3 ms·

Also, we should give authors the benefit of the doubt. If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the aut

Also, we should give authors the benefit of the doubt. If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent. Graham states in this essay that his goal is: "ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there". Given that this is the goal of his writing style, it's not at all surprising that his readers often jump to ("incorrect") conclusions barely noticing what got them there. Most of the comments critiquing this essay can be boiled down to an obvious but important observation: simplicity requires either eliding necessary nuance or hiding complexity. The goal is usually the latter, but hiding complexity in this way requires a shared context. Take a running program and strip it from its context (state). Then, drop the program into a new context. The meaning of the program can change drastically. Hell, it might not even type check anymore. The program text is the same but the meaning is different, and all that changed was the context. The only way to avoid this is to muddle up the program text with assertions on the context that ensure this "drop into new context" operation can't change the meaning of the program too much. So too with writing. Specifying context decreases the amount of shared context required to avoid miscommunication, but also results in less simple writing.
- serverholic 6y ago
  I don't think it's just Graham though. I see this kind of thing in every comment section on hacker news. That would indicate to me the the cause is something different than this particular writing style. People here LOVE to take statements and search for contexts where the statement doesn't work, then act like that was what the author was arguing.

Also, we should give authors the benefit of the doubt. If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent. Graham states in this essay that his goal is: "ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there". Given that this is the goal of his writing style, it's not at all surprising that his readers often jump to ("incorrect") conclusions barely noticing what got them there. Most of the comments critiquing this essay can be boiled down to an obvious but important observation: simplicity requires either eliding necessary nuance or hiding complexity. The goal is usually the latter, but hiding complexity in this way requires a shared context. Take a running program and strip it from its context (state). Then, drop the program into a new context. The meaning of the program can change drastically. Hell, it might not even type check anymore. The program text is the same but the meaning is different, and all that changed was the context. The only way to avoid this is to muddle up the program text with assertions on the context that ensure this "drop into new context" operation can't change the meaning of the program too much. So too with writing. Specifying context decreases the amount of shared context required to avoid miscommunication, but also results in less simple writing.

serverholic 6y ago
I don't think it's just Graham though. I see this kind of thing in every comment section on hacker news. That would indicate to me the the cause is something different than this particular writing style. People here LOVE to take statements and search for contexts where the statement doesn't work, then act like that was what the author was arguing.