4 ms·

> And someone who never writes has no fully formed ideas about anything nontrivial. This would imply that Socrates only had trivial ideas. Socrates would disag

by diego 5y ago

> And someone who never writes has no fully formed ideas about anything nontrivial. This would imply that Socrates only had trivial ideas. Socrates would disagree with this statement, and so would a large number of people. This belief seems like a cognitive bias to me. If you prefer written ideas, unwritten ideas may seem trivial to you.

gumby 5y ago
Well, Socrates (to the extent he actually existed) did form well reasoned arguments, but I’m sure that was truly laborious. The generalization of pg’s argument is the classic “EDGE” method (“Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, and Evaluate”). You don’t understand something until you can “fully” explain it to others. And note that our understanding of Socrates is a product of Plato. Thoughts that might have been half-baked in Socrates’ telling could be thought through and expanded by Plato through the process described in this essay. Or have been formulated de novo by Plato and then ascribed to Socrates.
hirundo 5y ago
I think people who can compose complete well ordered arguments in their head are like those who can play chess well while blindfolded. It's an extraordinary talent.
- diego 5y ago
  Agree with that. However, in 2022 writing is not the only way to order your thoughts outside your head. I for example have put together Youtube videos without writing anything down. The process is like this: - Think of a point I'd want to make, perhaps in 20-60 seconds. - Do a few video takes until I believe it's good enough. Sometimes the first take works. - Keep doing it until I have enough material, then edit the video. As someone who is in his 50s though, I can understand the point of view of someone who grew up in an age in which writing was the obvious way. Paul might think differently if he tried to start a Youtube channel, but it doesn't seem to be interesting to him.
  - network2592 5y ago
    Paul does mention talking as an alternative to writing though. It is not that talking is not interesting to him. Writing is just a more efficient process. For example, when editing video, there is a lot of friction due to the software you are using. Writing can have a lot less friction. You can literally just take a pen and paper avoiding a computer altogether. That being said, one point Paul makes, is that finding a conversation partner that is willing to patiently listen to you as you explain ideas may be challenging. Filming a video and putting it out there can make it less challenging. And you can get some constructive feedback from many individuals. Although, I am not sure to what extent Youtube is the right medium for this exercise.
rrherr 5y ago
Jesus is another example
- redisman 5y ago
  Since those two didn’t write anything down - how do we know we’re not just getting their followers ideas written down and worked out. Maybe they were just catalysts that kicked off a larger scale thinking and writing project of what PG describes. In the end, whatever was written down is what their long term effect on the world was.

by diego 5y ago

gumby 5y ago

Well, Socrates (to the extent he actually existed) did form well reasoned arguments, but I’m sure that was truly laborious. The generalization of pg’s argument is the classic “EDGE” method (“Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, and Evaluate”). You don’t understand something until you can “fully” explain it to others. And note that our understanding of Socrates is a product of Plato. Thoughts that might have been half-baked in Socrates’ telling could be thought through and expanded by Plato through the process described in this essay. Or have been formulated de novo by Plato and then ascribed to Socrates.

hirundo 5y ago

I think people who can compose complete well ordered arguments in their head are like those who can play chess well while blindfolded. It's an extraordinary talent.

diego 5y ago
Agree with that. However, in 2022 writing is not the only way to order your thoughts outside your head. I for example have put together Youtube videos without writing anything down. The process is like this: - Think of a point I'd want to make, perhaps in 20-60 seconds. - Do a few video takes until I believe it's good enough. Sometimes the first take works. - Keep doing it until I have enough material, then edit the video. As someone who is in his 50s though, I can understand the point of view of someone who grew up in an age in which writing was the obvious way. Paul might think differently if he tried to start a Youtube channel, but it doesn't seem to be interesting to him.
- network2592 5y ago
  Paul does mention talking as an alternative to writing though. It is not that talking is not interesting to him. Writing is just a more efficient process. For example, when editing video, there is a lot of friction due to the software you are using. Writing can have a lot less friction. You can literally just take a pen and paper avoiding a computer altogether. That being said, one point Paul makes, is that finding a conversation partner that is willing to patiently listen to you as you explain ideas may be challenging. Filming a video and putting it out there can make it less challenging. And you can get some constructive feedback from many individuals. Although, I am not sure to what extent Youtube is the right medium for this exercise.

rrherr 5y ago

Jesus is another example

redisman 5y ago
Since those two didn’t write anything down - how do we know we’re not just getting their followers ideas written down and worked out. Maybe they were just catalysts that kicked off a larger scale thinking and writing project of what PG describes. In the end, whatever was written down is what their long term effect on the world was.