3 ms·

At last, some good debate :) You're right that long-form as a means of communicating complex, impactful ideas won't go away. However, you are assuming that the

by adyus 12y ago

At last, some good debate :) You're right that long-form as a means of communicating complex, impactful ideas won't go away. However, you are assuming that the average audience tends toward the ideal (being on HN for a while certainly influences that assumption). In my short experience, I found that most people outside HN can easier express their thoughts and ideas on the spot, and will rarely take the time needed to craft a thoughtful long-form missive. This doesn't necessarily mean that their ideas are not worth our time. It does, however, point toward a less than ideal conversation partner and to future communication issues. Although we'd all love to live in a world where communication is held to the highest standards, we have to adapt to what's available (within reason), even if that brings us down to bullet speak, Top 10 lists and click-bait titles. How else will we find a broader audience for our messages? Your last point on lasting impact is, however, valid. I can't remember the last time I've re-read a tweet, but I constantly refer to old emails for clarification.

PeterWhittaker 12y ago
I make no assumption about the average - or at least I don't in what I wrote. Though I can understand where one might read that in.... :-> My actual assumption is that long-form writers have always been and likely always will be a definite minority - hence our value in many situations. (A necessary step to attaining that value is, not so ironically, learning to summarize and to "hook", because like it or not, even if we deal only with other long-formers, we all have so much on our plates that we cannot devote sufficient time to reading through everything each other writes to decide whether it is worthwhile to read. We need abstracts, filters, curation, etc. It's not ironic because we have to have had the hard slog first to get the long form before we tweet, bullet, etc.) My other assumption - more of a grumpy old man conclusion, really - is that the rise and acceptance of the bullet and the tweet and the SMS has given voice to a great many who otherwise would be excluded from many serious conversations. Yes, there are gems in their output, but so few and far between that their output rarely rises to the level of discourse and rarely becomes impactful or lasting. On the whole, intellectually I think we are worse off for the additional noise, but socially better off for the addition of their voices. Overall, we are slightly better off, and if that means we need to work harder to filter for the signal, so be it, better to have more voices than fewer. At least socially we are better off. As a whole. But a great many specific communities are worse off because of the minimal level of effort required to inject one's meanginglessness and laziness into serious discussions. Witness "me too"/"this"/"+1"/etc. in comments, tweets, emails, etc. So I'm happier human being because so many people are able to join in global conversations, but I'm grumpier subject matter expert because too many are wandering about my enclave leaving mud everywhere.

by adyus 12y ago

PeterWhittaker 12y ago

I make no assumption about the average - or at least I don't in what I wrote. Though I can understand where one might read that in.... :-> My actual assumption is that long-form writers have always been and likely always will be a definite minority - hence our value in many situations. (A necessary step to attaining that value is, not so ironically, learning to summarize and to "hook", because like it or not, even if we deal only with other long-formers, we all have so much on our plates that we cannot devote sufficient time to reading through everything each other writes to decide whether it is worthwhile to read. We need abstracts, filters, curation, etc. It's not ironic because we have to have had the hard slog first to get the long form before we tweet, bullet, etc.) My other assumption - more of a grumpy old man conclusion, really - is that the rise and acceptance of the bullet and the tweet and the SMS has given voice to a great many who otherwise would be excluded from many serious conversations. Yes, there are gems in their output, but so few and far between that their output rarely rises to the level of discourse and rarely becomes impactful or lasting. On the whole, intellectually I think we are worse off for the additional noise, but socially better off for the addition of their voices. Overall, we are slightly better off, and if that means we need to work harder to filter for the signal, so be it, better to have more voices than fewer. At least socially we are better off. As a whole. But a great many specific communities are worse off because of the minimal level of effort required to inject one's meanginglessness and laziness into serious discussions. Witness "me too"/"this"/"+1"/etc. in comments, tweets, emails, etc. So I'm happier human being because so many people are able to join in global conversations, but I'm grumpier subject matter expert because too many are wandering about my enclave leaving mud everywhere.