Stop Summarizing

Why I refuse to accept clarifications

One of the fundamental problems that surrounds every useful or original idea is created by those who are most enthusiastic about it. This is true regardless of whether the idea is religious, philosophical, technological, or even literary. From Jesus Christ to Tolkien, one can hear the exasperation and anger in the words of those who are forced to hear how their articulated concepts are folded, spindled, and mutilated in the abridged summaries of their biggest fans.

While I recognize the role that popularizers play in spreading core ideas to others, the fact of the matter is that they are more likely to do harm than good. One has only to observe the way in which the term “Sigma Male” has gone globally viral and then see how it has been twisted so that a fictional psychopathic Gamma male has become one of its two main visual representations to see this.

I didn’t actually think through my position on the matter until yesterday, though, when the subject came up during a discussion of Veriphysics that caught the interest of a lot of people who aren’t usually that interested in philosophy. The following exchange clarified it for me.

---

Vox, is this AI summary an accurate summation of Triveritas? Warranted assent is the best we can do as finite, embodied, contingent beings.

It is possible for a claim to be maximally warranted—by logic, coherence, and evidence—and still be false, if reality itself is deeper, more mysterious, or differently ordered than our best models can capture.

Therefore:

* We must pursue warranted assent with all rigor, but hold our conclusions with epistemic humility.

* We defend the good, the true, and the beautiful not as absolute possessors of Truth, but as stewards of what is most worthy to believe—always open to further clue, further revelation, and further contemplation.

This is not skepticism, but the highest form of rational faith.

No. That’s not about the Triveritas at all. I’d prefer that people simply read what is written and cite that instead of producing independent AI summaries, asking for assent, and then claiming that’s what I said.

I wrote what I wrote. Why not simply utilize that?

But it’s a good reminder of an important principle. I’m not going to agree to anyone’s summaries. Summaries are precisely how coherent concepts become incoherent.

What happens is that people with lower IQ read what you write, and don’t fully grasp it. In an attempt to try and grasp it however, we wrestle with it, looking at it from other angles to fit into our brain better. If I was able to fully grasp it, I would understand the implications and limitations very clearly instead of having to blindly probe the boundaries.

I understand that. But what you probably don’t grasp is that by wrestling with it and forcing it into your brain in a manner that you understand, you transform it and then insist on that transformed version being the correct and only interpretation, even though it is obviously wrong.

I would personally prefer that people fail to understand it and know they have failed to understand it than to transform it and substitute their interpretation for the real thing.

Knowing this, I will not assent to anyone’s “summary”. Go to the source material, first, last, and always.

---

Now, the fundamental problem with the reader’s proposed summary may not be immediately obvious to those of you who have no interest in philosophical matters, which is of course fine. The problem, you see, is that he was confusing two aspects of the philosophy with its epistemological tool, attempting to define the tool as something it is not, and then using that definition to make an unwarranted claim I never asserted.

And all of this was presented as a prospective summary of my own words to which I was asked to assent.

Now that I better understand the mechanism of how these conceptual perversions take place, I know that at least as I’m around to do it, it is vital to refuse to accept any summaries, any explanations, and any simplifications offered on my behalf. And for those who “are just trying to understand” perhaps you should simply try reading the source materials again, repeatedly if you must, rather than attempting to modify them by putting them in your own words in a manner you understand.

The moment I hear “so what you’re saying is” I know I’m going to hear something a) incorrect, and usually, b) stupid.

If you don’t understand something, that’s okay. Some things some people are not meant to understand. And it’s always better to know you don’t understand something than to think you understand something you don’t.

The lesson, as always, is this: stop helping!