3 ms·
If you take the benefit of the doubt on the part of the author of the verbose sentence, then it could be that each of the abstractions in it is relevant. In tha
by jcranberry 5y ago
If you take the benefit of the doubt on the part of the author of the verbose sentence, then it could be that each of the abstractions in it is relevant. In that case, beginning with "People read" means you have to bring the reader around to the idea that it's relevant for contrasting individuals with collectives, social communities with non-social communities (?), and visual or symbolic types of learning with other types of learning.
Basically what I'm saying is that starting point of "people read" actually might end up verbose enough that it's equally distracting. If those generalities are relevant to the study then the error of the original writer wasn't that she was too wordy, it's that she was too terse. Essentially it would have all these relevant concepts jammed into one sentence and it takes for granted that the reader is already comfortable working with these concepts.
Of course this is not necessarily an error from the perspective of people in the field--this is all from the perspective of the author of the note.
- munificent 5y ago> If you take the benefit of the doubt on the part of the author of the verbose sentence, then it could be that each of the abstractions in it is relevant. I get Feynmann's point, but you are absolutely right. I took a sociology class in symbolic interactionism years ago and what that original sentence is trying to stress is that: * We see symbols whose meaning and interpretation is socially determined. * Those symbols are visual but not always textual. The original sentence explains why when a person in a blue outfit with badges on the shoulders and a peaked hat yells, "Get down!" you lay on the ground with your hands over your head, but when a person in a spandex jumpsuit and wraparound shades says the same thing you start dancing. Feymann's sentence loses that meaning.