Person who doesn’t know squat about poker here. The first example was clear: they disagreed about whether to fold or call, and it was right on the edge. Especially since where the other player was from was relevant.
It was long for someone who doesn’t know poker though.
Thank you for this comment and to others who replied to it. It was something that I was uncertain about and seems like a thing that can help me as a writer if I get better at it, so it’s great to get some data points of feedback here.
Here’s how I see it. I’ve got a high context example that is really fitting for the post. It is in theory possible for someone without the context to read through that example, ignore the parts they don’t have the context for, and pick up on the large point. I also suppose that it’s possible for those without the context to enjoy the dialogue of the high context parts, even if they don’t quite understand it.
On the other hand, err, maybe not. Maybe it makes it hard for those without the context to pick up on the main point and to enjoy the dialogue, and the vast majority of readers won’t be able to do so,
But in that case, what is the better alternative? The obvious answer there is to use examples that a larger percentage of the audience has the context for. But finding these examples is hard. And I think they’re more “forced” compared to examples like the poker one that you actually have personal experience with. I think this “forced”-ness usually ends up showing.
The other thing that I see from Scott Alexander a lot (and now John Wentsworth) is to use like 3-8 examples in total in the post, any of which might be high context, but the hope is that even if a given reader struggles with a couple of examples, they will understand the rest, and understanding the rest would be sufficient. I think I could have done a better job of that here.
Those are the approaches that come to my mind. I’d love to hear if others have further ideas or thoughts/comments/advice.
I think the poker example is OK, and paragraphs like
“The second decision point was when the flop was dealt and you faced a bet. This time you decided to fold. Maybe that wasn’t the best play though. Maybe you should have called. Maybe you should have raised. Again, the goal of hand review is to figure this out.”
made sense to me. But the terminology in the dialogue was very tough: button, Rainbow, LAGgy, bdfs, AX, nut flush, nitty—I understood none of these. (I’ve played poker now and then, but never studied it). So keeping the example but translating it a bit further to more widely-used language (if possible) might be good.
But the terminology in the dialogue was very tough: button, Rainbow, LAGgy, bdfs, AX, nut flush, nitty—I understood none of these. (I’ve played poker now and then, but never studied it). So keeping the example but translating it a bit further to more widely-used language (if possible) might be good.
Hm yeah, maybe this exchange was pushing things too much. I’m not sure though.
I thought that even if you don’t know the terms, it’s clear that they are passionately discussing whether it should have been a call or a fold. I felt like this was sort of important actually. To give the reader a more concrete sense of the sort of disagreement I’m envisioning. And what it looks like at an emotional level. And just how easy it can be to get a sort of “tunnel vision” and get sucked into disagreements like that. I figured that those things would shine through to readers even when the reader doesn’t know the poker terminology.
But now I’m feeling more skeptical. Now I’m thinking that it might or might not shine through, depending on the reader and the level of effort the reader feels like applying. It definitely would have been better to choose an example that is more relatable.
I skipped through 90% of the text of this example without it detracting much from the main point of the post. I think it would be better with much less text and with translation of the jargon used.
I personally thought it was slightly distracting. I found myself thinking a lot about the terms (like whether I should know the words already), amd after comcluding no, I barely paid attention to the rest od the dialogue and missed almost all of the nuance. I think hyper specific content works only when it makes sense to the audience or if the lack of understanding is part of the point.
I also suppose that it’s possible for those without the context to enjoy the dialogue of the high context parts, even if they don’t quite understand it.
That’s pretty much where I’m at on it. Although, I have played enough poker that I know all the vocabulary, just not any strategy—I know what the button is but I don’t remember how its location affects strategy, I don’t know what a highjack is, but I know the words “flush”, “offsuit”, “big blind”, “preflop”, “rainbow” (had to think about it), “fold”, etc. etc.
But it’s maybe telling that I have played this game, and I found your example flavorful but mostly skimmed and didn’t try to follow it. For someone who has never played I think it’s just word salad, and probably fails to convey flavor or really anything at all.
I enjoyed the overall article, but if it hadn’t been curated I probably would have given up at the poker example. (Because I doubt an article where deep familiarity with poker was necessary would have been curated, and so I felt fine skipping over the word salad and looking for the general idea.) The basketball one was easy to understand albeit not really engaging for me, and the code review one felt familiar and easy. It’s hard (maybe impossible) to come up with examples that will speak to everyone, so I think having several examples is a good strategy. My only note would be to try to start with whichever example you think will be more engaging for the readers you want to attract. Of the three, I would say that is probably the Basketball one, because it’s the least technical, but this is just a guess. Alternatively, start with some kind of introductory sentence that lets the reader know that what follow are examples of a common theme.
Thank you for that feedback, I appreciate it and find it useful. Given the feedback in the comments, I now feel pretty strongly that the way I wrote that poker section was a mistake. I’m really happy that I learned this lesson though.
Yeah that also makes sense about leading with the example that is most likely to be engaging to readers. Here I feel like that’d probably be the programming example actually, but maybe not since basketball is simple enough to make sense to anyone.
I also agree with the introductory sentence being a good idea. I think I just overlooked that, actually.
