4 ms·

I've found that, many times over, and not just here. Specifically, I've found it important to set expectations before setting out a point or comment. People r

I've found that, many times over, and not just here. Specifically, I've found it important to set expectations before setting out a point or comment. People read things with their prejudices and viewpoints at the fore. If you are to get a neutral reading, you must work to create a neutral setting first. This then makes your comment long-winded and apparently initially rambling, off-topic or irrelevant. To counter that problem one must write very, very succinctly, but clearly. This is all hard work. However, if you think it's worth making your point, it's the best way to give it a chance.

elblanco 17y ago
I always liked Tolkien better than Hemingway myself.
- dunstad 17y ago
  Sarcasm? I can't tell.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    No. Hemmingway is usually used as a model for direct and concise writing while Tolkein is often used at the other end of the spectrum. Both are widely considered masters of the language. I prefer reading and writing the Tolkein end, verbose colorful, almost baroque, writing that exercises the language without feeling archaic vs the Hemmingway method which I always felt was overly restricted and terse.
stcredzero 17y ago
If you are to get a neutral reading, you must work to create a neutral setting first. I find this is very much a function of the reader/listener. People who have a high degree of curiosity, and what I call "intellectual integrity" are always working out implications from multiple viewpoints. My archetype for this sort of person is my old Automata professor. I find that it was zero effort to present something as neutral to him. I also find: the less effort required to get a neutral reading, the more productive the discussion.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  I think, in general, you will find that to be a rare thing. Even if you start with a small population that doesn't require "setting the scene," as soon as the population grows, so does the requirement. I would claim that even in the 400 days I've been here on HN I've seen this happening. When I first arrived it was possible to have a short, to-the-point, informative comment that required the reader to think hard before they got the most out of it. Most of them did. Now it's necessary to create longer, more detailed, more direct comments that set the scene, make their point, put the point in context, and draw conclusions. This is an inevitable consequence of a larger audience. It also means that the subsequent discussion will be "diluted" because of the wider range of experience and ability of the participants. As far as I can seem it cannot be avoided. Nor is it necessarily to be regarded as a criticism. If you want a broad range of opinions so you can learn from all points of view then you need a large population from which to draw them. You then must realise that it's not the same as it used to be, and one's style must change to match the new audience. Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. People will always tend to have an opinion, and setting it aside during a discussion in order to listen/read dispassionately is highly unnatural. It is better to work with human nature rather than demand that your audience set aside their natural tendencies, perhaps especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking isn't helping me as much as spending time actually having substantive discussion. especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything. It seems we agree on some fundamental level. I think the ability and diligence to direct skepticism at oneself is basic and essential. If one does not know how to do that, one doesn't really know how to think.
    - 17y ago

elblanco 17y ago

I always liked Tolkien better than Hemingway myself.

dunstad 17y ago
Sarcasm? I can't tell.
- elblanco 17y ago
  No. Hemmingway is usually used as a model for direct and concise writing while Tolkein is often used at the other end of the spectrum. Both are widely considered masters of the language. I prefer reading and writing the Tolkein end, verbose colorful, almost baroque, writing that exercises the language without feeling archaic vs the Hemmingway method which I always felt was overly restricted and terse.

stcredzero 17y ago

If you are to get a neutral reading, you must work to create a neutral setting first. I find this is very much a function of the reader/listener. People who have a high degree of curiosity, and what I call "intellectual integrity" are always working out implications from multiple viewpoints. My archetype for this sort of person is my old Automata professor. I find that it was zero effort to present something as neutral to him. I also find: the less effort required to get a neutral reading, the more productive the discussion.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
I think, in general, you will find that to be a rare thing. Even if you start with a small population that doesn't require "setting the scene," as soon as the population grows, so does the requirement. I would claim that even in the 400 days I've been here on HN I've seen this happening. When I first arrived it was possible to have a short, to-the-point, informative comment that required the reader to think hard before they got the most out of it. Most of them did. Now it's necessary to create longer, more detailed, more direct comments that set the scene, make their point, put the point in context, and draw conclusions. This is an inevitable consequence of a larger audience. It also means that the subsequent discussion will be "diluted" because of the wider range of experience and ability of the participants. As far as I can seem it cannot be avoided. Nor is it necessarily to be regarded as a criticism. If you want a broad range of opinions so you can learn from all points of view then you need a large population from which to draw them. You then must realise that it's not the same as it used to be, and one's style must change to match the new audience. Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. People will always tend to have an opinion, and setting it aside during a discussion in order to listen/read dispassionately is highly unnatural. It is better to work with human nature rather than demand that your audience set aside their natural tendencies, perhaps especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. I think it's quite helpful. Having to hedge myself against prejudice and sloppy thinking isn't helping me as much as spending time actually having substantive discussion. especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything. It seems we agree on some fundamental level. I think the ability and diligence to direct skepticism at oneself is basic and essential. If one does not know how to do that, one doesn't really know how to think.
  - 17y ago