Just guessing here, because I have a similar problem. You need to know your audience, so that you can skip the parts they already know, and only communicate the new part.
Also, depends on whether it is a monologue or dialogue; in monologue you err on the side of saying more, in dialog you can expect some “if they don’t understand, they will ask”.
.
For example, I sometimes realize that I am needlessly defensive, that I am unconsciously expecting the most uncharitable misinterpretation of anything I say—that’s because I have spent a lot of time offline with people who were like that—so I am trying to make my argument ironclad, include all kinds of disclaimers, etc., which results in many extra words.
On the other hand, it is easy (and frequent) to err on the side of saying too little, making your message ambiguous without noticing it. Sometimes people appreciate that I include some extra context; I have been explicitly praised at work for writing great documentation.
A lot of people have to write for audiences with narcissism, who never ask, because asking constitutes an admission that there might be something important that they don’t understand. They’re always looking for any reason, however shallow, to dismiss any view that surprises them too much. So these writers feel like they have to pre-empt every possible objection, even the stupid ones that don’t make any sense.
It’s best if you can avoid having to write for audiences like that. But it’s difficult to avoid them.
Just guessing here, because I have a similar problem. You need to know your audience, so that you can skip the parts they already know, and only communicate the new part.
Also, depends on whether it is a monologue or dialogue; in monologue you err on the side of saying more, in dialog you can expect some “if they don’t understand, they will ask”.
.
For example, I sometimes realize that I am needlessly defensive, that I am unconsciously expecting the most uncharitable misinterpretation of anything I say—that’s because I have spent a lot of time offline with people who were like that—so I am trying to make my argument ironclad, include all kinds of disclaimers, etc., which results in many extra words.
On the other hand, it is easy (and frequent) to err on the side of saying too little, making your message ambiguous without noticing it. Sometimes people appreciate that I include some extra context; I have been explicitly praised at work for writing great documentation.
A lot of people have to write for audiences with narcissism, who never ask, because asking constitutes an admission that there might be something important that they don’t understand. They’re always looking for any reason, however shallow, to dismiss any view that surprises them too much.
So these writers feel like they have to pre-empt every possible objection, even the stupid ones that don’t make any sense.
It’s best if you can avoid having to write for audiences like that. But it’s difficult to avoid them.