> It's apparent you didn't understand what I wrote at all.
It's hard to say. I told you what it seemed like you wrote and explicitly asked what the point was, hoping there was more to it than just an series of insults.
You responded with this seemingly independent comment, which is fine, but very different in content than your initial comment. Because of that, it's not surprising that I would have missed the point of your initial comment if in fact both of these comments are attempting to convey the same information.
> My point is (and I'll spell it out for you too, since I think it may apply) -- knowing the right thing is usually much much much much less important than being able to get other people to understand the right thing.
In my opinion, it depends.
Getting people to understand what you're saying when you're wrong isn't helpful at all.
If you do have something original and helpful to say, it is important to convey that information in a manner that others understand.
If you're saying something everyone in your audience already knows, it doesn't matter if you're personally understood or not, because the position is understood by default.
Unfortunately, I put this article in the last category. I am legitimately questioning whether I learned a single new thing of value from reading that entire article, and questioning whether anyone in the audience of that author wouldn't already know this information.
> This article is good because it does the 2nd.
In case it isn't obvious already, we disagree here. I don't think it gets people to understand much of anything, because I don't see any point to the article (which I read in its entirety for the record). To me, it's a compilation of generally well known issues, personal anecdotes ranging from amusing to distracting, and theories that don't seem to have much backing them up. I ended the article wondering why the author (who I respect) spent so much time and effort compiling commonly known information that has been repeatedly analyzed and presented elsewhere, and when (if ever) there would be a point to this series of articles.
You've stated twice now that this is a great article. I'm asking you why you feel it gets people to "understand the right thing", because it didn't have that effect on me.
> There is no lack of unhappy people decrying problems, the world has no use for that.
I'm not sure if I agree with that, and I'm not sure what use there is for extremely long-winded descriptions of the status quo.
> The world does have use for people who can inspire differently-minded people to focus on (and find joy in) fixing a common challenge.
What is that common challenge here?