TL;DR
Get the little things that make your day delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
An essay posted October 13 criticizes the length and style of writing in the rationalist blogosphere, pointing to posts of 25,000 words and a series exceeding one million words. Its author argues that detailed exposition can be mistaken for thoroughness, while the essay’s broader claims about the community and its writing are opinions, not independently established findings.
An essay published October 13, 2026, criticizes what its author describes as excessive length in rationalist blogging, arguing that some writers devote more space to elaboration than to testing their core assumptions. The piece contrasts a 2,700-word essay about Catholic miracle apologetics with a rationalist blog post it says runs to 25,000 words, turning a complaint about style into a wider argument about judgment and what makes writing useful.
The author says they read—or, as they correct themselves, skimmed—a 25,000-word post by rationalist blogger Scott Alexander while researching an essay on Catholic miracle apologetics. Their own piece, which cited Alexander’s post but did not focus on it, came to 2,700 words after they cut about 70% of an earlier draft. They argue that additional length would not have improved their article.
The essay also points to Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “sequences,” which it describes as exceeding one million words, and to a 9,000-word post by Gwern that it says contains more than 100 references. The author uses the latter as an example of extensive argumentation failing, in their view, to make a counterintuitive claim persuasive. They say the post argued that nicotine was not addictive and could be good for people if not smoked; the essay author rejects that conclusion, arguing that nicotine is addictive and harmful even when not smoked.
Those examples and evaluations are presented as the author’s critique. The essay does not supply independent evidence assessing the full body of rationalist writing, nor does the provided account establish the accuracy or scope of every scientific claim discussed. Its central point is interpretive: word count and citations can give an impression of rigor without resolving whether an argument’s starting assumptions are sound.
Why Is Every Rationalist Blog Post Way Too Long?
An essay criticizes long-form writing in the rationalist blogosphere, arguing that exhaustive detail can look like rigor while leaving the most important assumptions untested. Its examples are an individual critique, not a measured finding about an entire community.
“Wisdom involves discretion: an intuition for what ideas are worth pursuing, and what does not need to be said.”
The essay’s authorDoes more explanation clarify an argument—or make it harder to see whether its starting point is sound?
When more words look like rigor
The essay sets three long works beside its author’s shorter article on Catholic miracle apologetics. These figures illustrate the author’s impression of a writing culture; they do not come from a systematic survey.
25,000-word post
The author says they read—then corrects this to “skimmed”—a post while researching their own essay. They argue that adding length would not have improved their article.
“Sequences” over 1M words
The series is cited as an example of the scale of long-form writing associated with rationalist blogging.
9,000 words, 100+ references
The author disputes a nicotine post’s conclusion and uses it to argue that extensive argumentation does not guarantee persuasion or sound premises.
The author says they cut about 70% of an earlier draft to produce a 2,700-word essay, and believes the shorter version retained what mattered. This is their account of their own editing, not a general measure of ideal essay length.
Length can support a claim. It cannot settle it.
Long posts can document sources, explain difficult concepts, and address objections. The critique asks readers to distinguish helpful detail from detail that obscures the assumptions on which an argument depends.
REPORTED EXAMPLE LENGTHS · BAR SCALE RELATIVE TO THE 25,000-WORD POST · SEQUENCES EXCEED 1M WORDS
Specific examples, broad interpretation
The essay makes claims about the wider community’s writing norms and priorities. The account provided does not independently establish those claims.
Verbosity can be mistaken for thoroughness
The author says writers should scrutinize their starting assumptions and decide which details genuinely need to be included. In their view, unconventional ideas can receive lengthy defenses that lend them an unwarranted air of importance.
No comparison of the whole field
The essay does not compare typical post lengths across communities, define the group’s boundaries, or measure whether length predicts clarity, accuracy, or reader value.
From example to conclusion
The central point is interpretive: citations and word count may create an impression of rigor without resolving whether an argument’s premises are sound.
Identify the specific post, series, length, and sources being discussed.
Ask whether the argument tests its most important assumptions.
Treat judgments about a community as the author’s interpretation.
Compare posts and reader outcomes before generalizing about a pattern.
What the critique does not establish
No systematic sample
Selected examples do not show that rationalist blogs are longer than other blogs or represent typical writing habits.
