I think the point is well made by Lorenzo, as someone who understands what the linked text is referring to and doesnāt need to click on the link. I think it is good that the link is there for those who do not know what he meant or want clarification.
In general I think it is a bad idea to demand more work from people communicating with youāit discourages them from trying to communicate in the first place. This is similar to the trivial inconvenience point itself.
To be fair mine regarding the link-to-articles tendency is not a well-formed opinion, just something Iāve felt during some online and offline conversations. Especially from other fellow rationalists, when they quote a Scottās article or an obscure post on the sequences when not absolutely needed.
By the way, I think itās also a bad idea to demand more work from people you are communicating with, like informally requesting them to read a full article instead of trying to explain your point in plain terms.
Letās put it this way: we can have the privilege to link/ārefer to articles/āconcepts in our bubble because we kinda know what weāre talking about and we are people who like to spend time reading, but what if we have to communicate with someone who is from outside the bubble? We will not have that privilege and we will have to explain ourselves in plain terms. Itās not a trivial inconvenience: if we donāt exercise our ability to reduce the inferential distance (yes, I am guilty of the same sin) between āusā and āothersā starting from ourselves we will always be unable to communicate our ideas properly.
But, again, I havenāt thought about this issue properly so I reserve to myself the faculty to take some time to refine or abdicate my arguments.
I think the point is well made by Lorenzo, as someone who understands what the linked text is referring to and doesnāt need to click on the link. I think it is good that the link is there for those who do not know what he meant or want clarification.
In general I think it is a bad idea to demand more work from people communicating with youāit discourages them from trying to communicate in the first place. This is similar to the trivial inconvenience point itself.
To be fair mine regarding the link-to-articles tendency is not a well-formed opinion, just something Iāve felt during some online and offline conversations. Especially from other fellow rationalists, when they quote a Scottās article or an obscure post on the sequences when not absolutely needed.
By the way, I think itās also a bad idea to demand more work from people you are communicating with, like informally requesting them to read a full article instead of trying to explain your point in plain terms.
Letās put it this way: we can have the privilege to link/ārefer to articles/āconcepts in our bubble because we kinda know what weāre talking about and we are people who like to spend time reading, but what if we have to communicate with someone who is from outside the bubble? We will not have that privilege and we will have to explain ourselves in plain terms. Itās not a trivial inconvenience: if we donāt exercise our ability to reduce the inferential distance (yes, I am guilty of the same sin) between āusā and āothersā starting from ourselves we will always be unable to communicate our ideas properly.
But, again, I havenāt thought about this issue properly so I reserve to myself the faculty to take some time to refine or abdicate my arguments.