> I want to point out the irony that you wrote a lengthy, dense document, despite your argument in favor of slides. I am not opposed to document writing. I am

> I want to point out the irony that you wrote a lengthy, dense document, despite your argument in favor of slides. I am not opposed to document writing. I am however saying that the true reasons when and why it works better are misunderstood. There is no irony here. :-) > And you’re asking for a debate (or saying you’re open to one). Im certainly not in the mood to write a document after what I previously explained, There are flaws and oversimplifications in your previous arguments that I am pointing out. :-) > Instead, I’ll take this as an opportunity to provide feedback on your document. :) You're welcome. :-) > But many problems are intrinsically hard, and they absolutely do. Problems being intrinsically hard does not mandate requiring of a document vs. slides. The reasoning in the middle is important to cover, which is what I am trying to do. :-) > > Whereas a document also should ideally be crisp, however, expectations of use of a larger number of words and fuller sentences makes it easier. > There is no expectation that you use more words than necessary in a document. Nor did I say that there is one. What I am saying is use of slides puts a harder requirement on the author to do that well. :-) > I don’t know what the supporting evidence is. I am not providing evidence in support that slides are better than documents. I am only providing counter-arguments to the reasoning you present. Your own arguments are not only non-evidential but also often oversimplified, incomplete or wrong. > At Amazon, you would get dinged and the reader would question why you’re using complex sentence structure - is it because you’re compensating for not having done enough research? > I would probably ask you bluntly, “how much of this context is actually relevant?” Part document-complexity feedback accepted. :-) However, I am claiming that the complexity of arguments here is inherent complexity, not incidental complexity. If you get deep into the arguments I have made to understand them, you may see how. Alternatively, please explicitly point out which arguments of mine you find wrong or irrelevant. I wrote the arguments only because I did find jumping-to-conclusions in yours, so I am trying to bring the true ones to light. :-) > And passive voice is actively discouraged. So is that why you chose to make the above sentence passive? :-) It is a myth that passive voice is bad. There are genuine cases where passive voice fits better. Steven Pinker has written about the same [1, 2]. (Note: This isn't an 'appeals to authority' bias like someone once claimed when I said the same thing. I support the arguments made by Pinker.) > > If we do not conflate various above points, we'll find that it's not about document vs. slides. The real problem are 'A' above (bad guidance on how to make/present slides) and 'C(b)' above (cited variability in the audience). > Why such a lengthy write up if this is the summary of your argument? And “lengthy” is an understatement. There’s so much dense information here that you, the author, are not able to refer back to your own writing without having to simplify it down to an abbreviation! This is criminal, my friend. To reduce the density of my writeup, I'll need to increase the length of it which you've also complained about. So the only way to address it is to eliminate irrelevant arguments. I am claiming from my side that they are all relevant to counter the hidden and false assumptions and reasoning I see in your statements like "Now not every problem requires a document. But many problems are intrinsically hard, and they absolutely do."). Problems being intrinsically hard does not directly mandate a document over slides. Please point out which arguments I have made are irrelevant, and I'll review. :-) > Now The reader has to go back and put all this complexity in context, creating a tree of all this information and each node in their head. > which merely ended up being tangential? Yes, agreed that here is very often a tree in arguments (more generally a DAG or unrestricted graph too) and there's one in mine. :-) I am claiming that in this case this could only be helped by writing a longer text as I disagree with the statement that my arguments are tangential. > And your fundamental argument is a begging the question fallacy. The take away from your post is that slides are as effective or perhaps more so than a document, but you provided nothing to actually back up THAT statement. Your presenting what you are arguing for as being the truth in the first place. I disagree. This is not "begging the question fallacy". I am not backing my statement with arguments but rather pointing out the nuances which you are not seeing, which is thereby leading you to misunderstanding or oversimplifications in your arguments. > Overall, this was more work to read than it ought to be. Deep dive is also one of the leadership principles at Amazon. :-) --- [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/passive-resistance/380787/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/passive... [2] https://bobbypowers.net/steven-pinker-writing-tips/ https://bobbypowers.net/steven-pinker-writing-tips/