Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 166
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-case-against-most-books
Tldr: Most books are not information-dense.
I largely agree. It seems to me that most writing has many more examples than required (I might need only 2 to get the point, 5 is far too many), long and numerous analogies, etc.
Do you have any examples of writing that actually follows the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle?
I've also realized that the DRY principle is a great thing for writing code but terrible for conversation. If you only say what needs to be said, then you come off as "dry". I suppose 1 more reason added to the "conversation isn't about exchanging ideas or information" bin.
That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, and that should mean a lot, because I have read many books, papers, articles, comics, and pamphlets - and some of them were ridiculous on purpose. That was so ridiculous I actually needed to put down my phone and take a walk after reading it, so I didn't pop a blood vessel in rage.
Ideally, one would like to think that if someone is quoting SBF and calling him a great moral leader they would be doing so ironically and would dismiss his foolishness. In fact I assumed at first this was some Straussian mockery of people with strange judgements about reading, like when I say shit like "I don't read non-fiction because I am not a child". If that turns out to be the case then well done Hanania, you got me good. It has been interpreted as legit though, and I really need to work out my anger, I haven't been this triggered in ages.
This is the catchphrase of mediocrity in denial. Great authors/artists/musicians aren't great, they just aren't as time conscious as me. It takes a thousand hours to master anything my man, which is why I can say without irony that Michaelangelo is lucky he didn't have to deal with all the drama I do, and that drama is the only reason I am not a world class painter too.
Now you might say that wasn't his point, that he is pointing out that a lot of books out there are repetitive garbage or full of cours that weren't in the manga or deceptively written to shoehorn in an agenda, to which I would say that a) he still said it, and b) no argument there, but it brings us to the second point - sturgeon's law.
According to Google in 2010 129,864,880 books had been published - yes, this is before the self publishing boom. Of course that means over a hundred million complete duds, because that's how humans operate. But it also means millions of works of genius. His first example of a shitty book is David Sinclair’s Lifespan, published in 2019. Sinclair apparently pads it out with:
But, uh, that doesn't sound like padding to me? That sounds like a bunch of issues everyone always brings up any time people talk about lengthening life expectancy? "What will happen to pensions and hospitals and infrastructure if nobody dies?" is a pretty good question to ask imo. Hanania seems more upset that Sinclair's resolutions are left wing.
I haven't read the book though, so maybe it is just padding. It doesn't matter, no one who would call himself a genius should be allowed to fall to such obvious recency bias. Since the self publishing boom sturgeon's law has gained at least 9 percentage points, and yes that affects traditionally published books, they all share the same market. Books are getting stupider because we are getting stupider - but that's not on the books! And it certainly doesn't affect the most upsetting part of his argument - his dismissal of old books.
To be fair, he does acknowledge that there are more quality old books than new books, and he does seem to read a lot more non fiction than fiction - and non fiction is much more susceptible to perverse outside incentives because we built an industry around employing liberal arts majors called academia and it's very good at tricking otherwise intelligent people. But he's still fucking wrong!
Side note -
"You take up my time,
Like some cheap magazine,
When I coulda been learning something,
Oh well, you know what I mean,"
What an economical use of language! Hanania doesn't go far enough, he is too enamoured with his words - I say no books, no papers, no articles - if you can't work your message into a pop song you are an onanist waffling about nothing.
Moving on, Hanania has 3 categories of books he thinks are worth reading, and I am annoyed with him about all of them.
Absolutely true, for approximately 1% of human history. What a ridiculous thing to say. Like everyone on the planet, Hanania doesn't know what he knows or even what he doesn't. Which period of history do we know the most about? The current one obviously, followed by the previous, then the one before that and so on all the way back to Gutenberg. Why? Because that's what has been written about. Not in history books, there are no history books about the Tennies or Noughties, but in the very social science and political science books he derides, not to mention the self help books, the memoirs, the business guides, the diy books, the cookbooks, the magazines. Those books are our history. When Hanania is declaring the tweet the ultimate information delivery system he says:
And then recommends you filter your understanding of history through whoever chose to write about it. Because authors of histories have no egos or careers?
