I don't know why, it's just an irrational form of first-principles admiration for me.

This is especially true in the age of LLM's (but the same can be applied to social media forums and the like). Sure, we should "just judge arguments on their merit" but there's something... suspicious. Like, a thought experiment: What if something came to a very reasonable seeming argument in 10 minutes, versus 10 hours? To me, I can't help but feel suspicious that I'm being tricked by some ad-hoc framing that is complete bogus in reality. "Obvious" conclusions can be obviously shaped with extremely hidden premises, things can be "locally logically correct" but horrible from a global view.

Maybe I'm way too cynical of seeing the same arguments over and over, people just stripping out their view of the elephant that they intuited in 5 minutes, then treating it as an authoritative slice, and stubbornly refusing to admit that that constraint, is well, a constraint, and not an "objective" slice. Like, yes, within your axioms and model, sure, but pretending like you found a grand unification in 5 minutes is absurd, and in practice people behave this way online.

(Point being that, okay, even if you don't buy that argument when it comes to LLM's, when it comes to a distributed internet setting, I feel my intuition there holds much stronger, for me at least. Even if everybody was truly an expert, argument JITing is still a problem).

Of course, in practice, when I do decide something is "valuable" enough for me to look at, I take apart the argument logically to the best of my ability, etc. but I've been filtering what to look at a lot more aggressively based on this criteria. And yes it's a bit circular, but I think I've realized that with a lot of really complicated wishy-washy things, well, they're hard for a reason :)

All that to say, is that yeah, the human element is important for me here :D. I find that, when it comes to consumption, if the person is a singular human, it's much harder to come to that issue. They at least have some semblance of consistence, and it's "real/emergent" in a sense. The more you learn about someone, the more they're truly unique. You can't just JIT a reductionist argument in 10 minutes.

IDK. Go small blogs!

I have been writing a niche history blog for 15 years