rework it.
I have just made a really condensed opening which explains who I am, what I'm going to explain and how I to know that something is correct. It is well structured and your "This is constructive feedback." amounts to "I have read just the introduction to this 300 pages book, this means that I have read the entire thing. In the introduction not much is explained, so it is not in the entire book neither".
Unstructured is what your intro is. It has exactly zero structure. It's only the waffle holding it together.I've already uploaded the script of the first half of the project in this chat // the second half is not scripted because I made it in a different and faster way, plus the visuals are absolutely needed for the context // , so pick any random part and try to see if you may understand more about what I am talking about compared to the almost nothing that you've got from my well structured intro.
You need to work on your flounce, dear.This is what I've to say.
If you don't do such I'll learn from your "CoNsTrUcTiVe FeEdBaCk" and read just 5% of anything that you will ever write and then judge/respond just to that.
The homogeneity you're experiencing here is academic and scientific literacy. As in, we all know how this shit works. You do not.What I'm trying to say is that the people of a place tend to show some level of homogeneity.
I mean, I'm just some random dude that got into arguments with strangers on the internet about shit.Seriously, I don't think there's an active member who hasn't written between thousands and millions of words on the subject.