I find essays written in this style to be overwrought in a way that makes them impossible to challenge (setting aside AI summarization). Is this not, in and of itself, a form of fake thinking?
For example, some section of this essay introduces the following:
> Did evolution want to build this kind of truth engine? Well, maybe it’s complicated.
It later begins to conclude with:
> But regardless of the actual evolutionary and psychological story, here, I think my point about the abstract form of a truth engine still stands.
Why bother introducing the evopsych hypothesis if we're not actually going to stand behind it or use it in a meaningful way?
I don't even mean this particularly as a takedown, the dimensions listed are kind of interesting at least. But I find a particular sort of irony in having written so many words and having engaged in so much thought just to return to not thinking about something at all.
For example, some section of this essay introduces the following:
> Did evolution want to build this kind of truth engine? Well, maybe it’s complicated.
It later begins to conclude with:
> But regardless of the actual evolutionary and psychological story, here, I think my point about the abstract form of a truth engine still stands.
Why bother introducing the evopsych hypothesis if we're not actually going to stand behind it or use it in a meaningful way?
I don't even mean this particularly as a takedown, the dimensions listed are kind of interesting at least. But I find a particular sort of irony in having written so many words and having engaged in so much thought just to return to not thinking about something at all.