I’d be interested to hear more about what you have to say about concrete language. I assume it’s more than the familiar observation that that concrete language is typically better style and usually more effective for communicating.
I have noticed that the people who understood their field as if it were their life and soul write in beautiful simplicity; consider Feynman, Minsky, Paul Graham.
Those observations are perfectly compatible with a model where expertise and writing ability are completely uncorrelated (or even inversely correlated once you control for intelligence), and that people are naturally more likely to read good writers, so when thinking about experts, experts that are also good writers are more likely to spring to mind.
I’d be interested to hear more about what you have to say about concrete language. I assume it’s more than the familiar observation that that concrete language is typically better style and usually more effective for communicating.
I have noticed that the people who understood their field as if it were their life and soul write in beautiful simplicity; consider Feynman, Minsky, Paul Graham.
Those observations are perfectly compatible with a model where expertise and writing ability are completely uncorrelated (or even inversely correlated once you control for intelligence), and that people are naturally more likely to read good writers, so when thinking about experts, experts that are also good writers are more likely to spring to mind.
Thanks!