Jeez, can somebody send me to this guy's best stuff? -- which was maybe written like 10 or 20 years before this book, and on some blog? I impulsively ordered this book because people talk about TLP on ACX, plus the air outside is full of fucking Omicron right now and I'm lonesome and bored. Now there's a book with a butt on it in my kitchen, and everything else is unchanged. I have read maybe 50 pages of Sadly, Porn, first starting at the beginning, as one is supposed to, then skipping around the interior, foraging for something that will engage me and absolutely failing to find anything. Is this how it feels to be Teach? Is that the point? If so, I'd prefer to learn this grim truth via a short, grungy blog post. I experience Teach's book as dysphoria trying to pass itself off as high cynicism . Plus he perpetually sounds like somebody who thinks he's on some kind of roll where his prose can just do no wrong. And *he's* wrong, it can and often does. In short, he just sounds like a grumbling, rambling, narcissistic, misanthropic alcoholic to me.
I am OK with dense, overwhelming, weird trains of thought. I love Faulkner, Wittgenstein, and various difficult or perhaps impossible poets. But with those writers I sense early on a deeply submerged weird truth that slowly rising to the surface -- and also I encounter early on bits of lovely acuity, sort of like bubbles coming up from deep down -- wonderful turns of phrase, which I love even though I don't fully understand them . And those things keep me going.
How do I find my way into this guy? And what is in there that so many people love? I know there's something.
The narcissism quote you pulled from his blog is one of his absolute best quotes. So you clealry understand him a bit. I love TLP and think he is, without exaggeration, the greatest writer of our time. I also completely agree with your review, dude be crazy!. His voice has gotten far denser, bizarre, and meandering since 2014 (I assume you've read his tiny sub blog Hotel Concierge). I look forward to part 3.
TLP is more Freudian than is currently fashionable, and he also writes like Freud—largely unsupported assertions, unorthodox thinking, brilliant despite a near-complete disinterest in being evidence-based.
Also, it's probably been said before, but I'm gonna wait for a review of the book on porn by someone who isn't religiously biased against porn. And sex. If your experience of sex is only monogamous sex with a spouse, you don't really get sex.
You actually are the first to do "your viewpoint is less worthwhile because of your positioning" on this one. But absolutely find other reviews, viewpoints - Imma do that too.
Part of why I make my positioning explicit is to allow for this - full disclosure so you can adjust your confidence levels as you deem appropriate.
There are some folks that are good at what they do, but can’t in any meaningful way explain what their doing. An example would be famous chefs that while cooking a steak claim searing it “seals in juices”. Searing is the right thing to do, but the explanation is nonsensical (I assert without any citation lol). I have read TLP a little bit, and I am one that enjoys the prose (sometimes). Is there any value in steel-manning TLP’s positions with the idea that they know what they’re doing, but kinda get caught up in the prose performance and are going about explaining themselves poorly and unscientifically?
I mean there's always some value in steelmanning, even if it's just for practicing steelmanning. If I had to do that, I'd do something like this:
The first step to fixing any process is getting a working definition of the problem; pointing out that people are allowing other people to drive their wants and are so trained in dishonesty that they can't even be honest with themselves about what their motivations are is sort of the first step to fixing that. The second step is, where appropriate, to make sure they feel *appropriately bad* about it, to the extent they want to fix it; to take away excuses and point out all the ways they are avoiding finding the actual problem and fixing it.
If that's the case, he's doing some good by writing it and getting people into a "I'm not actually trying to fix this" mindset. Even if he's wrong, that's potentially good; getting people thinking about a problem in a harsh, no-nonsense way very rarely makes the problems worse; all he has to do is not give them an excuse to quit trying.
I don't, as is common for steelmanning, really think most of that will work out that way. But I actually hope it does - I don't dislike anyone's writing style enough to hope the world gets worse, if that makes sense.
