This post would be of much higher utility if some more time was spent working on the flow of the writing. I’m currently introducing some friends to rationality, but I won’t be using this post as it feels clunky and not that engaging, although I think that the bits based on ‘the lens that sees its flaws’ (diagrams of reality, lens, beliefs and optical illusions sections) are great introductions to the subject.
Perhaps try and write more conversationally, as big parts just feel like quite formal lists of statements. Also, maybe include what’s at the top of this post at the top.
I, on the other hand, like the “telegraphic” writing style of the post (for all that I might recommend various tweaks here and there), and am happy to see this material in this form. (Just to list one advantage of such a style, it tends to produce texts with a high degree of “skimmability”).
Lately I’ve been inclining toward the view that, given human psychological diversity, there really is no such thing as too many different pedagogical texts on a given subject. So rather than encouraging this author to change the style of this post, I would sooner encourage them or (more likely) someone else to write another one if the need is felt.
I wrote this to help me better understand the material when I first came across it. It was sitting doing nothing on my computer for a year and so I decided to just post it. I hope it will be useful as an article for a few beginners.
I agree I should try and make the work more engaging and I have recently read Made to Stick, On Writing Well and Elements of Style to give me ideas on how to improve my writing. I still find it very difficult and time consuming.
Agreed. I don’t really disagree with anything in this post, but I’m not sure why it was posted. It seems to largely deal with concepts that have already been discussed, which is fine—but for introductions/summaries to be good, IMO they have to be highly clear and engaging, which I don’t find this to be.
I think that one of the more critical aspects (feedback) has been glossed over to a degree that I think it falls short of its goal of being a good introduction.
I suggest that some editing is in order. I don’t actively discourage another attempt; I suspect most of us have considered writing a “Why this matters and what we mean” post, and while there are other good materials on the site, more good ones probably won’t do much harm.
This post would be of much higher utility if some more time was spent working on the flow of the writing. I’m currently introducing some friends to rationality, but I won’t be using this post as it feels clunky and not that engaging, although I think that the bits based on ‘the lens that sees its flaws’ (diagrams of reality, lens, beliefs and optical illusions sections) are great introductions to the subject.
Perhaps try and write more conversationally, as big parts just feel like quite formal lists of statements. Also, maybe include what’s at the top of this post at the top.
I, on the other hand, like the “telegraphic” writing style of the post (for all that I might recommend various tweaks here and there), and am happy to see this material in this form. (Just to list one advantage of such a style, it tends to produce texts with a high degree of “skimmability”).
Lately I’ve been inclining toward the view that, given human psychological diversity, there really is no such thing as too many different pedagogical texts on a given subject. So rather than encouraging this author to change the style of this post, I would sooner encourage them or (more likely) someone else to write another one if the need is felt.
Thanks for the encouragement. I have written another article but I will wait a week to post it. It again is written in a very “telegraphic” style.
Thanks for the feedback.
I wrote this to help me better understand the material when I first came across it. It was sitting doing nothing on my computer for a year and so I decided to just post it. I hope it will be useful as an article for a few beginners.
I agree I should try and make the work more engaging and I have recently read Made to Stick, On Writing Well and Elements of Style to give me ideas on how to improve my writing. I still find it very difficult and time consuming.
Agreed. I don’t really disagree with anything in this post, but I’m not sure why it was posted. It seems to largely deal with concepts that have already been discussed, which is fine—but for introductions/summaries to be good, IMO they have to be highly clear and engaging, which I don’t find this to be.
I think that one of the more critical aspects (feedback) has been glossed over to a degree that I think it falls short of its goal of being a good introduction.
I suggest that some editing is in order. I don’t actively discourage another attempt; I suspect most of us have considered writing a “Why this matters and what we mean” post, and while there are other good materials on the site, more good ones probably won’t do much harm.