4 ms·

You can also criticize any essay by arguing that the examples used to support the thesis are "unrelated vignettes". That's how essays work -- you make a thesis

by timr 13y ago

You can also criticize any essay by arguing that the examples used to support the thesis are "unrelated vignettes". That's how essays work -- you make a thesis, cite several diverse examples to support the thesis, then summarize the argument. Good essays -- the ones most worth reading -- take examples that initially seem unrelated, and tie them together via a thread that the reader may not have considered before. For example, "thoughtless disruption" might be such a thread.

bjterry 13y ago
It is possible to write an essay by making a thesis and citing diverse examples to support it, but this is not the only way (or best way) to write an essay worth reading. I find essays much more valuable when they provide a clear thesis, cite extensive high-powered evidence in support of that thesis, and directly address potential weaknesses in their arguments, possibly with some explanatory text to provide logical or causal inferences related to the evidence. I don't typically find that diverse examples constitute high-powered evidence, which is why I don't consider essays that follow the Salon style to be particularly compelling. If you are willing to cherry-pick anecdotes and examples, one can make a case for almost anything, but if you are anchored to actual facts (ideally ones which are statistically valid) you provide a much closer mapping between your opinion and reality. Perhaps we differ on what sort of texts count as essays, but I would note that many people on this site find Paul Graham's essays to be compelling, and in general his essays do not comprise a collection of disparate examples surprisingly linked through a common thread.
- timr 13y ago
  "Perhaps we differ on what sort of texts count as essays, but I would note that many people on this site find Paul Graham's essays to be compelling, and in general his essays do not comprise a collection of disparate examples surprisingly linked through a common thread." I think you need to go back and re-read the essays. They're almost exclusively composed of the assertion/example style of argumentation (which is not a dig; again, this is pretty much the canonical essay format), and I think you'd be hard-pressed to hold them to the standard of "statistical validity" (again, this is fine: we're talking about literature, not a math paper). What's going on here is that you don't agree with the thesis of this piece, but you're unwilling to engage on the merits of the argument. It's much easier to just attack the form of the essay than to counter each example.
  - bjterry 13y ago
    First, my sentence was carefully constructed to say that his essays "do not comprise a collection of disparate examples surprisingly linked through a common thread." I scanned through a couple essays to confirm my impression, which is that his essays are mostly composed of his personal experience plus directly-applicable examples which are used to illustrate a point. Secondly, I said ideally statistically valid. Good essays can be written without the use of statistically significant data properly interpreted, but the conclusions can only be as powerful as the evidence used to support them, as always. If Paul Graham's essays had included, for example, statistical data on the performance of startups that he has funded broken down by category I would consider them more highly informational. What's going on here is that I think the level of insight and analysis that many people think is laudable in a written work, I consider shameful, and highly prone to bias and error. I never said I don't agree with the thesis of this piece (I have absolutely no dog in that fight). Perhaps you think I am the same person that you were originally responding to?
- melaina 13y ago
