The reason why some/many people are bad at writing is because they haven't yet discovered anything interesting to say. Therefore they weren't motivated to improve.
This is the criterion: is it interesting? 'Yes' means it's not AI-generated. 'No' means it's not worth reading.
No, lack of interest in a topic does not, by itself, cause awkward phrasing, run on sentences, poor structuring of the logical flow of sentences within a paragraph and paragraphs within the larger structure, repetitive language, repetitive language, repetitive language, outright incorrect word choice, overuse of the passive voice, ambiguous references... I could go on.
Sustained interest in a topic solves the problems associated with how to express ideas about it. There's a co-evolution between developing an ability and having a motivation for doing so.
The flaws in writing you've mentioned are valid, but in the right hands they've all been used as rhetorical devices at some time or another.
Sustained interest does not solve issues of understanding how to properly structure paragraphs and larger portions of writing. It's not going to cause someone to follow Strunk & White's style suggestions when the person could not do so otherwise. I don't see how it could solve many other things I mentioned. I have first hand experience reading such work: 10% is outright bad, 20% merely poor, 50% okay but with some of the problems I mentioned, 15% good, 5% very good to excellent. (Rough approximations.) Further, writers in the okay -> excellent range can frequently perform at their same level on new topics or writing prompts. Interest is at best a minor factor.
Separately, the ability for skilled writers to employ problematic methids I mentioned deliberately and to good effect is not relevant to my original comment. I am not talking about excellent writers who can write fantastic work while subverting traditional writing style and the soft rules of grammar. I'm think that sort of writer would be correctly identified as human at least a little more often than others. I am specifically talking about the large number of people who can't do this.
Interest simply cannot overcome lack of basic knowledge on how write properly. No more than a strong interest in chemistry will overcome lack of engineering experience when building infrastructure for large scale chemical transport. Writing is a separate skill from knowledge on the topic about which the writer is writing. Chemical engineering is a separate skill from knowledge about chemistry itself. Strong interest can only take a person so far when it intersects with an endeavor that requires unrelated skills.
Interest may elevate someone's writing from okay or good to better but it cannot replace skills the writer doesn't have.
Equally disturbing is the fact that many married men are being encouraged to participate in a permanent state of ersatz courtship known as 'date nights'. What's the point of getting married if you still have to go on dates?
"Dating" during marriage is just a way to make sure you set aside time to keep a relationship healthy. It doesn't need to be "a permanent state of ersatz courtship". My wife and I go on hikes, work in the yard together and play board games. Many other couples do similar things. Again, it's just a way to set aside time to focus on a relationship in the hustle and bustle of life.
Yes I agree. I'm totally in favour of married life and family life. However calling something by a name isn't necessarily the same as what the name superficially implies.
At the very least it's an interesting cultural phenomenon if 'dates' are transmuting from something people are supposed to do before they get married, in order to get married, into something they're supposed do after marriage.
Clearly 'date night' is more important to people than I knew. Partly for this reason, I doubt it will be sufficient to save or maintain marriage, the institution, beyond a generation or two. It reminds me of the concept of quality time which was introduced in the 70s/80s at the same time as divorce was skyrocketing and children were being increasingly neglected. Yet who can gainsay it? Who doesn't want more 'quality time'?
It's very sad and I'm sorry to have brought it up.
Because dates are supposed to be fun - the best kind of a date should be with your married partner - no 'do they like me' debate running through your head, no 'I wonder what they look like naked'. You can be completely comfortable with each other.
If you're not joking, I think the reasons are pretty clear. As a cis straight man, it's a useful way to signal your partner's importance to you. It's an opportunity for your partner to make herself look good and get dressed up which improves her mood and well being. It's also a good way to avoid letting all your time being doing your own thing or sitting around on your phones and make it clear that you aren't taking your partner or the relationship for granted
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong someone's religion is or some parents are or you feel it/they are. Perhaps you don't owe bad religion or bad parents or bad internet comments better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines quite a bit recently. Could you please not? We have to ban accounts that do that—because it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for—and I don't want to ban you.
I've experienced frisson at great moments in music but only when fantasising about performing the music (or some part of it) myself. I did a lot of this as a teenager...
My children would concur: they prefer digital time I think because that's what computers generally give. Also they prefer to have subtitles on but that's by the by.
I enjoyed Douglas Adam's letter though I can't help thinking it was meant for publication.
The issue of climate change, among other issues, is being used to promote unity and one world government. But it doesn't follow that this approach is best to climate change or anything else. We need variation in policies and technologies in order to select the best approach (and not get locked in to a sub-optimal approach).
One world government is bad because it will attract evil elements who use it to place all peoples under their control/taxation/exploitation, with no recourse or escape. All in the name of helping people and fighting for <insert your favourite political cause>.
By analogy, it might seem more efficient if families were to live in communal dormitories instead of their separate houses. In reality it would create stultification and at worst mass suffering when individuals took control over all aspects of other families' lives.
Currently, on climate change this variation is some countries doing nothing, others doing worse than nothing (e.g. encouraging mass deforestation, as in Brazil), and some countries doing a little more than nothing, but saying they are doing enough when compared to those who are doing nothing or worse, and that they can't afford to do more because it would put them at a disadvantage to the others. So this is less about "selecting the best approach" and more a race to the bottom of how little one can do while still pretending to care (or alternatively keep denying that the problem even exists and do nothing).
Problem is that, as I said, the architects of globalism are using this issue. They aren't motivated by the climate or any other of several, rotating concerns. They're motivated by a lust for power/wealth/prestige. You can't achieve difficult objectives unless you are really trying--and they aren't!
However you can ruin the efforts of others by demanding that their work serve a primary political agenda.
Humility before the truth is vital but not necessarily humility as expressed in one's public statements.
Indeed psychoticism was identified by the psychologist Hans Eysenck as one of the traits of genius, including scientific genius. Psychoticism is a package which includes associative thinking, creativity, disagreeableness, lack of empathy, antisocial nature, introversion, coldness, aggression, high self-esteem.
The problem is that most people are afraid of giving offence, of being ostracised by their colleagues and so on, and so they self-censor their original thoughts and never create anything fundamentally new and important.
So it's unsurprising that most of the great scientists in history had very difficult personalities (Faraday may have been an exception). I think the optimal approach is to study and benefit from the work of geniuses but have as little to do with them personally as possible. Leave them alone to their work.
Of course the fact that someone has a difficult personality does not mean he is a great thinker. However science has a mechanism for dealing with that via the publication system, where ideas that are wrong are eventually criticised and ultimately forgotten.
I share the sentiment however the grain of truth here is that it does take a lot of effort to appear normal. The essence of being normal is trying to appear normal which is what most people are engaged in most of the time.
The hidden motivation behind this is fear of other people and the fear of evil which for most people has all but conquered their love of reality, truth, and so on.
If one does have other genuine interests and pursuits (for example foreign languages) then the task of appearing normal is harder. So the implication that he isn't smart enough to be normal is in this sense correct.
Which by the by suggests that motivation is the key to learning, not attention control, repetition, particular books, starting young or the other usual suspects and methods. These are downstream from motivation.
Not really. It used to be a mix of seed oils and animal fat. But I don't think that many fries places do still use the animal fat part for "health reasons".
This is the criterion: is it interesting? 'Yes' means it's not AI-generated. 'No' means it's not worth reading.