4 ms·

Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. But I’m pretty sure this doesn’t hold for speech.

by baxtr 1y ago

pdonis 1y ago
> Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. That's not what PG is saying in the article. He explicitly says that you can't conclude this.
- baxtr 1y ago
  What can you conclude then?
  - pdonis 1y ago
    That writing that sounds bad is likely to be wrong.
    - machinelearning 1y ago
      The issue with this article is that it is very imprecise. Are the standards for whether something “sounds bad” based on the average person’s reading or the intended audience. In its most general form (how the median article sounds to the median person), the argument is pretty vacuous. Most writing discusses simple ideas and they should sound good (familiar, easy, pleasurable) to the median person. But the most valuable kind of writing could sound tedious and filled with incomprehensible terminology to the median person but concise and interesting to the intended audience. The current way the idea is stated doesn’t sound correct because you can convincingly defend all 4 quadrants of the truth table.
      - baxtr 1y ago
        Thanks. The way you describe the topic, a dimension is missing in the article: who am I writing for? Related: I think pg would benefit from graphics here and there. Creating visuals like the 2x2 matrix you describe help tremendously to make ideas more comprehensible.
      - pdonis 1y ago
        > Are the standards for whether something “sounds bad” based on the average person’s reading or the intended audience. As pg describes it in the article, it's neither; it's based on the writer's judgment. The writer of course is writing for some intended audience, and their judgment of what sounds good or sounds bad should be influenced by that. But pg is describing the writer's process of judging what they write.
        machinelearning 1y ago
        > The reason is that it makes the essay easier to read. It's less work to read writing that flows well. How does that help the writer? Because the writer is the first reader Note that the writer's judgement only serves as an initial proxy for how well the essay reads. This implies that the reader, whoever that is, is the true judge of how well it reads. My point is that that group is ill defined. If it were sufficient for the writer to be the only judge of how well something reads, surely PG wouldn't feel the need to have other proofread his essays. And surely it is not sufficient for someone who lacks taste to judge their own writing as good. The way I read that statement is the same as the startup advice of "build what you would yourself want". However you still have to validate that the market exists and is big. There is really nothing profound in that paragraph anyway, all it is saying is that a writer should edit and proofread their work. That whole paragraph could be deleted honestly. It is obvious table stakes for one to edit their work. What differentiates good from bad is a matter of taste + who is judging it.
- baxtr 1y ago
  I’ve also read some of your other comments. Please don’t get me wrong here, it’s nothing personal: I think you might need to consider that the article isn’t as "good" and concise as you think it is. If so many people misunderstood the concept then maybe it’s not the readers’ fault.

Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. But I’m pretty sure this doesn’t hold for speech.

by baxtr 1y ago

Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. But I’m pretty sure this doesn’t hold for speech.

pdonis 1y ago

> Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. That's not what PG is saying in the article. He explicitly says that you can't conclude this.

baxtr 1y ago
What can you conclude then?
- pdonis 1y ago
  That writing that sounds bad is likely to be wrong.
  - machinelearning 1y ago
    The issue with this article is that it is very imprecise. Are the standards for whether something “sounds bad” based on the average person’s reading or the intended audience. In its most general form (how the median article sounds to the median person), the argument is pretty vacuous. Most writing discusses simple ideas and they should sound good (familiar, easy, pleasurable) to the median person. But the most valuable kind of writing could sound tedious and filled with incomprehensible terminology to the median person but concise and interesting to the intended audience. The current way the idea is stated doesn’t sound correct because you can convincingly defend all 4 quadrants of the truth table.
    - baxtr 1y ago
      Thanks. The way you describe the topic, a dimension is missing in the article: who am I writing for? Related: I think pg would benefit from graphics here and there. Creating visuals like the 2x2 matrix you describe help tremendously to make ideas more comprehensible.
    - pdonis 1y ago
      > Are the standards for whether something “sounds bad” based on the average person’s reading or the intended audience. As pg describes it in the article, it's neither; it's based on the writer's judgment. The writer of course is writing for some intended audience, and their judgment of what sounds good or sounds bad should be influenced by that. But pg is describing the writer's process of judging what they write.
      - machinelearning 1y ago
        > The reason is that it makes the essay easier to read. It's less work to read writing that flows well. How does that help the writer? Because the writer is the first reader Note that the writer's judgement only serves as an initial proxy for how well the essay reads. This implies that the reader, whoever that is, is the true judge of how well it reads. My point is that that group is ill defined. If it were sufficient for the writer to be the only judge of how well something reads, surely PG wouldn't feel the need to have other proofread his essays. And surely it is not sufficient for someone who lacks taste to judge their own writing as good. The way I read that statement is the same as the startup advice of "build what you would yourself want". However you still have to validate that the market exists and is big. There is really nothing profound in that paragraph anyway, all it is saying is that a writer should edit and proofread their work. That whole paragraph could be deleted honestly. It is obvious table stakes for one to edit their work. What differentiates good from bad is a matter of taste + who is judging it.
baxtr 1y ago
I’ve also read some of your other comments. Please don’t get me wrong here, it’s nothing personal: I think you might need to consider that the article isn’t as "good" and concise as you think it is. If so many people misunderstood the concept then maybe it’s not the readers’ fault.