One variation of “give examples first” is “first briefly state the abstract principle, then the specific examples, then repeat the abstract principle”, structuring the text so that the reader doesn’t need to understand the first statement of the abstract principle.
I once saw someone on LW comment that for most people, “start with examples” works better, but for them, abstract-concrete works better than concrete-abstract. So as a result of that comment, I’ve often tried to go with the abstract-concrete-abstract pattern in my posts, figuring that that will benefit both kinds of readers. I’m not sure which approach is better in general, though for the startup pitch case it’s obviously better to start from the concrete.
Yeah I know what you mean. I think in most cases, even for startup ideas, this might be a good template:
Extremely brief abstract statement—the YC application actually starts by asking “describe your startup in 50 characters or less” before asking “what is your startup going to make?” And I bet Paul Graham reads that first!
Concrete example as mind-anchor
Abstract claims
As others have pointed out, #1 can be something of a “motivation-anchor” for caring about #2 because you want to know where the example is going before you start listening to it.
1+2 together are a mental-model “boot loader” for #3. And I think it’s important for #1 not to tax working memory so it can be free to focus mostly on #2.
Fantastic post!
One variation of “give examples first” is “first briefly state the abstract principle, then the specific examples, then repeat the abstract principle”, structuring the text so that the reader doesn’t need to understand the first statement of the abstract principle.
I once saw someone on LW comment that for most people, “start with examples” works better, but for them, abstract-concrete works better than concrete-abstract. So as a result of that comment, I’ve often tried to go with the abstract-concrete-abstract pattern in my posts, figuring that that will benefit both kinds of readers. I’m not sure which approach is better in general, though for the startup pitch case it’s obviously better to start from the concrete.
Yeah I know what you mean. I think in most cases, even for startup ideas, this might be a good template:
Extremely brief abstract statement—the YC application actually starts by asking “describe your startup in 50 characters or less” before asking “what is your startup going to make?” And I bet Paul Graham reads that first!
Concrete example as mind-anchor
Abstract claims
As others have pointed out, #1 can be something of a “motivation-anchor” for caring about #2 because you want to know where the example is going before you start listening to it.
1+2 together are a mental-model “boot loader” for #3. And I think it’s important for #1 not to tax working memory so it can be free to focus mostly on #2.