If you didn't mean for the story about the programmers to carry any weight, I'm happy to ignore it. I assumed it was in the essay to bolster your argument.
This supposed refutation can itself be disproven by reductio ad absurdum, because it could be applied to any explanation of our inclinations based on how we evolved.
No, that's overbroad. It could be applied to any argument that takes the form, "Our ancestors evolved to do x, therefore we will be happier if we do x." And, indeed, all such arguments are false, for the reason stated in my post.
Neither of these arguments even attempts to refute the central point of the essay.
I believed I had identified the central point of your argument. If you want to designate a different aspect the main point, that's your prerogative, but nothing in the essay prioritizes one over the other, and in fact the title refers to the evolutionary argument rather than the "central point." I don't have any thoughts about the "tree-structure/inverse freedom" point.
I'm not going to respond to your accusation of dishonesty, except to ask what DH number you'd assign it.
Christ, I wish people would give the man a break on this essay.
Instead of parsing the perceived inconsistencies in the words, how about looking at the spirit of what he's trying to do.
Look at the default use of people's minds who have been trained to solve difficult problems are being put to today: In bureauacracies on menial things that won't mean much of a difference in the world.
What is the problem with someone saying: "This is wrong, and I'm going to say it. I'm going to push the meme out there that this is bullshit and the default should be to maximize your return on your talent and work, and have a positive impact on society as a result."
If a metaphor or phrasing or analogy is misconstrued, who cares? That's too subjective anyway. If the default spirit was imbued in more technical people than not, I'm guessing we'd be in a better place.
This supposed refutation can itself be disproven by reductio ad absurdum, because it could be applied to any explanation of our inclinations based on how we evolved.
No, that's overbroad. It could be applied to any argument that takes the form, "Our ancestors evolved to do x, therefore we will be happier if we do x." And, indeed, all such arguments are false, for the reason stated in my post.
Neither of these arguments even attempts to refute the central point of the essay.
I believed I had identified the central point of your argument. If you want to designate a different aspect the main point, that's your prerogative, but nothing in the essay prioritizes one over the other, and in fact the title refers to the evolutionary argument rather than the "central point." I don't have any thoughts about the "tree-structure/inverse freedom" point.
I'm not going to respond to your accusation of dishonesty, except to ask what DH number you'd assign it.