Side note 2: Side noter - He also says:
"Read substacks and Twitter!" says the guy who has made it big on substack and Twitter. But rest assured it is definitely not for reasons of ego and career interest.
Now it's all coming together, he's appealing to the old rationalist canard: "Everyone is a fucking idiot except me. So I only have to put 10% effort into something they have to give their all to to extract all the value." I think every motter has made that mistake before, I certainly have. But the overwhelming majority of Christians have never read the whole bible, and never will. You won't understand them better if you know which fabrics the bible says you shouldn't mix, because they have nfi what you are talking about.
The other examples are illustrative however. We have the Koran, the writings of Confucius, and the New York Times. Hanania is telling us who his fellows are - the educated middle class. Not necessarily people who read the Koran and Confucius and the NYT, but people who want to have read those things. If he wanted to understand the majority of people in his polity he'd be promoting watching football and tiktok compilations. This is not meant as a dig, like tlp used to say behaviour informs identity, and educated middle class people are often fantastic people by all metrics. But like tlp also probably said (actually, looking back I feel like you could put this preamble before every sentence I've written so far, but we're in too deep now) your preferences are not your stated preferences. Or in other words.
You probably expected me to target the advert paragraph at the end there in my breakdown, but this line is saying the quiet part out loud. Obviously the whole article is essentially a promo for his new book in a fairly typical format - "Has this ever happened to you? Woman reading book slowly turns pages until her eyes fall out of her head from banality There's got to be a better way! And now there is, History of Woke by Richard Hanania, in all good bookstores." So it seems to me like a mistake to pair it with an explanation that Hanania likes to read Pinker for the same reasons everyone likes to read anything - interest, understanding and entertainment.
Moving on again we get to the part that made me put my phone down and go for a walk: Against Great Books
See, if we move the goalposts enough I was totally right about great books! Sure they might provide valuable insight into history, and the mindset of great people, they might be a pleasure to read, a good way to pass time, provide lessons applicable outside the scope of their interest, give me a shared language of references and symbols and even act as props to signal my identity to others, but they tell us nothing about trans ideology! Aristotle hasn't even heard of inflation, never mind hyper-inflation! Besides, someone else has probably tweeted about the book, just read the tweet! Something something shadows on the wall amirite?
Hey how's this for irony? Not only is this entire paragraph poorly reasoned, it would have been useless even if it wasn't. What information can we pull from this that hasn't been presented already? I've even already mentioned the fatal flaw in this paragraph's argument - it's goalpost moving. Why, Richard, would you ask an indigenous Amazonian philosopher about trade policies or government? If we hit you over the back of the head, stripped you naked and dropped you in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, can we conclude you definitely aren't a Journeying Genius when you inevitably die in agony? Or would it be bizarre to expect a member of the chattering class to have the knowledge and insight necessary to survive such an alien experience?
This is the paragraph where I returned to my earlier conclusion that this was all very sharp satire. Hanania is not an idiot, that is clear, so I do not for one second buy that he doesn't see the disconnect between the insights of a previously uncontacted indigenous Amazonian philosopher and the insights of the primogenitor of Western fucking civilization.
Side note 3: Season of the Witch - I’m about to get to my point, I promise, but one final aside:
Starfucking aside, I don’t think Richard has read Meditations. Either that or he really has no idea whatsoever what Christian morality is. Edit: Because Meditations in particular is surely the most Christian work of Pagan philosophy in existence.
And here we reach my favourite paragraph in the piece, and where I will end my pedantic nitpicking, because it essentially dismantles itself. The footnote reads thus:
If you are just joining us, Hanania just successfully demonstrated the value in reading the actual words old assholes wrote instead of relying on quips about their writing by other old assholes. I'm not sure if Hanania read the link he provided before writing his piece - it kind of seems like he didn't - the link itself does a great job of explaining the problem, which is called memetic drift.
