理性主义博客社区因冗长写作引发批评

有评论者批评理性主义博客社区存在严重的冗长问题。1Scott Alexander关于天主教奇迹的辩护文章长达25000字，而Eliezer Yudkowsky的"序列"系列文章超过一百万字。1该评论者认为这种冗长写作是伪装的、缺乏智慧的表现，博客作者错误地将文字数量与专业性和严谨性挂钩，实则忽视了真正的审慎与常识。1

评论者以自己的经历为例说明冗长的问题，指出其相关文章经过精简后仅为2700字，删除了初稿约70%的文本。1他还引用了Gwern撰写的一篇关于尼古丁的文章为反面教材——该文使用9000字篇幅和100多个参考文献论证尼古丁无成瘾性且有益健康，但这一结论后来被证实为错误。1评论者指出，理性主义社区偏好非传统与反文化思想，更容易将文字数量作为思想价值的证明，强化了冗长写作的现象。1

Members of the rationalist blogging community have come under scrutiny for publishing articles of extraordinary length, with critics arguing that word count has become mistakenly equated with intellectual rigor.1 Scott Alexander's essay defending Catholic miracles extends to 25,000 words, while Eliezer Yudkowsky's "Sequences" series surpasses one million words in total.1 One commentator noted that their own piece on a related topic ran to 2,700 words after removing approximately 70 percent of the initial draft, suggesting that significant trimming remains possible even in condensed work.1

The emphasis on verbosity appears to reflect a broader pattern within the rationalist community, which tends toward unconventional and countercultural ideas while treating length as a proxy for substantive thought.1 A notable example involves Gwern's 9,000-word essay, supported by over 100 references, arguing that nicotine is neither addictive nor beneficial to health—a position later found to be incorrect.1 Critics contend that this tendency conflates the quantity of text with evidence of careful reasoning, potentially obscuring rather than advancing genuine intellectual discourse.