• Syrc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    One more reason to hate the education system of rating stuff according to how lengthy it is.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, I think we have to recognize that many people using this site are doing things like taking the train, using the bathroom, or waiting on something. That often necessitates browsing to be short.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t mean it to be a jab at the users, but I might’ve written it too ambiguously.

        Obviously in most cases it’s better when something you read on the internet is short and concise: my gripe was with a lot of news sites (and, in this case Peterson) who do the exact opposite of that to seem smarter. The “joke” was that it’s a behavior learned in school, where the more you write the better, even if you could’ve expressed the same concept in a much shorter way.

    • gianni@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it has anything to do with the education system. It’s simply that the commitment involved in the request is much higher than normal. I don’t read every 50-page article or 2-hour video I come across. But I can be compelled to when the value proposition is higher than normal.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think my comment was misunderstood: it was kind of a half-joke about Peterson’s writing.

        Everyone learned to make their concept as long as possible in school because they were better-received, and that’s what Peterson is doing: talking in the most convoluted way possible to make his otherwise bland ideas feel smart.