flitter
10d ago
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of mid.
flitter
11d ago
I think you picked a poor example for your joke. Elizabeth was perfectly worthy and good when she first met Darcy and it was due to his flaws that they were not amicable.
He's rude to her and she believes he is a bad person because of it. Her growth in the book was learning that her first impressions of the men around here didn't see their full story. But there was never doubt about that she was worthy of their pursuit.
Here's that initial meeting from the book:
"You are dancing with the only handsome girl in the room" said Mr. Darcy, looking at the eldest Miss Bennet.
"Oh! She is the most beautiful creature I ever beheld! But there is one of her sisters sitting down just behind you, who is very pretty, and I dare say very agreeable. Do let me ask my partner to introduce you."
"Which do you mean?" and turning round he looked for a moment at Elizabeth, till catching her eye, he withdrew his own and coldly said: "She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me; I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. You had better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles, for you are wasting your time with me."
Mr. Bingley followed his advice. Mr. Darcy walked off; and Elizabeth remained with no very cordial feelings toward him. She told the story, however, with great spirit among her friends; for she had a lively, playful disposition, which delighted in anything ridiculous.
flitter
24d ago
Yeah I think this piece in particular is pathologically rhetoric because he's defending the honor of bay area rationalism from 'institutional bullying'.
The bayarea+math combo is a weakness for his reporting.
His formal training is in philosophy and medicine. Probably helps him with analogies and intuition pumps, but it's also training in sophistry.
flitter
26d ago
Well, it's as they say, everyone's a high decoupler until it's something they actually care about.
He seems to feel personal slighted by how Pinker dismisses the rationalist communities ideas. and wants to write an essay on how Pinker is completely wrong on everything. But perhaps the facts are not strong enough to do that.
But anyway you don't have to dismiss Scott's other work completely. You can rule public ideas-guys in, not out https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/26/rule-genius-in-not-out/.
I think about this every time I hear someone say something like “I lost all respect for Steven Pinker after he said all that stupid stuff about AI”. Your problem was thinking of “respect” as a relevant predicate to apply to Steven Pinker in the first place. Is he your father? Your youth pastor? No? Then why are you worrying about whether or not to “respect” him? Steven Pinker is a black box who occasionally spits out ideas, opinions, and arguments for you to evaluate. If some of them are arguments you wouldn’t have come up with on your own, then he’s doing you a service. If 50% of them are false, then the best-case scenario is that they’re moronically, obviously false, so that you can reject them quickly and get on with your life.
She has excellent awareness of Mr Collins' character. And arguably good judgement of Mr Bingly. And same for other men in the book. So rather it's two men in particular she was wrong about?
Both of them are deliberately deceiving her. One a conman who fooled everyone in her social circle (i think?). The other is too conscious of her low social rank to correct her (she even asks him to justify and he declines).
She is fooled yes, but this cannot be a character flaw. Everyone was fooled. Who judged better than her?
More options
Context Copy link