You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Teal_Thanatos comments on Improving My Writing Style - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: orthonormal 11 October 2011 04:14PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (33)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Teal_Thanatos 12 October 2011 02:27:01AM 5 points [-]

In Reference to "Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted"

Let's start with the word Simple. It's in the first two words of the opening sentence of your post. Remove it, please don't use it again. You've just set up the entire post to automatically fail a percentage of readers who will be (now) emotionally impacted by failure to understand any section of your post. Even if it is understood after a moment or hours reflection, the self-shame brought on by this single word will reduce your chances to gain positive karma.

This word is used four times. This may be four times too many.

Next, you've used an example that 'many' saw through. What is many, how did you decide many have done this? by what cause do you have to decide that the people who post replies indicating they saw through it are the majority?

Why put in reflections (or praise) to a segment if it's going to exclude a large portion of your audience, you seem to be limiting the article to those who've already succeeded at finishing your previous article.

In your fifth paragraph you introduce names, Defectbots and CliqueBots. This information is used once in the footnotes. It's not really useful and shades the article by personalizing it. When Kibitzing is off and no names are beside the post, this seems to be a little...wrong. Your personalization of the article destroys the detachment of it's content, making it more about you and less about the content, this could narrow the field of people

So, in conclusion. to me, when you are writing, I am excluded because I have not immediately grasped everything in your article at once, I am excluded for a second time for not reading your previous article (And then, not seeing the catch on it straight away) and finally, for a final exclusion for caring about the content and not about you.

I hope this has helped.

Comment author: orthonormal 14 October 2011 11:02:41PM 2 points [-]

Yeah, my idea of the audience must have defaulted to the people I interact most with here, and they're kind of the top contributors, so that caused a big distortion. I won't do that next time.

Comment author: Teal_Thanatos 17 October 2011 11:17:29PM 0 points [-]

:) I look forward to reading it.