Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
Tommy Angelo's work wasn't under attack. It was evaluated, and there is a difference. I don't review books to attack them. They are reviewed to give our readers information concerning their contents, and, despite Angelo's post above, the book is still exactly the same as before.
MM
One can think of 'tilt' as anything that happens when you very much would like one outcome, something different happens, and it causes an emotional reaction which negatively alters your behavior. Often this is tied to some sense of either injustice or self-anger.
Someone cuts you off when you're driving: you honk your horn and curse.
The person whom you would like to date does not want to date you: your confidence drops.
You make a post on the internet. You want to be respected and liked. Instead, your ideas are disparaged. You are furious at either the other posters who obviously have it out for you personally, or yourself. How could you be so stupid? Why don't you fit in?
I think we can see from Tommy's reaction to Mason's review that he has avoided tilt. Instead of becoming defensive, he reacted in a classy, thoughtful and complimentary way which helps validate the ideas in his book.
I like and respect Mason's book reviews, but I think his assertions of complete objectivity are overstated. It's nearly impossible to stay completely objective, and people tend to really underestimate their own biases. For example, In the past I've felt Mason, obviously a very smart man, has a bit of a tendency to go on a bit of 'internet forum tilt.' Is Ace On The River really a 10 if EOP is a 4? Well, it's possible.