michael_nielsen

Are you referring to sounding smart or something else?

I guess that's one type of intellectual aesthetic. Though what sounds smart to one person sounds stupid to another, so it's a lot more fine-grained than that.

I tend to value powerful principles; evidence of interest in disconfirmation; optimism; constructive approaches ("here's something we can do"); materialism (in the scientist's sense, not other senses); and a whole bunch of other things.

Which is all very well. But often the most interesting truths don't come in that particular package.

What package do they come in?

If I knew, I'd perhaps expand my aesthetic. I'm just thinking about important things I saw early... and largely ignored, because they fell outside my aesthetic.

A simple example was Michael Moore's very early explanation of why he thought Trump would win. I respond badly to Moore's intellectual style, so I dismissed it. Yet it's one of the more insightful pieces written before the election (& that would be true even if H had won).

Another example was cryptocurrencies in the 1990s. I saw a lot from the cypherpunks, David Chaum et al. Yet I didn't really get it, mostly bc (a) of lingering distrust of the concept of money; and (b) a lack of appreciation for instruments of co-operation.