  After all hard evidence dick stroking you cite pg?! He writes in exactly the same style as the Salon author! Empirical and statistical evidence is a delightful way to make a point, but what you "hard discipline" fetishists don't realize is that there are non-empirical "goods" that run our lives. Narratives, thoughts, feelings, intuitions, broad non-empirical world views. There's a huge world of stuff out there to which statistics just don't apply, and they are all forms of knowledge. In the most basic way it's called rationalism, and it doesn't require any statistics or empirical evidence to make a point. In a more developed way it can be called post-modern knowledge concepts. Basically, people who constantly talk about being "hard" are just dry humping modernity, something that smart people over 100 years ago realized was a collection of myths. The hard sciences sit on a foundation of warm gooey mud.
  - bjterry 13y ago
    I wasn't holding up Paul Graham's essays as a paragon of essay virtue, just as a readily available example that people in the community will be familiar with. The difference between Paul Graham writing from personal experience, and the Salon author writing down some personal experiences, is real. Conflating the two ignores the distinction between expertise and mere rhetoric. I never stated that there is some minimum level of evidential firmness below which evidence can't be considered, but I am absolutely establishing a continuum in which statistical evidence, properly interpreted, is higher than random collections of stories drawn from the author's life by convenience to prove his conclusion once the bottom line has already been decided. I'm not a "hard discipline fetishist" if such a thing even exists, but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world. There are many areas wherein I agree that statistics is not currently applicable, and I implicitly acknowledged them in my post, although perhaps without sufficient emphasis. As for postmodernism, ye shall know them by their fruits. The hard sciences have borne iPhones, cancer treatments, space flight, psychiatric treatment, and cetera.
    - melaina 13y ago
      "but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world." Hah. Like religion? Like philosophy? The non-empirical world does and always has had a bigger impact on the material world than anything else. Science itself--the methodology as a concept--is a non-empirical metaphysics that draws conclusions about truth concepts. I think I only come to HN so I can feel smug when 20 year old millionaire entrepreneurs (this is my imagination talking) say dumb shit. Yes, the tech sector is destroying the world and making millions while I slog away in some underpaid ivory tower... but at least I know the first thing about science! (This is what I tell myself to avoid crying)
tptacek 13y ago
Did you think this was a good essay? Do you think it successfully tied together the various anecdotes it summoned?
- timr 13y ago
  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but he did tie together the examples: all are instances of "breaking the rules" without any real rationale other than disdain for the rules. Disruption for disruption's sake. I just don't think it's a valid counterargument to attack the author for employing a standard essay structure, especially when he re-iterates the thesis in several different ways throughout the piece.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    So, the thing is (and it's quite ironical that progressive Slate can't see that) is that growing your hair long, smoking weed and reading Keruac was just as much ""breaking the rules" without any real rationale other than disdain for the rules. Disruption for disruption's sake." This is the youth of today protesting the status quo and Slate is dreadfully reactionary and conservative.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    So basically Malcolm Gladwell is right after all?
- jbooth 13y ago
  It's a mediocre essay, and you're right that it's a little bit paint-by-numbers, but "pride cometh before the fall" has been proved right before and will be proved right again.
Houshalter 13y ago
It's also known as cherry picking anecdotes.

