4 ms·

> …he'll use the same tone for something he's seen anecdotally and something he's spent a month personally investigating. A.k.a. “avoiding weasel words”. I don

> …he'll use the same tone for something he's seen anecdotally and something he's spent a month personally investigating. A.k.a. “avoiding weasel words”. I don’t mean to be clever here, it’s just that it’s far more efficient to assume that reader can make their own informed decision, and give them citations & instructions for reproducibility to help them along the way, rather than shovel a bunch of weasel words into the parts of your writing that are less grounded in reproducible facts. There are also different expectations for blog posts and heavily researched&vetted articles.

randallsquared 5y ago
I'm not sure "efficient" is the word you're looking for here. For a given post, there's only one of the poster, and presumably many readers...
- klodolph 5y ago
  You’re going to have to explain more of the argument, because I don’t follow. It sounds like you are arguing that writers should spend more time spelling things out for readers which aren’t very good at reading comprehension. That doesn’t seem very efficient—it wastes most people’s time, since the writer is spending more time spelling things out explicitly and avoiding ambiguity, all of the readers with decent reading comprehension skills have to spend more time sifting through crap that doesn’t add value to the text (for them), and only the people with lower reading comprehension skills get any benefit. People with lower reading comprehension skills are less likely to be reading text-heavy blogs in the first place! The following claim may be controversial—generally, there is a tradeoff between clarity and precision, and the right tradeoff depends on the context and what your goals are. The internet, and forums like HN, distort our perception of where the correct tradeoff is, because the people complaining about lack of precision are the loudest. You should be aware of who your audience really is… is it people capable of interpreting claims in persuasive documents? Or is it people who decide to complain on HN?
  - lanstin 5y ago
    I think the additional clarity benefits smart people too. And fast readers can read faster over text with redundancy than maximally cryptic prose. The sweet spot of course is a short, clear and correct explanation, but finding that can take a lot of effort.
Centigonal 5y ago
I don't think what you're calling weasel words are weasel words. "Up to 50% faster!" is weasel wording. It says "slower or faster, but not more than 50% faster," but it sounds like it's saying faster. What GP is asking for is calibrating for uncertainty. Phrases like "I've seen this tendency in multiple teams I've been part of," or "study[ref] after study[ref] has confirmed this" help clarify what premises and hypotheses are well-supported by prior work/experience and what is the author's speculation. IMO It serves a useful purpose!
- klodolph 5y ago
  > IMO It serves a useful purpose! I have to disagree! I simply do not understand what useful purpose it serves—IF we are allowed to assume that our readers have a proficient level of prose literacy. The default assumption, when someone is talking or writing, is that they are communicating their own opinions and thoughts, experiences, anecdotes. I don’t know about you, but when I think back to taking writing classes in school, if I wrote something like “I've seen this tendency in multiple teams I've been part of” in my paper, any good writing teacher I’ve ever had would cross it out. Same as “it is my opinion that” or “I have recently started to form some beliefs in the matter at hand after reviewing some materials that came into my possession” or other… filler. It pads out the document and only tells us things that we should already know, or be able to figure out. The ability to sort out opinions and anecdotes from factual claims and evidence is… well… something you’d expect from a proficient reader!
  - Centigonal 5y ago
    I feel like I'm missing something here. > The ability to sort out opinions and anecdotes from factual claims and evidence is… well… something you’d expect from a proficient reader! How does a proficient reader separate facts from opinions if good writing doesn't disambiguate facts and opinions? Do they just assume? e.g.: Butter is about as healthy as vegetable oil. Arugula is healthier than lettuce. I can cite a meta-analysis for one of the above statements. The other is just my opinion, and I have done no research into the topic. How would a proficient reader tell them apart if there's no calibrating for uncertainty? Side note: I went through the original blog post again, and there are lots of examples of Dan Luu doing exactly what I'm writing about, to the point where I'm confused why the original commenter thinks he's not using a different tone based on uncertainty. Examples: "I once watched, from the inside, a company undergo this cultural shift" "I've both worked at companies that have tried to contract this kind of thing out as well as talked with many people who've done that"
TOMDM 5y ago
I agree some people hide behind uncertainty and "weasel" in order to avoid accountability for anything they say. What that requires though is they caveat everything. I really respect people who say they are 99% sure and 60% sure when appropriate. It requires a level of honesty not just to the audience but to the self to admit openly what you are and aren't sure about.
- klodolph 5y ago
  Is it more honest? Or is it just more self-centered, or more defensive, or more timid? Are you admitting that you aren’t sure about something, or are you brazenly assuming that people care about how confident you are about things, or are you defensively trying to say the least possible? Framing this as a matter of “honesty” is, well reductive. Your confidence is irrelevant to the discussion, unless there’s some particular reason which makes it relevant. A good reader should not hang much weight on your confidence anyway.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > Is it more honest? Or is it just more self-centered, or more defensive, or more timid? Yes it is more honest. Pretending certainty where you don't have none is lying and pretty often has exact that effect. It is way more egoistic and self centered to act with certainty just so you dont look "defensive" or "timid". Because then you are exchanging truth for feeling good from appearing strong. > are you brazenly assuming that people care about how confident you are about things, or are you defensively trying to say the least possible? This does not make any sense as accusation. You are expressing level of confidence. You can do that independently of whether "people care". It is also perfectly OK to defensively say the least possible. Literally nothing wrong with that. Aggressively saying maximum, even if you know it is likely half truth at best, is much much worst.
Strilanc 5y ago
Giving a confidence level is different from using weasel words. Weasel words make statements weaker or even vacuous. Confidence levels make statements more precise. Here's an example: statement: Alice stole the briefcase +weasel_wording: I think it's possible Alice could have stolen the briefcase +confidence_level: I'd bet 5:1 that Alice stole the briefcase Also note that I didn't say I wanted Dan to write less confidently. I wanted him to convey more varied confidence.
- ako 5y ago
  If there is any doubt regarding the stealing, then in this example i prefer the weasel wording version. The first one is incorrect, the last one you're suggesting an accuracy that you can't really back up, in order to convince someone. So in this case the weasel wording doesn't make the statement weaker as it shows strength to admit you may be wrong.

