= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaMyer comments on The Limits of My Rationality - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (54)
I tried really hard to imitate and blend the structure of argumentation employed by the most successful articles here. I found that in spite of the high minded academic style of writing, structures tended to be overwhelmingly narratives split into three segments that vary greatly in content and structure (the first always establishes tone and subject, the second contains the bulk of the argumentation and the third is an often incomplete analysis of impacts the argument may have on some hypothetical future state). I can think of a lot of different ways of organizing my observations on the subject of cognitive bias and though I decided on this structure, I was concerned that, since it was decidedly non-haegalian, it would come off as poorly organized.
But I feel good about your lumping it in with data on how newcomers perceive LW because that was one of my goals.
Interesting. I understand how you arrived at that. The sequences and esp. EYs posts are often written in that style. But you don't need to write that way (actually I don't think you succeeded at that). My first tries were also somewhat trying to fit in but overdoing it - and somewhat failing too. Good luck. TRrying and failing is better than not trying and thus not learning.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dg7/what_have_you_recently_tried_and_failed_at/
Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure what I think, but the general response so far seems to support the notion that I have tried to adapt the structure to a rhetorical position poorly suited for my writing style. I'm hearing a lot of "stream of consciousness" ... the first section specifically might require more argumentation regarding effective rhetorical structures. I attack parables without offering a replacement, which is at best rude but potentially deconstructive past the point of utility. I'm currently working on an introduction that might help generate more discussion based on content.
Agreed that your post is impressively mindful. In terms of writing style, maybe try writing more like Steven Pinker or Paul Graham. (If you've haven't read Paul Graham yet, the low-hanging fruit here is to go to his essays page and read a few essays that appeal to you, then copy that style as closely as possible. Here are some favorites of mine. Paul Graham is great at both writing and thinking so you'll do triple duty learning about writing, thinking, and also whatever idea he's trying to communicate.)
I've read both. Paul Graham's style is wonderful ... so long as he keeps himself from reducing all of history to a triangular diagram. I prefer Stanley Fish for clarity on linguistics.