Jeez, can somebody send me to this guy's best stuff? -- which was maybe written like 10 or 20 years before this book, and on some blog? I impulsively ordered this book because people talk about TLP on ACX, plus the air outside is full of fucking Omicron right now and I'm lonesome and bored. Now there's a book with a butt on it in my kitchen, and everything else is unchanged. I have read maybe 50 pages of Sadly, Porn, first starting at the beginning, as one is supposed to, then skipping around the interior, foraging for something that will engage me and absolutely failing to find anything. Is this how it feels to be Teach? Is that the point? If so, I'd prefer to learn this grim truth via a short, grungy blog post. I experience Teach's book as dysphoria trying to pass itself off as high cynicism . Plus he perpetually sounds like somebody who thinks he's on some kind of roll where his prose can just do no wrong. And *he's* wrong, it can and often does. In short, he just sounds like a grumbling, rambling, narcissistic, misanthropic alcoholic to me.
I am OK with dense, overwhelming, weird trains of thought. I love Faulkner, Wittgenstein, and various difficult or perhaps impossible poets. But with those writers I sense early on a deeply submerged weird truth that slowly rising to the surface -- and also I encounter early on bits of lovely acuity, sort of like bubbles coming up from deep down -- wonderful turns of phrase, which I love even though I don't fully understand them . And those things keep me going.
How do I find my way into this guy? And what is in there that so many people love? I know there's something.
The narcissism quote you pulled from his blog is one of his absolute best quotes. So you clealry understand him a bit. I love TLP and think he is, without exaggeration, the greatest writer of our time. I also completely agree with your review, dude be crazy!. His voice has gotten far denser, bizarre, and meandering since 2014 (I assume you've read his tiny sub blog Hotel Concierge). I look forward to part 3.
TLP is more Freudian than is currently fashionable, and he also writes like Freud—largely unsupported assertions, unorthodox thinking, brilliant despite a near-complete disinterest in being evidence-based.
Also, it's probably been said before, but I'm gonna wait for a review of the book on porn by someone who isn't religiously biased against porn. And sex. If your experience of sex is only monogamous sex with a spouse, you don't really get sex.
You actually are the first to do "your viewpoint is less worthwhile because of your positioning" on this one. But absolutely find other reviews, viewpoints - Imma do that too.
Part of why I make my positioning explicit is to allow for this - full disclosure so you can adjust your confidence levels as you deem appropriate.
There are some folks that are good at what they do, but can’t in any meaningful way explain what their doing. An example would be famous chefs that while cooking a steak claim searing it “seals in juices”. Searing is the right thing to do, but the explanation is nonsensical (I assert without any citation lol). I have read TLP a little bit, and I am one that enjoys the prose (sometimes). Is there any value in steel-manning TLP’s positions with the idea that they know what they’re doing, but kinda get caught up in the prose performance and are going about explaining themselves poorly and unscientifically?
Btw love your blog
I mean there's always some value in steelmanning, even if it's just for practicing steelmanning. If I had to do that, I'd do something like this:
The first step to fixing any process is getting a working definition of the problem; pointing out that people are allowing other people to drive their wants and are so trained in dishonesty that they can't even be honest with themselves about what their motivations are is sort of the first step to fixing that. The second step is, where appropriate, to make sure they feel *appropriately bad* about it, to the extent they want to fix it; to take away excuses and point out all the ways they are avoiding finding the actual problem and fixing it.
If that's the case, he's doing some good by writing it and getting people into a "I'm not actually trying to fix this" mindset. Even if he's wrong, that's potentially good; getting people thinking about a problem in a harsh, no-nonsense way very rarely makes the problems worse; all he has to do is not give them an excuse to quit trying.
I don't, as is common for steelmanning, really think most of that will work out that way. But I actually hope it does - I don't dislike anyone's writing style enough to hope the world gets worse, if that makes sense.
Makes sense! That steelman sounds fairly compelling. You oughta reach out to TLP and ask if they need an editor lol. Looking forward to next part!
Oh man. RC having to be TLPs editor sounds like a job made in hell for both of them.
Probably would result in a better end product. But I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.