• Lvxferre
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    [Just to be clear for everyone: I’m describing the issue, not judging anyone. I’m in no position to criticise the OP.]

    The unfamiliar vocab is just the cherry on the cake. The main issue is that it’s hard to track everything; at least, when reading it for the first time. And most people don’t bother reading an excerpt enough times to understand it.

    Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.

    Almost nobody, I believe. And I’d go further: I don’t think that most people read longer texts that would “train” them for this sort of stuff.

    • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Welp, there goes anyone’s claims here of being an authentic political theorist/scholar/analyst.

      Perhaps, based on that, the issue is expectations. One expects a certain outcome from how someone is explaining something and is thrown off-guard when it takes a twist. Though that’s not really anyone’s fault. I relate too well to the other perspective, as a non-native speaker who is, in some way, also neurodivergent, as well as a writer immersed in mental exercises. I just have had a kind of faith that one might say it’s a universally trainable skill (think math or jigsaw puzzles) rather than seemingly innate. I may read The Wheel of Time and War and Peace just fine if I don’t establish my own upper limit to complexity. Interactive AI, through their lack of the issue we discuss, implicitly show us that “unintelligible” and “complex” may overlap but don’t necessarily have to.