> You can't think well without writing well, and you can't write well without reading well. I find it hilarious that pg chose to use two double negatives to ge

> You can't think well without writing well, and you can't write well without reading well. I find it hilarious that pg chose to use two double negatives to get across this point. Double negatives sound profound, but they use more contextual overhead to convey less information than their positive counterparts. pg is a much better writer than me, but I think it would be more accurate (and stick better) if it instead was just: Your reading limits your writing, and your writing limits your thinking.