by timr 13y ago

bjterry 13y ago

It is possible to write an essay by making a thesis and citing diverse examples to support it, but this is not the only way (or best way) to write an essay worth reading. I find essays much more valuable when they provide a clear thesis, cite extensive high-powered evidence in support of that thesis, and directly address potential weaknesses in their arguments, possibly with some explanatory text to provide logical or causal inferences related to the evidence. I don't typically find that diverse examples constitute high-powered evidence, which is why I don't consider essays that follow the Salon style to be particularly compelling. If you are willing to cherry-pick anecdotes and examples, one can make a case for almost anything, but if you are anchored to actual facts (ideally ones which are statistically valid) you provide a much closer mapping between your opinion and reality. Perhaps we differ on what sort of texts count as essays, but I would note that many people on this site find Paul Graham's essays to be compelling, and in general his essays do not comprise a collection of disparate examples surprisingly linked through a common thread.

timr 13y ago
"Perhaps we differ on what sort of texts count as essays, but I would note that many people on this site find Paul Graham's essays to be compelling, and in general his essays do not comprise a collection of disparate examples surprisingly linked through a common thread." I think you need to go back and re-read the essays. They're almost exclusively composed of the assertion/example style of argumentation (which is not a dig; again, this is pretty much the canonical essay format), and I think you'd be hard-pressed to hold them to the standard of "statistical validity" (again, this is fine: we're talking about literature, not a math paper). What's going on here is that you don't agree with the thesis of this piece, but you're unwilling to engage on the merits of the argument. It's much easier to just attack the form of the essay than to counter each example.
- bjterry 13y ago
  First, my sentence was carefully constructed to say that his essays "do not comprise a collection of disparate examples surprisingly linked through a common thread." I scanned through a couple essays to confirm my impression, which is that his essays are mostly composed of his personal experience plus directly-applicable examples which are used to illustrate a point. Secondly, I said ideally statistically valid. Good essays can be written without the use of statistically significant data properly interpreted, but the conclusions can only be as powerful as the evidence used to support them, as always. If Paul Graham's essays had included, for example, statistical data on the performance of startups that he has funded broken down by category I would consider them more highly informational. What's going on here is that I think the level of insight and analysis that many people think is laudable in a written work, I consider shameful, and highly prone to bias and error. I never said I don't agree with the thesis of this piece (I have absolutely no dog in that fight). Perhaps you think I am the same person that you were originally responding to?
melaina 13y ago
After all hard evidence dick stroking you cite pg?! He writes in exactly the same style as the Salon author! Empirical and statistical evidence is a delightful way to make a point, but what you "hard discipline" fetishists don't realize is that there are non-empirical "goods" that run our lives. Narratives, thoughts, feelings, intuitions, broad non-empirical world views. There's a huge world of stuff out there to which statistics just don't apply, and they are all forms of knowledge. In the most basic way it's called rationalism, and it doesn't require any statistics or empirical evidence to make a point. In a more developed way it can be called post-modern knowledge concepts. Basically, people who constantly talk about being "hard" are just dry humping modernity, something that smart people over 100 years ago realized was a collection of myths. The hard sciences sit on a foundation of warm gooey mud.
- bjterry 13y ago
  I wasn't holding up Paul Graham's essays as a paragon of essay virtue, just as a readily available example that people in the community will be familiar with. The difference between Paul Graham writing from personal experience, and the Salon author writing down some personal experiences, is real. Conflating the two ignores the distinction between expertise and mere rhetoric. I never stated that there is some minimum level of evidential firmness below which evidence can't be considered, but I am absolutely establishing a continuum in which statistical evidence, properly interpreted, is higher than random collections of stories drawn from the author's life by convenience to prove his conclusion once the bottom line has already been decided. I'm not a "hard discipline fetishist" if such a thing even exists, but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world. There are many areas wherein I agree that statistics is not currently applicable, and I implicitly acknowledged them in my post, although perhaps without sufficient emphasis. As for postmodernism, ye shall know them by their fruits. The hard sciences have borne iPhones, cancer treatments, space flight, psychiatric treatment, and cetera.
  - melaina 13y ago
    "but anything which defies empiricism almost by definition can't have any impact on the material world." Hah. Like religion? Like philosophy? The non-empirical world does and always has had a bigger impact on the material world than anything else. Science itself--the methodology as a concept--is a non-empirical metaphysics that draws conclusions about truth concepts. I think I only come to HN so I can feel smug when 20 year old millionaire entrepreneurs (this is my imagination talking) say dumb shit. Yes, the tech sector is destroying the world and making millions while I slog away in some underpaid ivory tower... but at least I know the first thing about science! (This is what I tell myself to avoid crying)

tptacek 13y ago

Did you think this was a good essay? Do you think it successfully tied together the various anecdotes it summoned?

timr 13y ago
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but he did tie together the examples: all are instances of "breaking the rules" without any real rationale other than disdain for the rules. Disruption for disruption's sake. I just don't think it's a valid counterargument to attack the author for employing a standard essay structure, especially when he re-iterates the thesis in several different ways throughout the piece.
- mseebach 13y ago
  So, the thing is (and it's quite ironical that progressive Slate can't see that) is that growing your hair long, smoking weed and reading Keruac was just as much ""breaking the rules" without any real rationale other than disdain for the rules. Disruption for disruption's sake." This is the youth of today protesting the status quo and Slate is dreadfully reactionary and conservative.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  So basically Malcolm Gladwell is right after all?
jbooth 13y ago
It's a mediocre essay, and you're right that it's a little bit paint-by-numbers, but "pride cometh before the fall" has been proved right before and will be proved right again.

Houshalter 13y ago

It's also known as cherry picking anecdotes.