Why is every rationalist blog post way too long?
Critics of the online “rationalist” community argue that its blog posts are excessively long, using verbosity, dense caveats, and elaborate thought experiments as a substitute for clear thinking, good writing, or genuine wisdom. Supporters counter that length can signal rigor, allow for careful treatment of edge cases, and serve audiences who want detailed argument rather than sound bites, especially in contrarian or technically complex topics. The thread uses examples such as a 9,000‑word essay on nicotine to probe deeper issues of evidentiary standards, elitism, neurodivergent communication styles, and whether tradition or “common sense” deserve more default trust than highly formalized rational analysis.
Perceived Problems with Rationalist Writing
- Many commenters find rationalist posts excessively long, repetitive, and low–information-density for the ideas they contain.
- Verbosity is often seen as a failure of communication: padding instead of clarity, violating norms like “say no more than needed.”
- Some view it as “proof by volume” or “gish gallop” – overwhelming readers with arguments and references so individual flaws are hard to target.
- Long length also conflicts with readers’ limited time and the broad range of topics they want to follow.
Proposed Explanations for Verbosity
- Ego and status: writing at length is seen as signaling intelligence, rigor, or contrarian depth; readers may enjoy “feeling smart” decoding it.
- Cargo-cult seriousness: confusing appearance of rigor (many words, references, formalization) with actual insight.
- Social and cultural factors:
- Growing up in hostile online spaces → defensive over-hedging and caveats.
- Bubble culture that rewards long posts and constant online engagement.
- Some see deliberate obscurantism: burying controversial or “unsavory” ideas beneath layers of detail.
- Others defend length as showing work done, exploring alternatives, and defending ideas against expected objections.
Nicotine Essay Subthread
- A long, heavily referenced rationalist essay argues nicotine’s harms and addictiveness (especially non-smoked) are overstated.
- The article under discussion contrasts this with a short piece (plus a few tweets and user reports) asserting nicotine is clearly addictive and “bad for you.”
- Commenters split:
- Some say the contrast exposes the article author’s bias toward confirming prior beliefs and dismissing detailed work.
- Others argue that citing many individual papers isn’t enough; broader domain context may still support mainstream “nicotine is bad and addictive.”
- Several personal anecdotes emphasize severe addiction and difficulty quitting, including for non-smoking forms.
Wisdom, Tradition, and Common Sense
- One line of criticism: rationalist writing lacks “wisdom” – discretion about which ideas merit pursuit and how much needs to be said.
- Some argue rationalists undervalue common sense and inherited traditions; others counter that questioning tradition is core to the project.
- Debate over whether long-surviving norms have intrinsic value (Chesterton’s fence) versus being evolutionary accidents.
Neurodiversity and Style
- Multiple comments link rationalist verbosity to autism/ADHD and neurodivergent communication:
- Difficulty inferring shared context leads to explicit over-explaining.
- Enjoyment of deep dives and exhaustive nuance reinforces long-form style.
- Some note strong resonance between this style and AI/LLM “over-hedged” outputs.
Writing Skill, Education, and Alternatives
- Word-count–driven schooling is blamed for training people to equate length with quality.
- Good concise writing is seen as high-effort and rarely taught; many bloggers lack editors and model themselves on peers’ bloated style.
- A minority note that some rationalist writers are actually engaging and clear, and that genuine rigor often does require space.