Disagreement, not a medical review
The author rejects a conclusion attributed to Gwern. The account does not provide the original post’s full argument or independently assess medical evidence.
No formal follow-up noted
No response from the named writers or data-based study is indicated. The cited writing can be checked directly; broader claims need broader evidence.
When More Words Look Like Rigor
The critique speaks to a familiar question for readers and writers: how much detail helps an argument, and when does it become a barrier to understanding? Long posts can document sources, explain difficult concepts and handle objections. But length alone does not show that a writer has chosen the right question, examined the most important assumptions or reached a sound conclusion.
The essay’s concern is not simply that readers face lengthy articles. It argues that a community’s writing norms can shape which ideas receive attention. If unconventional claims attract long defenses partly because they are unconventional, the volume of explanation may be mistaken for evidence of importance. That is the author’s interpretation, not a demonstrated account of how the whole community behaves.
For readers, the practical distinction is between detail that supports a claim and detail that makes a weak premise harder to spot. The essay asks readers to look past word counts and citations and judge whether a piece addresses the assumptions on which its argument depends.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Examples Behind the Critique
The essay builds its case from three examples: a 25,000-word Scott Alexander post, Yudkowsky’s million-word-plus “sequences,” and Gwern’s 9,000-word discussion of nicotine with more than 100 references. These figures illustrate the author’s impression of a writing culture; they are not a systematic survey of the rationalist blogosphere.
The author contrasts that style with their own editing process, saying they removed about 70% of an initial draft to produce a 2,700-word article. They argue that the shorter version retained what mattered. From there, the essay makes a broader distinction between thoroughness and wisdom: the former can involve extensive detail, while the latter includes deciding which questions and details deserve attention.
Its final criticism concerns what the author sees as a preference for heterodox and countercultural ideas over common sense or inherited tradition. The piece suggests that lengthy treatment can lend such ideas an undeserved air of significance. This is a claim about the community’s values and incentives, rather than a finding supported by interviews, readership data or a comparison of posts.
“I read (correction: skimmed) a 25,000-word post by rationalist blogger Scott Alexander.”
— The essay’s author
ergonomic reading glasses for long reading sessions
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Broad Is the Pattern?
The essay offers selected examples and personal judgment, not evidence that rationalist bloggers as a group write longer than other bloggers or that length reliably signals poor reasoning. It does not define the community’s boundaries, compare typical post lengths or assess whether readers find long posts valuable.
The nicotine example also requires care: the essay author disputes Gwern’s stated conclusion, but the account provided does not include the original post’s full argument or independent medical evidence. The piece does not establish a general verdict on nicotine’s health effects. It uses the disagreement to illustrate its argument about how extensive writing can coexist with a conclusion the author considers wrong.
There is no indication that Scott Alexander, Yudkowsky or Gwern responded to this criticism. The extent to which the examples reflect wider writing habits, and whether the critique applies to particular posts or a broader community, remains unclear.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Debate Over Editing and Evidence
No formal follow-up, response or data-based study is announced in the essay. The immediate next step for readers assessing its argument is to distinguish the specific examples from its wider claims about rationalist culture, and to consult the cited writing where needed.
The discussion also leaves room for a more systematic comparison: typical article lengths across communities, how readers use long-form posts and whether length is linked to accuracy or clarity. Until such evidence is presented, the essay stands as an individual critique of writing habits and intellectual priorities, rather than a measured finding about an entire blogging community.
Source: Hacker News
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is the essay’s main argument?
Its author argues that some rationalist blog posts are excessively long and that verbosity can be mistaken for thoroughness. They say writers should scrutinize their starting assumptions and decide which details genuinely need to be included.
Which writing examples does it discuss?
The essay cites a 25,000-word post by Scott Alexander, Eliezer Yudkowsky’s “sequences,” described as more than one million words, and a 9,000-word Gwern post about nicotine that the author says includes more than 100 references.
Does the essay prove that rationalist bloggers are unusually verbose?
No. It offers examples and an author’s assessment, not a survey comparing rationalist blogs with other writing or measuring typical post length.
What does the essay say about nicotine?
The author disputes a Gwern post they characterize as arguing that nicotine is not addictive and can be beneficial if not smoked. The essay presents the author’s criticism of that argument; the account does not independently assess the medical evidence.
Source: Hacker News
NFL season / tailgating Picks
team gear
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
