Imagine a book review: The authors present convincing evidence that since 1947 aliens from beyond Earth are here on Earth, can pass as humans, have been living among us, and increasingly influence human affairs. The authors plausibly identify the industries, professions, and geographic regions where aliens have the most influence, and the primary methods of alien influence. Furthermore the authors have made their evidence analysis accessible to a wide audience in a readable and entertaining book, and have published it via a respectable academic press to enable its conclusions to be believed by a wide audience.
Not necessarily, if the pony is Trojan. i.e. if it serves to conceal an agenda. "I'm just trying to help" is often the mantra of bullies, passive-aggressive people, and other nasties.
It reminds me of the book "the bell curve," which was an interesting book with one very controversial chapter. You couldn't avoid the suspicion that the point of the book was the the one controversial chapter and the rest of the book was sugar coating.
One of the problems with signalling (broadly defined) is that it's turtles all the way down. As you admit, you wrote the book in part to enhance your status. Probably I am writing this comment out of a subconscious desire to demonstrate my ability to make an intelligent point. Fundamentally, both of us are the same as some vapid 25 year old girl who is constantly posting bikini pics of herself on Instagram.
This being the case, it makes sense to leave policy prescriptions out of the book, since they have the danger of obscuring your motives to yourself and to others.
A). A book that teaches you about problems you face.B). OR a book that teaches you about problems you face AND helps you to solve them.
That seems to be the central issue criticism of your book ... you seem to have heard it from multiple sources now, and that you don't seem to be modifying your views to accommodate this signal is interesting. And ironic. deeply. And comically.
You haven't solved the hard problems that people want solved, you've just highlighted them.
The critique is maybe not as empty as it sounds. Steelmanning:
---The authors convincingly argue that, according to current physical and astronomical knowledge, we should strongly expect to be post-heat-death Boltzmann brains.
Unfortunately, the authors do not offer any actionable advice based on this thesis; indeed, we suspect that this thesis is fundamentally not actionable in any well-behaved decision theory.---
In other words: A concrete simplified semi-made-up but plausible example of actionable advice based on the thesis serves as proof-by-example that the book is not solipsist bullshit (or is just playing stupid language games).
This is extremely important in questions where such bullshit appears frequently, and you must therefore expect readers to be suspicious: Some branches in theoretical physics, philosophy and, yes, psychology and economics.
"I doubt that merely promoting reason or self-control is sufficient to reduce the influence of hidden motives."
I doubt that, too! Which is why I'm curious about what /does/ work? After all, if we're going to apply the insight that aliens are controlling our public affairs to our own public policy, we have to at least temporarily rest control from the aliens, no?
The closest I've seen to someone trying to answer this objection is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Enli...
Sounds like people are eager to read a follow-up book, though it is unfortunate the particular way they voice it and think about it.
No I don't think your audience is asking for a pony with each book, we are just responding to your request(s) for feedback.
Where do you officially stand?
1.Do you believe the feedback/request for more solutions in your book is reasonable or not?
2. Do you believe you can come up with more solutions or not?
3. Would you be willing to present or share these solutions on this blog or not?
I would benefit from that for sure, and would be grateful, and maybe many of your other readers would as well.
In summary, perhaps we'd all be better off if you spent less time defending your work and more time improving it.
Not necessarily, if the pony is Trojan. i.e. if it serves to conceal an agenda. "I'm just trying to help" is often the mantra of bullies, passive-aggressive people, and other nasties.
It reminds me of the book "the bell curve," which was an interesting book with one very controversial chapter. You couldn't avoid the suspicion that the point of the book was the the one controversial chapter and the rest of the book was sugar coating.
One of the problems with signalling (broadly defined) is that it's turtles all the way down. As you admit, you wrote the book in part to enhance your status. Probably I am writing this comment out of a subconscious desire to demonstrate my ability to make an intelligent point. Fundamentally, both of us are the same as some vapid 25 year old girl who is constantly posting bikini pics of herself on Instagram.
This being the case, it makes sense to leave policy prescriptions out of the book, since they have the danger of obscuring your motives to yourself and to others.
Fair enough; point taken.
Each book could also be better if it came with a pony: http://examinedlife.typepad...
What would be better?
A). A book that teaches you about problems you face.B). OR a book that teaches you about problems you face AND helps you to solve them.
That seems to be the central issue criticism of your book ... you seem to have heard it from multiple sources now, and that you don't seem to be modifying your views to accommodate this signal is interesting. And ironic. deeply. And comically.
You haven't solved the hard problems that people want solved, you've just highlighted them.
This reviewer clearly admits that we give real and relevant advice based on our analysis; he just wanted a lot more.
The critique is maybe not as empty as it sounds. Steelmanning:
---The authors convincingly argue that, according to current physical and astronomical knowledge, we should strongly expect to be post-heat-death Boltzmann brains.
Unfortunately, the authors do not offer any actionable advice based on this thesis; indeed, we suspect that this thesis is fundamentally not actionable in any well-behaved decision theory.---
In other words: A concrete simplified semi-made-up but plausible example of actionable advice based on the thesis serves as proof-by-example that the book is not solipsist bullshit (or is just playing stupid language games).
This is extremely important in questions where such bullshit appears frequently, and you must therefore expect readers to be suspicious: Some branches in theoretical physics, philosophy and, yes, psychology and economics.
As an author of controversial text "UFO as global risks" I feel something very similar in the first paragraphs... But no, I do not believe in aliens.
Introspection influences all my work, whenever i can imagine myself as one of the people under consideration. Maybe not a lot though.
May some of that work be introspective?
My main opinion now is that I don't know; it will take a lot of work to figure that out.
"I doubt that merely promoting reason or self-control is sufficient to reduce the influence of hidden motives."
I doubt that, too! Which is why I'm curious about what /does/ work? After all, if we're going to apply the insight that aliens are controlling our public affairs to our own public policy, we have to at least temporarily rest control from the aliens, no?
The closest I've seen to someone trying to answer this objection is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Enli...