I've noticed a trend among the rationalist movement of favoring long and convoluted articles referencing other long and convoluted articles--the more inaccessible to the general public, the better.
I don't want to contend that there's anything inherently wrong with such articles, I contend precisely the opposite: there's nothing inherently wrong with short and direct articles.
One example of significant simplicity is Einstein's famous E=mc2 paper (Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?), which is merely three pages long.
Can anyone contend that Einstein's paper is either not significant or not straightforward?
It is also generally understood among writers that it's difficult to explain complex concepts in a simple way. And programmers do favor simpler code, and often transform complex code into simpler versions that achieve the same functionality in a process called code refactoring. Guess what... refactoring takes substantial effort.
The art of compressing complex ideas into succinct phrases is valued by the general population, and proof of that are quotes and memes.
“One should use common words to say uncommon things” ― Arthur Schopenhauer
There is power in simplicity.
One example of simple ideas with extreme potential is Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability: don't try to prove your beliefs, try to disprove them. That simple principle solves important problems in epistemology, such as the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. And you don't need to understand all the philosophy behind this notion, only that many white swans don't prove the proposition that all swans are white, but a single black swan does disprove it. So it's more profitable to look for black swans.
And we can use simple concepts to defend the power of simplicity.
We can use falsifiability to explain that many simple ideas being unconsequential doesn't prove the claim that all simple ideas are inconsequential, but a single consequential idea that is simple does disprove it.
Therefore I've proved that simple notions can be important.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I generally like simplicity as well.
However, simple writings can be bad when trying to engage with others in a discussion. I've noticed that people tend to cut down on the simplicity of other's ideas first, and their ideas second.
An exercise: Imagine I summed up your post by saying "simplicity is good", and then argued against that position by saying "some things are just complex and you can't get around it". You would probably be rightly frustrated because you'd feel that you addressed that point, but my summary simplified your explanation away.
Another exercise: anytime you think a post is too convoluted, simplify it in your head, then see if you can imagine someone having objections to the simplified version that are answered in the more convoluted version. (I notice this with Scott Alexander's writings pretty often, where I think 'I don't need all this extra stuff', but then see comments from people that didn't closely read the piece. They object in a way that was answered by the thing I thought was unnecessary).
Great point, but he actually has something worthwhile to say while the self-important bagpipes do not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link