The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion • Hacker News Board

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#41

Post by ars » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 5:43 AM UTC

neurosphere wrote: post #34

spb wrote: post #27

The worst trait I see when domain experts try to write "introductory" material is a depressingly-common amnesia toward what it was like to not already know their subject matter. This article is so badly written, so overly and needlessly wordy, that I'm honestly considering deconstructing it line-by-line as a case study in how not to write articles for the layman. Here's a brief example, using the most jarring line I'…

Bit of a harsh critique, though I appreciate reading people's comments on my writing. Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly. I'm sorry that what I wrote wasn't sufficiently comprehensible :-( Also, I never took a philosophy class. None of what I…

If it helps, I had zero prior knowledge of "lateral inhibition in the retina" and I had no problem at all understanding the writing.

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#42

Post by posterboy » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 9:15 AM UTC

spb wrote: post #27

The worst trait I see when domain experts try to write "introductory" material is a depressingly-common amnesia toward what it was like to not already know their subject matter. This article is so badly written, so overly and needlessly wordy, that I'm honestly considering deconstructing it line-by-line as a case study in how not to write articles for the layman. Here's a brief example, using the most jarring line I'…

That the writing is subjective and hence too colorful and wordy is evidenced by the remark, "what I find most interesting about them".

Edit: It is however not as long as I derided in another comment. At least there is a link to a relevant paper in the beginning, although further reading didn't appeal to reading that paper. The text is almost half as long as the paper, that's too long for a summary. I'll refrain from more critique as I'm far from an expert on literature.

Your comment is ironically very wordy as well, but I concur.

Edit2: I am not seeing sources for the images.

Re: The basic neurobiology behind the 12-dot illusion

#43

Post by spb » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

neurosphere wrote: post #34

spb wrote: post #27

The worst trait I see when domain experts try to write "introductory" material is a depressingly-common amnesia toward what it was like to not already know their subject matter. This article is so badly written, so overly and needlessly wordy, that I'm honestly considering deconstructing it line-by-line as a case study in how not to write articles for the layman. Here's a brief example, using the most jarring line I'…

Bit of a harsh critique, though I appreciate reading people's comments on my writing. Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly. I'm sorry that what I wrote wasn't sufficiently comprehensible :-( Also, I never took a philosophy class. None of what I…

Yeah, don't take it personally. Most of what I wrote there was just pent-up generalized frustration with a lot of published material out there. I regret not sufficiently framing my post within that context.

The authors I really want to hit with this kind of critique are the ones who aren't embracing what you describe here:

> Ultimately, doing some writing over the past few months has taught me that I shouldn't necessarily underestimate people's ability to understand scientific concepts if only I take the time to explain them properly.

There's a troublingly large contingent out there that, as XKCD put it, [communicates badly and then acts smug when it's misunderstood][1], [confused about how communication works][2]. These are the ones I really take issue with: the ones who are pleased when the audience who can absorb their material is small, interpreting it as validation of their own abilities (thinking "I'm one of a few people who can understand this"), instead of a refutation of them.

[1]: https://xkcd.com/169/

[2]: https://xkcd.com/1028/ "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."

I particularly apologize for the part about it being pretentious to mention the Cartesian Theatre. While I would cut that in later drafts for being irrelevant (which, like all irrelevant material, confuses the subject), it really doesn't come across as anything more than that, and I was especially projecting my frustrations from other stuff I've read when I characterized it like that.