Alex Wennerberg argues that the rationalist blogging community frequently produces excessively long content that lacks 'wisdom'—defined by the author as the discretion to determine which ideas are worth pursuing and what information is necessary to convey. Wennerberg contrasts his own 2,700-word piece on Catholic miracle apologetics with a 25,000-word post by Scott Alexander, noting that his own work was achieved by cutting 70% of his initial draft. He suggests that the community's tendency toward verbosity serves as a substitute for thoroughness, where a large volume of text is mistakenly viewed as evidence of a worthwhile point.
The author identifies a specific pattern where bloggers focus on adding layers of detail and nuance rather than interrogating the foundational assumptions of their arguments. He cites a 9,000-word post by Gwern regarding nicotine as an example of this trend, arguing that the extreme length and high volume of references were used to argue a point that is ultimately contradicted by common knowledge. According to Wennerberg, this style reflects a cultural bias toward unconventional and countercultural ideas, where the amount of 'ink spilled' is used as a proxy for the value of the idea itself, even if the core premise remains unexamined.
While the author characterizes this style as a lack of wisdom, the critique highlights a fundamental tension in rationalist discourse: the trade-off between rigorous exploration and concise communication. By prioritizing the exhaustive documentation of every possible nuance, writers may lose sight of the primary assumptions that drive their conclusions. Wennerberg suggests that true wisdom involves the ability to identify what is truly worth saying, a trait he believes is currently undervalued in a subculture that views common sense or inherited tradition with skepticism and favors heterodox ideas regardless of their brevity or clarity.