See Bertrand Russell hated Aristotle, because Bertrand Russell was a contrarian asshole (most of my heroes are.) Ok, maybe that's not why, but it's true. And that's the point. As any fan of the scientific method should know, the ONLY source you can fully trust is a primary source. The only way you will ever know exactly what was written in The Nicomachean Ethics is if you read The Nicomachean Ethics.
I am not saying Aristotle was a primary source and therefore we can believe his History of Animals about women's teeth. What I am saying is that it is unscientific to believe Bertrand Russell's description of Aristotle's beliefs, because Russell had his own agenda and point he was making. Russell wasn't just shitting on Aristotle for no reason - The Impact of Science on Society is a brilliant book I hope everyone on the motte has read, even if I disagree with some of the conclusions - Russell was making a point about the difference between being guided by authority and being guided by evidence, and for that it works excellently. But it's not a good way to learn about Aristotle, because it isn't about Aristotle.
The last point I will bring up is prosody. Words don't just mean their definition, they are always contextual. Last week someone was saying they didn't understand Moldbug's appeal, and it's the same thing. I don't care for him either, but for the people who do, the excessive way he writes is a fundamental component. It speaks to them on a level deeper than definitions, and as a result they get much more out of it. That's the real appeal of Great Books - they are read and promoted and reread and repromoted over centuries because they speak to people in a way that provides more insight than a couple of tweets.
And that's why fiction will always provide more insight than non-fiction. The story is the natural way humans understand things and it communicates beyond the words on the page. Just always keep in mind that the map is not the territory, because it can be easy to forget and when you start thinking life works like a story everything goes to shit.
Edit: clarity
I'm not sure I follow your point about Great Books like Aristotle. It's always seemed so obvious to me that these books are rather pointless except as a historical interest. The people who wrote them were so primitive by comparison, so limited in their empirical knowledge, so deprived of the progress in thought that we've made as a species, I can't fathom why someone would think that they have anything interesting to say on its own merits. And that's not to mention how impenetrable the prose is (apparently translators always think their job is robotically faithful reproduction instead of their best guess about what a modern writer would have written if attempting to express the same thought.)
You say they "speak to" people in some deep way. I'm not really sure what that means, but if their ideas are that impressive and timeless then surely someone more modern has has said the same thing but without the handicap of an ancient person's understanding of the world and our place in it?
Are you sure "read the classics" is an imperative containing much more than signaling about the speaker's supposed learnedness and sophistication? Because it's always been extremely hard for me to shake that impression, and I'm afraid I'm definitely not disabused of it from reading your response to Hanania. I see no good defense of the merits of reading those works.
In what ways specifically were they primitive, or are we advanced? Which core elements of the human experience have changed, and how, between their time and ours? Do the experiences of death, pain, fear, glory, fame, popularity, joy, comfort, friendship, love, hatred, childhood, parenthood, learning, ambition, greed, jealousy, loyalty, uncertainty, risk, value, profit, loss, poverty, wealth, aging, madness, irrationality, bias, intuition, wisdom or any other significant aspect of the human condition operate differently now, relative to then? If so, how?
What is the specific empirical knowledge they lacked, and why does that lack make their analysis irrelevant? What is the precise empirical discovery that opened the doors of enlightenment to mankind?
How, specifically, has thought "progressed" since their time, such that their thoughts should contain no value? What were they wrong about, and how do we know they were wrong about it?
If what you say is true, the above should be easy questions to answer. I don't think they are, but perhaps I'm wrong?
Just to scratch the surface, an understanding of evolution, neuroscience, and atomic theory puts the learned modern person's understanding of human nature leaps and bounds above the ancients. Like, have you read some of the things they believed? It's embarrassing, but obviously they didn't know any better. That's my point. I truly struggle to think of something I'm more baffled by than the seemingly widespread idea that we ought to entertain these ancient people's ideas any more than we'd entertain a toddler's.
How? What specific insights about human nature do they provide? Additionally, are you familiar with the centuries-long history of "learned modern persons" claiming that science had given them special insight into human nature, and the uniform results of such claims?
