Post

Conversation

Had never thought of this before, but it seems straightforwardly true. It likely applies even to formal writing in addition to “posts.”
Image
Quote
Alex Danco
@Alex_Danco
I’m joining @a16z ! After five years at Shopify, I’m moving onto my next adventure in life, and heading to Andreessen Horowitz. Shopify is an incredible place, and Tobi is one of the great founders of our era. I’ll remember those years as one of the golden chapters of my life.
Show more
Image
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

“Restructuring their consciousnesses” is a lovely turn of phrase of “constructing meaning out of a long series of tokens.”
A related point is that the headline & subheadline in news articles if often the only interaction many have with a story, which makes the practice of anonymous editors choosing and revising article titles (without notice) deeply corrosive
I'm certain that is true. Or they skimmed it, retaining the soundbite summary but missing all the subtlety at least, and possibly the whole point.
It applies to all scientific literature as well In essence, it's a universal truth humans prefer reassurance to research. Most will follow the crowd rather than read something carefully and come to their own conclusions.
this is a basic pattern that applies all the way down. almost everyone is mostly a "secondary audience" for everything.
makes sense - I barely spend any time on the TL anymore, if I like someones posts I either have notifs for them on or someone second-hand passed it thru a gc
How much larger is the tertiary audience? People who hear about it from people who listen to summarizers and synthesizers
Hayek speaks of "secondhand dealers in ideas" in _The Intellectuals and Socialism_. There is a class of people who derive wealth and reputation from re-broadcasting avant-garde ideas, not just journalists and professors but also your erudite aunt at Christmas dinner.
The dispersal layers from influential texts happens for all kinds of media. Movies have declined in quality because filmmakers are now two more degrees from theatre. Books are worse because authors are further downstream from great literature. Etc
Kamil Galeev (sp?) had a recent thread pointing out that, since we have Stalin’s personal library with his annotations, we know what he read, and that was primarily Lenin, not Marx himself. This turned into a larger point that ideas spread to most people via popularizers
Maybe deeper than he was getting at, but David Foster Wallace’s introduction essay to 2007 Greatest American Essays about curating who explains (the infinite) information to you remains more and more relevant
I wonder how the loss function works here. Most folks in X comment sections seem not to be 'getting it'.
Absolutely. The time value for reading most books that are information deep, never mind shallow books like that abundance crap, is quite steep for the average person who has a day job and a family.