Just like you I also read Sapiens after the hype-wave but before the backlash and got really frustrated with the intellectual hipsterism of all the people pretending to be so far above it. I think you hit the nail on the head here. "Dorm-room tier epiphanies" aren't a bad thing, and broad appeal public intellectuals are important. Sometimes I worry that the primacy of sneering, dunking, and debunking on social media is a way more destructive information environment than the idealistic TED-talks I grew up on. Like you get the impression that everything is bullshit all the time, except hopelessly niche books that you'd never find the energy to read (and if you did you'd lack the prior knowledge needed to understand it). I wouldn't be surprised if that atmosphere would make some people retreat from intellectual curiosity completely.
This is well put. I am a partisan for unadulterated intellectual curiosity, epistemic humility, and tolerance for solemn heterodoxy. Intellectual naivete and cynicism/snobbery are equally unappealing to me.
Thanks. Late comment, but I agree. Sapiens actually transformed my thinking/worldview, in a slightly strange way, a bit like informing a fish that water exists. I knew that people believed things, and some beliefs were smarter than others, but I'd never really grasped the fundamental role of myth - aka believing shit - in human activities.
I read some of the later books, interesting but I wasn't that excited. I felt I'd got the main message. Harari seems to be a bit of a victim of his own success. People were lining up to get his opinion of everything.
I'm not that stressed about AI, plenty of awful stuff happens without it. It's a bit early to tell how it will go on balance.
Thanks! I just read the "graphic novel" version of Sapiens. Perhaps that is the way to read public intellectuals. You get the gist of the story without taking it too seriously.
Just like you I also read Sapiens after the hype-wave but before the backlash and got really frustrated with the intellectual hipsterism of all the people pretending to be so far above it. I think you hit the nail on the head here. "Dorm-room tier epiphanies" aren't a bad thing, and broad appeal public intellectuals are important. Sometimes I worry that the primacy of sneering, dunking, and debunking on social media is a way more destructive information environment than the idealistic TED-talks I grew up on. Like you get the impression that everything is bullshit all the time, except hopelessly niche books that you'd never find the energy to read (and if you did you'd lack the prior knowledge needed to understand it). I wouldn't be surprised if that atmosphere would make some people retreat from intellectual curiosity completely.
This is well put. I am a partisan for unadulterated intellectual curiosity, epistemic humility, and tolerance for solemn heterodoxy. Intellectual naivete and cynicism/snobbery are equally unappealing to me.
Makes me want to read some Harari!
Thanks. Late comment, but I agree. Sapiens actually transformed my thinking/worldview, in a slightly strange way, a bit like informing a fish that water exists. I knew that people believed things, and some beliefs were smarter than others, but I'd never really grasped the fundamental role of myth - aka believing shit - in human activities.
I read some of the later books, interesting but I wasn't that excited. I felt I'd got the main message. Harari seems to be a bit of a victim of his own success. People were lining up to get his opinion of everything.
I'm not that stressed about AI, plenty of awful stuff happens without it. It's a bit early to tell how it will go on balance.
Thanks! I just read the "graphic novel" version of Sapiens. Perhaps that is the way to read public intellectuals. You get the gist of the story without taking it too seriously.