Comments on: Never Gonna Give You Up

By: Brutus

Brutus — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 04:50:47 +0000

Among the many motivations and rewards for reading and writing, the most common ones (monetization, self-aggrandizement, driving traffic, controlling the narrative) don’t much interest me. Your mention of exploratory writing is what resonates: working things out, almost always provisionally, to come to an understanding that makes sense. That’s a slow process not well aligned with today’s information environment, so feeling left behind but still holding to the value of older forms is a mark of wisdom and restraint sorely lacking in the public sphere.

By: sibyledu

sibyledu — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 15:49:06 +0000

I have missed you and your take on the world. I am not a great twitterer, so it took me a long time to find you there and I’m still not in the habit of checking regularly.

I might venture to add that the changing nature of public reading — the strip-mining for “declarative flags” — not only affects writers but readers who want something other than strip-mining.

If it weren’t for the other reasons, I would say that your Reasons #4 and #6 don’t matter. Some of us don’t want only hot takes, or think that if you aren’t as brilliant as Author X, you don’t have anything to add.

But you do have other reasons, all of which I understand, and sympathize with. I don’t think you “owe us” a blog, or anything at all. But please know that there are a few of us who aren’t strip-miners. Some of us still value the things you brought to this platform, are grateful for what you have brought, and will welcome anything else you will bring.

By: Poirot

Poirot — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 17:09:31 +0000

I second what Alan Jacobs said. You’re one of the bloggers I’ve learned a great deal from. I cherish voices like yours and hope they don’t go dark as time passes. Please keep blogging.

And please post here when the foundation website goes live. I’ll be sure to read your work over there.

By: Aaron Gertler

Aaron Gertler — Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:07:26 +0000

“When is the last time you can recall seeing anyone who was meaningfully persuaded by arguments or evidence that contradicted or challenged a belief or position they had previously articulated?”

This happens very frequently within the effective altruism community, which is one of the central reasons I spend so much time hanging out there. The semi-libertarian blogosphere also isn’t too bad about this (do you read Tyler Cowen or Bryan Caplan?).

I really enjoy the blog, and I hope you keep your hopes up. No matter the state of the media environment, I think the number of good readers hasn’t really gotten smaller; we’re just obscured by the noise.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:40:04 +0000

Years ago, when my mom was on the local city council, she shared a tip about how to read the debates during the council meetings. The council was divided into two factions with 4 and 3 members that cut across party lines. If the first two speakers took opposite positions on an issue, it was 99% likely going to be a 4-3 vote along faction lines, and the rest of the debate was just going to consist of justifying their positions for the audience. If you actually wanted to get stuff done, what you needed to do was reach out to a member of the opposite faction before anyone on their side had taken a public position, in which case they would often be able to be persuaded through rational argument, and then have the item pass by unanimous consent. Once things became public, it was too late to change anyone’s mind.

This doesn’t play well with the idealistic model behind open meeting laws, which is that positions are best determined during public debate. What that model fails to account for is that politicians are humans with egos who really hate to be seen as backing down or failing to support their allies. In order to allow them to change their minds while saving face, it was essential to have the initial discussion in private.

Seems relevant to your point #7, especially.

By: Julian Long

Julian Long — Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:12:54 +0000

Don’t stop, Tim.

By: Alan Jacobs

Alan Jacobs — Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:09:27 +0000

I’m glad to see this, Tim. You are one of the bloggers I have learned the most from over the years, and I hope I’ll get the chance to learn from you in the future, either here or elsewhere.

By: Kit

Kit — Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:19:09 +0000

Thank you for writing this.

By: jerry hamrick

jerry hamrick — Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:01:38 +0000

I agree with all your points, especially with #2.

As a kind of hobby, I have studied our systems of government and economics since 1956, before I knew what systems really were. My aim was to find ways to make them better, to make them work for the common good. I later became a professional systems designer and I used the tools I learned in that work to redesign our systems. I published a book a few months ago based on that work and it is difficult to get people to talk about the dangers of letting our current systems continue to create conditions which will destroy our civilization and soon thereafter exterminate our species. My ideas are met with slogans most of them insulting, quotations taken out of context, and explanations of how this or that candidate will save us. I hope your new efforts will lead our young people to become the Guardians of Democracy who will revamp our systems long before 2050.

By: jerry hamrick

jerry hamrick — Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:45:02 +0000

I have sent you a kindle copy of my book. It is aimed at people under age 26. I call their group, “the Guardians of Democracy.”

If Amazon is a good as they say they are you should get the book today..