There’s a caveat here. It’s inevitable for communication that veers towards the emotional/subjective/sympathetic.
When the average writer tries to compress it down to a few hundred or thousand letters on a screen it does often seem ridiculous.
Even from moderately above average writers it often sounds more like anxious upper-middle-class virtue signalling then meaningful conversations.
I think it takes a really really clever writer to make it more substantial than that and escape the perception entirely.
On the other hand, discussions of purely objective topics, that are falsifiable and verifiable by independent third parties, don’t suffer the same pitfalls.
As long as you really know what you are talking about, or willing to learn, even the below average writer can communicate just fine.
There’s a caveat here. It’s inevitable for communication that veers towards the emotional/subjective/sympathetic.
When the average writer tries to compress it down to a few hundred or thousand letters on a screen it does often seem ridiculous.
Even from moderately above average writers it often sounds more like anxious upper-middle-class virtue signalling then meaningful conversations.
I think it takes a really really clever writer to make it more substantial than that and escape the perception entirely.
On the other hand, discussions of purely objective topics, that are falsifiable and verifiable by independent third parties, don’t suffer the same pitfalls.
As long as you really know what you are talking about, or willing to learn, even the below average writer can communicate just fine.