“To register, please email info@theseedsofscience.org with your name, title (can be anything/optional), institution (same as title), and link (personal website, twitter, or linkedin is fine) for your listing on the gardeners page. From there, it’s pretty self-explanatory—I will add you to the mailing list and send you an email that includes the manuscript, our publication criteria, and a simple review form for recording votes/comments.”
rogersbacon1
Karma: 127
Moral Weights of Animals, Considering Viewpoint Uncertainty
How to Become a World Historical Figure (Péladan’s Dream)
The Cult Deficit: Analysis and Speculation (v2.0)
Moral Weights of Six Animals, Considering Viewpoint Uncertainty—Seeds of Science call for reviewers
Fuck Your Miracle Year
I would say that reading the whole piece would clear up these issues—the second half (III and IV) is very different than the first and it might be hard to understand the whole thrust the argument without getting to the end.
I don’t disagree with all of your points here regarding summaries and communicative efficiency. I think my argument is that other values necessarily get sacrificed in the name of efficiency and clarity—aesthetic value, persuasive efficacy, diversity of style/tone. Insisting that every article aims for clarity/efficiency is going to standardize articles in a way that affects the author’s creativity and the mindset of the reader. There is nothing wrong with your preference for articles to conform to the “EA forum norms”—this is a style that is good for quick intake of information—but there are other goals that one can have in writing and reading. I would say my goal in this article is persuasive and inspirational, and as such there is (I hope) an artistic quality that is probably not found in many articles on here. Adding a summary, in my opinion, would detract from these goals/qualities. For example, as I said the second half of the article is very different than the first—a reader who knows what is coming to some degree might not feel the same emotions (and might not be inspired/persuaded) as they would if going in cold. While summaries might convince some people to read on, they also might stop some people from reading who would just plunge in otherwise. I would argue that the people who would be dissuaded from reading this article because of its summary are probably the people that need to read it the most, so in this sense of a summary is kind of self-defeating.
A summary is also good if you want the largest number of people to read your article, but there is no reason why this must be your goal as an author and it is not mine here. I would rather fewer people read the essay and actually think about it then more people read it but just skim.
Thanks for your comments! I never really had to make this argument before but I’ve had this feeling for some time. I can’t say I’m super familiar with the EA forum and the typical writing styles/formats, curious what you or others think about it.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don’t think I will add one—not because the article can’t be summarized but because adding a summary is kind of antithetical to the whole thrust of the essay. In part, I am arguing that excessive emphasis on legibility and efficiency in science is killing creativity. If the lack of a summary means that less people will read it then so be it :)
Exegesis
I think you are definitely right about the oversimplification of the future, but I guess the point here is that we oversimplify in a somewhat predictable way.
I know one sports story set in the future, available online check it out.
17776 (also known as What Football Will Look Like in the Future) is a serialized speculative fiction multimedia narrative by Jon Bois, published online through SB Nation. Set in the distant future in which all humans have become immortal and infertile, the series follows three sentient space probes that watch humanity play an evolved form of American football in which games can be played for millennia over distances of thousands of miles.
There are definitely aspects of modern sports which are not great, but I am of the opinion that they are basically inescapable and on balance are a good thing. I would argue that any specific short-term costs (like allocation of police) is offset by economic, health, and social benefits, some of which may not be very easy to quantify (e.g. father-son bonding over a favorite team). The modern incarnation of sport is still incredibly young; there is probably considerable room for us to optimize their effect on society. As I point out, the problem is that people who think about the future are biased towards thinking of grand projects with very high-minded goals and not things like sports.
The Future: Where are the Colors and the Sports?
Really enjoyed the writeup!
The book Albion’s Seed seems relevant here (see Scott Alexander’s book review). It argues that modern American regional variation in culture/politics can be traced back to the cultures of the people who immigrated to differents areas—Puritans, Quakers, Borderers, and Cavaliers.
Before I had any idea about any of this, I wrote that American society seems divided into two strata, one of which is marked by emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, academic/financial jobs, and Democratic party affiliation, and furthermore that this group was centered in the North. Meanwhile, now I learn that the North was settled by two groups (quakers and puritans) that when combined have emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, an academic and mercantile history, and were the heartland of the historical Whigs and Republicans who preceded the modern Democratic Party.
And I wrote about another stratum centered in the South marked by poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high teenage pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, country western music, and support for the Republican Party. And now I learn that the South was settled by a group (borderers) noted even in the 1700s for its poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high premarital pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, accent exactly like the modern country western accent, and support for the Democratic-Republicans who preceded the modern Republican Party.
I haven’t read the book (obviously) but it seems to focus more on qualitative historical arguments rather than quantitative. Did you come across any studies that have looked at british-US immigration patterns over historical timescales and how that might have affected modern day culture and social outcomes in these areas? This could be a good natural experiment to look at for intergenerational persistence studies as you got a rapid influx of immigrants from one religious/social subculture who were essentially able to start from scratch in a new region with limited immigration from people who were not in that subculture (not many puritans/northerners probably moved to the south/appalachia for much of 1700s/1800s).
This sounds great to me but I’m not the author, I just run the journal. We’d love to have you share your review of the article—“To register, please email info@theseedsofscience.org with your name, title (can be anything/optional), institution (same as title), and link (personal website, twitter, or linkedin is fine) for your listing on the gardeners page. From there, it’s pretty self-explanatory—I will add you to the mailing list and send you an email that includes the manuscript, our publication criteria, and a simple review form for recording votes/comments.”