Writers can create value by separating a model from intellectual or emotional baggage that may be tied to it. Or writers can destroy value by unnecessarily att

Writers can create value by separating a model from intellectual or emotional baggage that may be tied to it. Or writers can destroy value by unnecessarily attaching baggage to an idea. (I found this article's unnecessary mentions of tired partisan issues like Fox News and Intelligent Design particularly grating and distracting.) There are many good insights that people reject just because they come from the "wrong" political party, religion, or a person whose vocabulary is too stuffy or too crude. There are many bad models people accept because they come from the "right" party or religion or charismatic pitchman. HN readers might be inclined to take sides on an unrelated topic because of an author's position on vi/emacs. The point is, regardless of how valid the side argument is, the baggage it brings with it can distract from the core argument, or trigger unjustified agreement or disagreement. Writers can create value by being careful not to involve such distractions when they're not directly relevant. Writers can also create value by removing such distractions from someone else's argument.