randallsquared 5y ago

I'm not sure "efficient" is the word you're looking for here. For a given post, there's only one of the poster, and presumably many readers...

klodolph 5y ago
You’re going to have to explain more of the argument, because I don’t follow. It sounds like you are arguing that writers should spend more time spelling things out for readers which aren’t very good at reading comprehension. That doesn’t seem very efficient—it wastes most people’s time, since the writer is spending more time spelling things out explicitly and avoiding ambiguity, all of the readers with decent reading comprehension skills have to spend more time sifting through crap that doesn’t add value to the text (for them), and only the people with lower reading comprehension skills get any benefit. People with lower reading comprehension skills are less likely to be reading text-heavy blogs in the first place! The following claim may be controversial—generally, there is a tradeoff between clarity and precision, and the right tradeoff depends on the context and what your goals are. The internet, and forums like HN, distort our perception of where the correct tradeoff is, because the people complaining about lack of precision are the loudest. You should be aware of who your audience really is… is it people capable of interpreting claims in persuasive documents? Or is it people who decide to complain on HN?
- lanstin 5y ago
  I think the additional clarity benefits smart people too. And fast readers can read faster over text with redundancy than maximally cryptic prose. The sweet spot of course is a short, clear and correct explanation, but finding that can take a lot of effort.

