Unless you are European literary critic or something, then the interesting bit is why you are on HN

Confucius is utterly devoid of "woo" (巫) and is much closer to Aristotle and company than he is to Mary Baker Eddy. Likewise, there's a big Chinese literature in psychology where you'll find things that I believe are true on any level (sadness suppresses anger: try reading names at the war memorial when you are angry but can't be) that are hard to find or absent in Western literature.

The Chinese v. of that really requires a link! It's nearly a chengyu but I don't know if Douyin is surfacing truly new ones these days

Problem with most things-- help us GPT-- you have to dig through a alot of chaff to get to the wheat

Another aspect of the curiosity vs agency tradeoff..?

To be fair, I think you have a point about people latching on to eastern "woo" but that (your stance) comes across as victim-blaming (=not as heroic OR as fresh as you might imagine it to be)..

Not sure you intended such a interpretation, but I suspect you might also blame us for that :)

I haven't seen any interesting solutions to the uh "skepticism vs openness" dilemma, you haven't pointed to any either, but maybe trying to understand what the relative value of different approaches are may help

By different "approaches" I mean, in the current context, fresh ways of distilling the non-wooness in non-western uh data

I'll keep my longstanding tradition of explaining exactly how I work: I have no interest in competing for an audience of hot takes on things. _Skepticism is old_, I dusted it from an old shelf. Of course it's not fresh.

So, I can attribute all the harshness that came across from me to your provokations. That's very generous. I didn't needed it though, and I don't accept gifts from strangers.