Comment by ranger207

The main problem with the article is that, while patio is a very knowledgeable and even insightful writer, he has an extremely indirect writing style. It almost feels like a math textbook that describes "here's the properties of this mathematical construct; you can immediately see it has these properties" without explaining the connection to the other mathematical constructs that give it these properties. In his defense though, his writing is a more gradual progression between "here's a thing" and "here's the implications of the thing" than a typical math textbook. But he still doesn't explicitly point out the connections, which means you have to expend a lot of brain power to hold enough things in your head at once to make those connections yourself, which is exhausting. Part of that is because the connections are social connections that are far less clear, defined, and observable than typical STEM systems, and he doesn't want to ever tell you or imply to you anything incorrect. Contrast this to Matt Levine who will gladly tell you how a social system works in a step-by-step list, followed by how the example he's about to write about completely breaks that system