Centigonal 5y ago

I don't think what you're calling weasel words are weasel words. "Up to 50% faster!" is weasel wording. It says "slower or faster, but not more than 50% faster," but it sounds like it's saying faster. What GP is asking for is calibrating for uncertainty. Phrases like "I've seen this tendency in multiple teams I've been part of," or "study[ref] after study[ref] has confirmed this" help clarify what premises and hypotheses are well-supported by prior work/experience and what is the author's speculation. IMO It serves a useful purpose!

klodolph 5y ago
> IMO It serves a useful purpose! I have to disagree! I simply do not understand what useful purpose it serves—IF we are allowed to assume that our readers have a proficient level of prose literacy. The default assumption, when someone is talking or writing, is that they are communicating their own opinions and thoughts, experiences, anecdotes. I don’t know about you, but when I think back to taking writing classes in school, if I wrote something like “I've seen this tendency in multiple teams I've been part of” in my paper, any good writing teacher I’ve ever had would cross it out. Same as “it is my opinion that” or “I have recently started to form some beliefs in the matter at hand after reviewing some materials that came into my possession” or other… filler. It pads out the document and only tells us things that we should already know, or be able to figure out. The ability to sort out opinions and anecdotes from factual claims and evidence is… well… something you’d expect from a proficient reader!
- Centigonal 5y ago
  I feel like I'm missing something here. > The ability to sort out opinions and anecdotes from factual claims and evidence is… well… something you’d expect from a proficient reader! How does a proficient reader separate facts from opinions if good writing doesn't disambiguate facts and opinions? Do they just assume? e.g.: Butter is about as healthy as vegetable oil. Arugula is healthier than lettuce. I can cite a meta-analysis for one of the above statements. The other is just my opinion, and I have done no research into the topic. How would a proficient reader tell them apart if there's no calibrating for uncertainty? Side note: I went through the original blog post again, and there are lots of examples of Dan Luu doing exactly what I'm writing about, to the point where I'm confused why the original commenter thinks he's not using a different tone based on uncertainty. Examples: "I once watched, from the inside, a company undergo this cultural shift" "I've both worked at companies that have tried to contract this kind of thing out as well as talked with many people who've done that"

TOMDM 5y ago

I agree some people hide behind uncertainty and "weasel" in order to avoid accountability for anything they say. What that requires though is they caveat everything. I really respect people who say they are 99% sure and 60% sure when appropriate. It requires a level of honesty not just to the audience but to the self to admit openly what you are and aren't sure about.

klodolph 5y ago
Is it more honest? Or is it just more self-centered, or more defensive, or more timid? Are you admitting that you aren’t sure about something, or are you brazenly assuming that people care about how confident you are about things, or are you defensively trying to say the least possible? Framing this as a matter of “honesty” is, well reductive. Your confidence is irrelevant to the discussion, unless there’s some particular reason which makes it relevant. A good reader should not hang much weight on your confidence anyway.
- watwut 5y ago
  > Is it more honest? Or is it just more self-centered, or more defensive, or more timid? Yes it is more honest. Pretending certainty where you don't have none is lying and pretty often has exact that effect. It is way more egoistic and self centered to act with certainty just so you dont look "defensive" or "timid". Because then you are exchanging truth for feeling good from appearing strong. > are you brazenly assuming that people care about how confident you are about things, or are you defensively trying to say the least possible? This does not make any sense as accusation. You are expressing level of confidence. You can do that independently of whether "people care". It is also perfectly OK to defensively say the least possible. Literally nothing wrong with that. Aggressively saying maximum, even if you know it is likely half truth at best, is much much worst.

Strilanc 5y ago

Giving a confidence level is different from using weasel words. Weasel words make statements weaker or even vacuous. Confidence levels make statements more precise. Here's an example: statement: Alice stole the briefcase +weasel_wording: I think it's possible Alice could have stolen the briefcase +confidence_level: I'd bet 5:1 that Alice stole the briefcase Also note that I didn't say I wanted Dan to write less confidently. I wanted him to convey more varied confidence.

ako 5y ago
If there is any doubt regarding the stealing, then in this example i prefer the weasel wording version. The first one is incorrect, the last one you're suggesting an accuracy that you can't really back up, in order to convince someone. So in this case the weasel wording doesn't make the statement weaker as it shows strength to admit you may be wrong.