7 ms·

Tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them. The first and last parts are missing from this article. You have to take

Tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them. The first and last parts are missing from this article. You have to take a gestalt approach and scan the whole thing to get an idea of what it's about.

crispyambulance 5y ago
It's an article and not a power-point slide. There's nothing wrong with the format. The outline you gave is more appropriate for slide-deck talks where the audience is captive and they're apt to be unconscious during the middle.
- canjobear 5y ago
  It's also the standard for scientific papers.
  - eigenket 5y ago
    That depends on the field, especially in areas of pure maths I see this "slide-deck" style way less.
  - hprotagonist 5y ago
    there isn’t a universal standard for scientific papers. more’s the pity.
  - wisty 5y ago
    I think science has the abstract (tell em what you'll tell em) then the body and a discussion which is more "OK, now that I got you're attention, here is what I actually think but can't prove".
  - crispyambulance 5y ago
    Right, but it's also not a scientific paper.
  - Ar-Curunir 5y ago
    Science is a very broad term, and writing style varies between research groups, let alone between fields.
- adrianmonk 5y ago
  The reason I'd like part 1 (tell them what you're going to tell them) is it helps me answer the question, "Is this relevant and interesting enough to me to spend the time reading it?" In a sense, I need part 1 because I'm not a captive audience. If this were (say) a lecture in a college class, then it's a foregone conclusion that I'm using the time, so I might as well pay attention. But since it's a web article, I have the choice to keep reading or close the browser tab. I'd prefer to be able to make an informed choice.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    This is what I was getting at. I had to scan the whole thing to find out if it was something I wanted to read about. Turns out, it wasn’t.
rbanffy 5y ago
Sometimes the journey is its own destination.
ABeeSea 5y ago
I like the way quanta writes their math articles and I hope they never go towards a stilted formulaic approach to writing. :shrug:
munificent 5y ago
I despise this structure and the kind of writing and presentations it tends to produce. The absolute worst, which I see all too often in presentations, is its fractal form: 1. Tell them that you are going to: 1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell you what you told them. 1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them that now you will tell them what you will tell them. 3. Tell them. 4. Tell them that you are done telling them what you will tell them. 5. Tell them that you will tell them what you told them. 6. Tell them what you told them. 7. Tell them that you are done telling them what you told them. A structure I like much better which permits the above structure but allows other variations is: 1. Explain how to tell if this is worth their time. 2. Tell them. 3. If there was a lot, suggest what's worth remembering. The focus here is on how it benefits the audience and not on some arbitrary structural form.
- enobrev 5y ago
  It seems you're suggesting the same strategy, and just don't like when it's done poorly.
  - munificent 5y ago
    Not at all. There are many ways to let an audience decide whether the rest of the material is worth their time. Summarizing to give them a preview is only one (and often the least interesting one). Other ways: * Describe a problem that the audience also has, so that they understand that you are aligned with them. * Tell an engaging anecdote so that they expect it will be a rewarding experience. (The idea that a piece of writing should entertain, inform, or persuade and that those are mutually exclusive is another canard that I find to be completely toxic and antithetical to good writing. Good writing should entertain, inform, and persuade.) * Telegraph that the time investment will be smaller by getting started and making the overall thing shorter. * Describe previous failures to solve a problem. * Give them an interesting insight right off the bat, which implies there may be more to come. * Tell them something personal which conveys whether you are likely to be a person with interesting things to say. * Throw out a detailed, hard to acquire fact, which implies that you have other hard-won knowledge. Note that what all of these have in common is that the intro material is unique and is not simply a pre-statement of information they will encounter lately. Also, the fact that I made step 3 optional is significant. Most writing and presentations don't need a summary and a summary will often detract. If you want to stick in the audience's memory, what you really need is a climax, and "here's what I just said, said again" is about the most anti-climactic ending you can imagine.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

crispyambulance 5y ago

It's an article and not a power-point slide. There's nothing wrong with the format. The outline you gave is more appropriate for slide-deck talks where the audience is captive and they're apt to be unconscious during the middle.

canjobear 5y ago
It's also the standard for scientific papers.
- eigenket 5y ago
  That depends on the field, especially in areas of pure maths I see this "slide-deck" style way less.
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  there isn’t a universal standard for scientific papers. more’s the pity.
- wisty 5y ago
  I think science has the abstract (tell em what you'll tell em) then the body and a discussion which is more "OK, now that I got you're attention, here is what I actually think but can't prove".
- crispyambulance 5y ago
  Right, but it's also not a scientific paper.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  Science is a very broad term, and writing style varies between research groups, let alone between fields.
adrianmonk 5y ago
The reason I'd like part 1 (tell them what you're going to tell them) is it helps me answer the question, "Is this relevant and interesting enough to me to spend the time reading it?" In a sense, I need part 1 because I'm not a captive audience. If this were (say) a lecture in a college class, then it's a foregone conclusion that I'm using the time, so I might as well pay attention. But since it's a web article, I have the choice to keep reading or close the browser tab. I'd prefer to be able to make an informed choice.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  This is what I was getting at. I had to scan the whole thing to find out if it was something I wanted to read about. Turns out, it wasn’t.

rbanffy 5y ago

Sometimes the journey is its own destination.

ABeeSea 5y ago

I like the way quanta writes their math articles and I hope they never go towards a stilted formulaic approach to writing. :shrug:

munificent 5y ago

I despise this structure and the kind of writing and presentations it tends to produce. The absolute worst, which I see all too often in presentations, is its fractal form: 1. Tell them that you are going to: 1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them. 3. Tell you what you told them. 1. Tell them what you are going to tell them. 2. Tell them that now you will tell them what you will tell them. 3. Tell them. 4. Tell them that you are done telling them what you will tell them. 5. Tell them that you will tell them what you told them. 6. Tell them what you told them. 7. Tell them that you are done telling them what you told them. A structure I like much better which permits the above structure but allows other variations is: 1. Explain how to tell if this is worth their time. 2. Tell them. 3. If there was a lot, suggest what's worth remembering. The focus here is on how it benefits the audience and not on some arbitrary structural form.

enobrev 5y ago
It seems you're suggesting the same strategy, and just don't like when it's done poorly.
- munificent 5y ago
  Not at all. There are many ways to let an audience decide whether the rest of the material is worth their time. Summarizing to give them a preview is only one (and often the least interesting one). Other ways: * Describe a problem that the audience also has, so that they understand that you are aligned with them. * Tell an engaging anecdote so that they expect it will be a rewarding experience. (The idea that a piece of writing should entertain, inform, or persuade and that those are mutually exclusive is another canard that I find to be completely toxic and antithetical to good writing. Good writing should entertain, inform, and persuade.) * Telegraph that the time investment will be smaller by getting started and making the overall thing shorter. * Describe previous failures to solve a problem. * Give them an interesting insight right off the bat, which implies there may be more to come. * Tell them something personal which conveys whether you are likely to be a person with interesting things to say. * Throw out a detailed, hard to acquire fact, which implies that you have other hard-won knowledge. Note that what all of these have in common is that the intro material is unique and is not simply a pre-statement of information they will encounter lately. Also, the fact that I made step 3 optional is significant. Most writing and presentations don't need a summary and a summary will often detract. If you want to stick in the audience's memory, what you really need is a climax, and "here's what I just said, said again" is about the most anti-climactic ending you can imagine.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]