= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sophronius comments on In favour of terseness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
Short posts are bad at crossing inferential distances. They limit your readers to those who already know, or almost know, what you're talking about. (Also see: Explainers Shoot High. Aim Low!)
For example, if you were writing a scientific paper and going for extreme terseness you would give the data then stop. There'd be no abstract, no explanation of previous work and surrounding context, and no guiding towards conclusions. It would be an incredibly inefficient way to convey knowledge.
Another example is computer programs. Programmers try to avoid repeating themselves, but not to the point where they attempt to hit the Kolmogorov complexity (code so unreadable it's unprovably correct!) or omit all tests (which are by definition redundant).
A more personal example is a post I made recently: Building your own Quantum Fourier Transform. I did not explain how to use the little quantum circuit inspector in enough detail, and so all the feedback was "I don't get it". I try to always keep in mind that saying things like "a superposition assigns a weighting to all the classical states" just doesn't translate, you have to break it down every time, but I didn't pay attention to that nagging doubt.
Clearly there's a balance to be struck here: You want your posts to include everything that's necessary for your audience to understand it, but no more. "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”, as they say. And clearly, the more technical a post is, the greater the risk that it won't be understood.
However, when it comes to your example of scientific papers, I definitely do feel that some academicians should be more concise! For economics papers, often about 80% of the paper is simply repetition of what other people wrote, sometimes solely to show that the author did their research. Maybe 5% is original input, and the rest is repetition (again, less so for technical papers). Philosophers tend to be even worse!
Scholarship is a virtue, and placing what you did in the wider context is a very important part of pushing science forward (civilization could advance faster if people were more aware of other stuff out there -- how many times have people reinvented graphical models?)
Signal to noise depends on the quality of the author -- there are plenty of dense papers in academia, in all disciplines.