I enjoyed this post but the first example is probably too long and technical for anyone not familiar with poker.
I actually liked the first example being unfamiliar with poker — it was highlighting form not the content.
Person who doesn’t know squat about poker here. The first example was clear: they disagreed about whether to fold or call, and it was right on the edge. Especially since where the other player was from was relevant.
It was long for someone who doesn’t know poker though.
Thank you for this comment and to others who replied to it. It was something that I was uncertain about and seems like a thing that can help me as a writer if I get better at it, so it’s great to get some data points of feedback here.
Here’s how I see it. I’ve got a high context example that is really fitting for the post. It is in theory possible for someone without the context to read through that example, ignore the parts they don’t have the context for, and pick up on the large point. I also suppose that it’s possible for those without the context to enjoy the dialogue of the high context parts, even if they don’t quite understand it.
On the other hand, err, maybe not. Maybe it makes it hard for those without the context to pick up on the main point and to enjoy the dialogue, and the vast majority of readers won’t be able to do so,
But in that case, what is the better alternative? The obvious answer there is to use examples that a larger percentage of the audience has the context for. But finding these examples is hard. And I think they’re more “forced” compared to examples like the poker one that you actually have personal experience with. I think this “forced”-ness usually ends up showing.
The other thing that I see from Scott Alexander a lot (and now John Wentsworth) is to use like 3-8 examples in total in the post, any of which might be high context, but the hope is that even if a given reader struggles with a couple of examples, they will understand the rest, and understanding the rest would be sufficient. I think I could have done a better job of that here.
Those are the approaches that come to my mind. I’d love to hear if others have further ideas or thoughts/comments/advice.
I think the poker example is OK, and paragraphs like
“The second decision point was when the flop was dealt and you faced a bet. This time you decided to fold. Maybe that wasn’t the best play though. Maybe you should have called. Maybe you should have raised. Again, the goal of hand review is to figure this out.”
made sense to me. But the terminology in the dialogue was very tough: button, Rainbow, LAGgy, bdfs, AX, nut flush, nitty—I understood none of these. (I’ve played poker now and then, but never studied it). So keeping the example but translating it a bit further to more widely-used language (if possible) might be good.
Hm yeah, maybe this exchange was pushing things too much. I’m not sure though.
I thought that even if you don’t know the terms, it’s clear that they are passionately discussing whether it should have been a call or a fold. I felt like this was sort of important actually. To give the reader a more concrete sense of the sort of disagreement I’m envisioning. And what it looks like at an emotional level. And just how easy it can be to get a sort of “tunnel vision” and get sucked into disagreements like that. I figured that those things would shine through to readers even when the reader doesn’t know the poker terminology.
But now I’m feeling more skeptical. Now I’m thinking that it might or might not shine through, depending on the reader and the level of effort the reader feels like applying. It definitely would have been better to choose an example that is more relatable.
I skipped through 90% of the text of this example without it detracting much from the main point of the post. I think it would be better with much less text and with translation of the jargon used.
I personally thought it was slightly distracting. I found myself thinking a lot about the terms (like whether I should know the words already), amd after comcluding no, I barely paid attention to the rest od the dialogue and missed almost all of the nuance. I think hyper specific content works only when it makes sense to the audience or if the lack of understanding is part of the point.
That’s pretty much where I’m at on it. Although, I have played enough poker that I know all the vocabulary, just not any strategy—I know what the button is but I don’t remember how its location affects strategy, I don’t know what a highjack is, but I know the words “flush”, “offsuit”, “big blind”, “preflop”, “rainbow” (had to think about it), “fold”, etc. etc.
But it’s maybe telling that I have played this game, and I found your example flavorful but mostly skimmed and didn’t try to follow it. For someone who has never played I think it’s just word salad, and probably fails to convey flavor or really anything at all.
EDIT to add: Perhaps to some degree a case of https://xkcd.com/2501/ ?
I enjoyed the overall article, but if it hadn’t been curated I probably would have given up at the poker example. (Because I doubt an article where deep familiarity with poker was necessary would have been curated, and so I felt fine skipping over the word salad and looking for the general idea.) The basketball one was easy to understand albeit not really engaging for me, and the code review one felt familiar and easy. It’s hard (maybe impossible) to come up with examples that will speak to everyone, so I think having several examples is a good strategy. My only note would be to try to start with whichever example you think will be more engaging for the readers you want to attract. Of the three, I would say that is probably the Basketball one, because it’s the least technical, but this is just a guess. Alternatively, start with some kind of introductory sentence that lets the reader know that what follow are examples of a common theme.
Thank you for that feedback, I appreciate it and find it useful. Given the feedback in the comments, I now feel pretty strongly that the way I wrote that poker section was a mistake. I’m really happy that I learned this lesson though.
Yeah that also makes sense about leading with the example that is most likely to be engaging to readers. Here I feel like that’d probably be the programming example actually, but maybe not since basketball is simple enough to make sense to anyone.
I also agree with the introductory sentence being a good idea. I think I just overlooked that, actually.
I powered through it, and subsequently got a lot out of the post.