I have read some of the things they believed. I did not note anything that they should be embarrassed about, nor have I seen any ways that we "know better". Again, the question is not whether we know empirical facts that they did not, but whether those empirical facts tell us things about human nature. Atomic, evolutionary, and neuroscientific theories and facts do not change the realities of any of the elements of human nature I listed in even the smallest way. Death is still death, love is still love, loss is still loss, and so on down the list.
Then it should be trivial to describe how our understanding of, say, death or love surpasses theirs. I've never seen someone actually do so, so if you can, please do. Be as specific as possible, if you can.
Empirical facts about evolution provide us insight into why our minds and bodies are the way they are. They explain our emotions (including love), desires, perceptions, and so on. Everything that makes us what we are is the product of evolution. Atomic theory and neuroscience explain consciousness (although, of course, much mystery remains), personality, and provides good grounds to believe that no soul exists that can persist after death. All of this information informs our understanding of human nature.
Here are a few concrete examples just off the top of my head:
Modern neuroscience allows us to understand (and treat) mental disorders to a significant degree. These would have been mysterious to the ancients. But we understand, to some extent, how things like neurotransmitters affect depression, addiction, anxiety, etc., and that helps us come up with better ways to deal with it and also to sympathize with people who suffer from it.
Our knowledge of the cosmos, limited as it still is, allows us to better understand our place in it (or, perhaps most pertinently, our lack of importance within it).
Likewise, our understanding of evolution rather humbles our perception of our species' place in the world. It also provides insight into human universals such as sexual jealousy, coalitional warfare, the primacy of family, and probably a hundred other such examples. As an example of where a lack of this understanding goes awry, you're probably familiar with the Kibbutz - a feeble attempt by the Israelis to, among other lunacies, raise children communally. Evolutionary insight would immediately reveal the folly of that. But without an understanding of evolution, or at least trial and error, how do you suppose an ancient person would know that this project would be unlikely to succeed? Even if they could figure it out (probably by trial and error!) it seems obvious to me that an evolutionary insight into this aspect of human nature is a superior way to nip that sort of thing in the bud.
Also, even aside from advances in empirical knowledge, we have the advantage of two thousand years of history to draw from. For example, the US founding fathers took ample advantage of the history books to learn from prior empires' mistakes when designing the US system of government. All else being equal, people with more history to draw from will simply be better able to find enduring answers to timeless questions relating to how to organize society (politically, legally, etc.) and minimize common failure modes.
Like, honestly, the case you're making appears tantamount to claiming that superior empirical knowledge and a much longer "civilization bug report log" provides approximately zero advantage in understanding and improving people and society. And if so, like, why do you even bother to learn anything? I honestly don't understand.
Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming. I am claiming it because it appears to be straightforwardly, obviously true. The people who codified the general claim you are now repeating did so starting roughly three centuries ago, and they made specific predictions that went along with that claim: that their superior knowledge and understanding would allow them to fundamentally alter the human condition, ending things like ignorance, poverty, crime and war. Their predictions have been thoroughly falsified ever since. We still have ignorance, poverty, crime and war three centuries later, and in about the same amounts. Meanwhile, several branches of the ideological tree those men planted have produced the worst, most concentrated ignorance, poverty, crime and war the world has ever seen.
The truth is that we do not know how to improve people or society better than we did in the past, and in fact we sometimes are worse at it than people in the past were. We know how to make more and better things, how to manipulate the forces of nature better, but we have not made the slightest scratch in poverty, because poverty is and always has been relative. We do not know how to make people happy, or how to make them cooperate and follow the law. Our societies are visibly getting worse, and have been for some time without improvement.
Because, as the ancients understood, actions still have consequences, and wisdom is better than foolishness. There is a difference between a good life and a bad life, the good life is better, and knowledge and wisdom help greatly in securing it. Beyond that, while the strategy has not changed, the tactics evolve as new technologies are developed, and one must learn them if one is to use them. We have to work, we have to build, we have to band together and cooperate, we have to secure justice, peace and plenty, defend ourselves and build a world for our progeny. The exact details of how we do these things change over time, and the new methods must be mastered. The core nature of these things does not change over time, but it also must be learned, and that learning requires study and hard effort.
