Talk:Directives for after Point Omega

Critical feedback based on Father's Day 2017 version

After repeated requests from User:Baby Boy for some critical notes on this article, I've picked Father's Day 2017 to start critically reading and responding. --BigSmoke (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Father's Day feedback on: Introduction

The introduction is very long-winded. Twelve paragraphs are used to convey the following information:

• The article was written at the request of Victor Koekkoek.
• The article should be read after A guided tour through the Omega Research Wiki.
  • Or, at least, after having read Definitions of "Point Omega", or the same in Self-blindness in humans as prerequisite for the evolution of advanced intelligence.
• The information in this wiki is scattered about various islands of specialist knowledge,
  • and therefore not readily accessible to the general public.
  • Also, the general public—the ‘herd’—is, in your opinion, not capable of grasping this information.

Too much time is spent to convince the reader of the uniqueness of the information compiled on this wiki, and the unique, elite combination of mentality and intelligence that is required to follow the argumentation.

Father's Day feedback on: Lost perspectives, . . . . . what next ?

This section is quite readable and does entice the reader—me, at least—to continue to the rest of the article. It feels more like an appetizer than the first section, because it makes less of an appeal to the reader to join the “exclusive, smart, original” tribe, which, frankly, comes across as narcissistic and childish.

Father's Day feedback on: New facts we need to take into account

Although I disagree with (the factuality of) some of the basic premises, I like how they are summarized here. I've gone over the sources of disagreement with User:Baby Boy before, but not in this medium. Perhaps, next Father's Day, if I feel brave enough, I will provide some critical feedback on A guided tour through the Omega Research Wiki.

Father's Day feedback on: From fact-finding to courses of action

The four paragraphs could easily be reduced to two, and the first 3 are too long anyway. You lose precision because you are trying to be accurate and exhaustive. What is it precisely that you are tring to convey at this point in the story?

Father's Day feedback on: Democratization of education (1st issue)

Most of your readers, including me, wouldn't object to the notion that the democratization of education leads to less talent going to waste, but I don't understand the point of this section.

• Are you claiming that education is being democratized world-wide? If so, I'm missing numbers.
• Are you merely stating that, following Point Omega, education will inevitably be democratized?

Father's Day feedback on: Transparency (2nd issue)

Again, there's a whole lot of talk, but it's not clear where you want to go (except by implication).

• Are you claiming that transparency is, on the whole, increasing?
• If so, can you substantiate this claim?
• Are you claiming that communication technology is making people freeer, rather than serving as an extra means of solidifying existing power structures?
• If (certain) power structures are becoming unstable, how do you know that this is due to increased transparency and not just to the built-in periodical cycles of upheaval that you later mention?