Comment by bawolff
5 days ago
> adding layers of detail and nuance rather than interrogating the one or two assumptions they make at the start or broadening their philosophical background beyond the collection of texts popular within their subculture.
Personally i think the world would be a better place if more of us added nuance to our arguments.
The problem part in that quote is “rather than interrogating the one or two assumptions they make at the start”, not that they’re including nuance. Nuance can be a value add or it can be a distraction. It is not by itself virtuous.
The trick is to include a lot of nuance, details, and steelmanned arguments about little concessions and downstream, but to leave the key assumptions at the start largely unquestioned.
The reader spends 15 minutes reading what feels like a highly nuanced, deeply researched article. If you’re not paying close attention you don’t notice that some pivotal assumptions were spared from the nuance and steelmanning.
Rationalist bloggers aren’t the only ones who use this technique, but it is oddly common in rationalist blogs. Once you start noticing it, you see it everywhere.
I don't know, I think rationalist bloggers tend to love arguing, and if you identified some assumption that they didn't address they'd just as happily write 50,000 words on that instead. :-)
I think he just used nuance as a polite way to say meandering.
Personally I really wish authors would pack their 'nuance' into well-sectioned areas, maybe even collapsible (we have the technology!). I shouldn't have to skim several paragraphs just to understand the core of the argument.
Arguably, it's not a big problem if you already love the author and hang on to their every word. But as someone who is often just trying to get the gist of the idea, I find the rationalist writing style really tiresome.
How would it make it much better? Can you give me a nuanced argument and one that isn't nuanced so I can agree with you?
[dead]