Learning things will make our lives better in a number of ways. None of those ways involve any change to the nature of the human condition. Our victories will be sweet, our losses bitter, we will love and hate, build and destroy, grow, age and die.
I am familiar with many, many claims to this effect. And then I watch rationalists discuss, for an example, ways to get the benefits of religion without the religion, something they've been trying to do for centuries without success. Or I see them claiming to have revolutionized the ordering of sexual relations, or to have developed a superior theory of government, or economics, or political organization, or education, or any of a dozen other things that should logically follow from actual, durable insights into why our minds and bodies are the way they are... And these reliably fail, as they always have and always will. Efforts to operationalize the sort of knowledge you're claiming exists have not been rare, nor lacking in resources or commitment. Some of them fail gracefully. Most of them unleash some form of industrial-scale horror. Take the satanic abuse panic for example, or the destruction of Detroit, for two obvious examples.
Modern surgery lets us heal what would have been crippling or lethal injuries, but they have not changed the core nature of what it means to be injured or crippled or killed. Planes have made travel hundreds of times easier, but they have not changed the core nature of travel. Firearms multiply the lethal power of a soldier, but they do not change the core nature of fighting or killing. In the same way, the fact that we can treat some forms of madness does not change the nature of madness itself.
It does not. At the dawn of writing, people fully understood the perspective you're alluding to here, and the additional detail has not added anything fundamental to that understanding. There were believers and atheists in 6000 BC, just as there are now. The purported insignificance of humans is not a novel insight of the modern era, nor a particularly useful one, nor one that is consistently applied. You can claim that we are insignificant, and yet you still hunger for justice and goodness, despite the insight you're claiming providing no basis for such a desire.
Naming is not explaining. The nature of sexual jealousy, coalition warfare, the primacy of family and all the rest of those hundreds of examples were well understood millennia ago. Evolutionary theory can provide an additional narrative purporting to explain such mechanisms, but I see no evidence that it explains or predicts them better than the explanations from previous millennia. That is to say, we cannot interact with any of these elements of human nature and the human experience better than our predecessors.
I am quite confident that the Kibbutzim believed that they were, in fact, basing their policies on the soundest possible principles scientific materialism could provide, among them their peerless command of evolutionary theory. Their mistake was obvious neither to them nor to their contemporaries; it is obvious to you only in hindsight. Likewise, the "science" of transgenderism is "obvious" to an apparent majority of American rational materialists now, despite the obvious pants-on-head insanity of the entire project. In another five decades, doubtless your grandkid will be telling my grandkid how a proper understanding of evolution would have made such mistakes impossible.
The knowledge available to us is bounded, so additional millennia of records do not help. The history that we have over those additional thousands of years confirms in excruciating detail that humans do not change, and neither do the problems that we face. The basic nature of our existence is immutable, and does not vary between vastly different times and places. From the ancient Hittites to modern New Yorkers, humans will inevitably human.
This shouldn't even be surprising. We each have a mind, scientific materialist claims to the contrary notwithstanding, and those minds are fundamentally closed to each other, scientific materialist claims to the contrary again notwithstanding. The human lifespan is limited. The ability to learn is sharply constrained, as is the ability to communicate what has been learned. And even when the data is available, the core of the problem, the nature and inclinations of one's own Will, is (thankfully!) not one amenable to engineered solutions.
The success of the US does not appear to derive from its system of government, but rather from the virtues of its founding population and the unusually fortunate position that population found itself in. As virtues and relative fortune fade, the system observably collapses. A virtuous people and an absurd, absolutely unprecedented abundance of land and natural resources can make nearly any system work well. As it is, America does not look to be on track to outperform far less sophisticated systems such as imperial Rome in the long run.
Hell I'd argue they were better at treating madness back then. Seeing it as a demon and casting it out probably works better than the bullshit psychiatrists get up to.
God damnit man, you are SO BASED! Can you write a book on this topic please? I would read every word.
More options
Context Copy link
It's one thing to make arguments that the enlightenment doesn't deserve any credit for the industrial revolution, but this is straightforwardly false. We have vastly less of all of those things per capita.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link