Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Write Usefully

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 308 posts

Re: How to Write Usefully

#291

Post by _8j50 »

austhrow743 wrote: post #273
upofadown wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a straightforward observation that the writer of the original article was being pointlessly condescending and that they were alienating the people they were ostensibly trying to help. In general, personally attacking your audience is not an effective writing technique.

Disagree with pointless. I'm just some guy but I've noticed encrypted email booming in popularity the last few years. Seems like every second nerd I know uses proton now. Assuming these guys have been fighting the good fight the whole time, I can see why a hail mary switch in tone could be warranted. They're losing. Just staying the path and being agreeable and conciliatory would be what is pointless.

I personally think the viewpoint of the author was not only incorrecr but dangerous. Being condescending leads many to believe the author has such an authority over the subject that they can get away with it (which is never the case, being smart never gives you a right to look down on others,not that I am accusing the author of that).

To me, the condescending tone of the writing is masking inherent flaws in the argument being made. It's hard for anyone to challenge someone who obviously knows more than them when they appear to be obviously wrong, the condescending tone discourages discourse that would otherwise have lead all involves parties to a better understanding of the technical subject.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#292

Post by _8j50 »

upofadown wrote: post #282
austhrow743 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree with pointless. I'm just some guy but I've noticed encrypted email booming in popularity the last few years. Seems like every second nerd I know uses proton now. Assuming these guys have been fighting the good fight the whole time, I can see why a hail mary switch in tone could be warranted. They're losing. Just staying the path and being agreeable and conciliatory would be what is pointless.

Even if there actually was some sort of ongoing email encryption crisis the snark was still pointless. That is not how you convince anyone of anything. That just expresses your anger. In general, encrypting email is a good thing in the same way enabling TLS is a good thing. One can quibble about the details, but it is absurd and harmful to suggest it should not be done at all. So the snark seemed fairly unreasonable…

Exactly, I can agree with email being difficult to secure but for most of humanity that has to use it, any security improvements should be taken.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#293

Post by _8j50 »

mrandish wrote: post #178
jarnagin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372005

Good call. That's an excellent example of Paul's idea in action. In calling that OP's style rude, respondents are really equivocating on the OP's central point. The OP is demonstrating Paul's 'Strength' concept by boldly asserting "all encrypted email is not fit for purpose" in an unequivocal way. The respondents seem to agree in part but disagree at the edges and want the OP to accept qualifiers.

This is not politics, it is a technical matter. Being correct is important not being loud or bold! The authors argument is infuriantingly wrong and dangerous even. If you disagree show me which part of the post describes any specific risk, any specific threat or a comparison showing the marvelous benefits of not encrypting email? I mean until this post I didn't think anyone hated email more than myself, but emotions should not triumph logic. I have seen first hand unencrypted email being used against users. The tone of the writing distracted from a calm technical discussion. A missed opportunity!

Re: How to Write Usefully

#294

Post by roryokane »

AgentME wrote: post #268
jblow wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are doing exactly the thing pg talks about in this essay -- making up a fictional version of what the other person said so that you can argue with it.

Am I really going wrong in interpreting this text as saying "it's wrong to criticize impoliteness if the author happens to be right"? >Someone was telling the author that he would achieve more if he phrased his point in a more "polite" way, just because the certainty of the writing made the critic mad. Thankfully, the author was here in the comments responding, and he didn't budge. >That interaction was very refreshi…

I interpret that quote differently. To me, it says, “some people mistake being right for being impolite; don’t listen to those people.” I can imagine that someone could confuse being right for impoliteness would happen if the other person were right about an inconvenient truth.

I don’t think the quote says anything about ways of being impolite that don’t consist solely of being right, such as being impolite by swearing at someone.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#295

Post by Attained »

The writer does not mention eliminating complex grammar, and uses pronouns a lot. I find using pronouns greatly dilutes meaning and efficiency for non-native English speakers and requires more attentive reading even for native English speakers. The writer is not using simple direct language in my opinion, and being both simple and direct are critical for useful writing.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#296

Post by 08-15 »

upofadown wrote: post #243
jarnagin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22372005

That was a straightforward observation that the writer of the original article was being pointlessly condescending and that they were alienating the people they were ostensibly trying to help. In general, personally attacking your audience is not an effective writing technique.

He isn't talking to the people who already use encrypted email. He's talking to those who haven't made up their mind, yet, and since his goal is not to help anyone, but to increase adoption of his favorite solution, portraying the "competition" as hopeless nerds who lost contact with reality, might be an effective strategy.

> personally attacking your audience is not an effective writing technique

Absolutely true. So whenever a writer appears to be attacking their audience, you may have misidentified the audience.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#297

Post by gist »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #245
gist wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "don't speak unless you can improve upon the silence" Sounds like one of those things that is meant to keep people in their place and/or make them feel less worthy or as a put down. > A lot of the nervousness comes from the pressure to "say the right thing" I can tell from your bio you are much younger than I am so I will offer this advice to you as 'an older guy' (note I did not say 'dude' either). Not only will y…

people very generally will be drawn to you more if you don't appear to be concerned about what comes out of your mouth 32yo here. In my experience, the opposite seems to be true. (I've been dragged to that conclusion despite wanting to believe otherwise.) More precisely, it might be true that people will be drawn to you more if you don't appear to be concerned with what comes out of your mouth. But the climate in 202…

The problem with the 'game' of worrying about what comes out of your mouth is that you find over time that if it's not on target all the time and every time people will still have a problem and hate on you (friends or strangers). So you might as well just accept (I have found) that fact and be what you want to be. You are only as good as the last thing that didn't matter. Like if you go to 5 social functions but miss 1 people will focus on the 1 and the 5 that you did will not count. (Hence if you go to a funeral of a friend's parents you go to the 2nd parent's when they die not the first as an extreme example of the thinking).

Also noting that the person elected President won by being himself in a super extreme way and saying all sorts of things that traditionally would have sunk a political candidate. Now sure with certain age groups that won't go over as well but people I think hate phony more than they hate real which is objectionable in some way.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#298

Post by sillysaurusx »

gist wrote: post #297
sillysaurusx wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people very generally will be drawn to you more if you don't appear to be concerned about what comes out of your mouth 32yo here. In my experience, the opposite seems to be true. (I've been dragged to that conclusion despite wanting to believe otherwise.) More precisely, it might be true that people will be drawn to you more if you don't appear to be concerned with what comes out of your mouth. But the climate in 202…

The problem with the 'game' of worrying about what comes out of your mouth is that you find over time that if it's not on target all the time and every time people will still have a problem and hate on you (friends or strangers). So you might as well just accept (I have found) that fact and be what you want to be. You are only as good as the last thing that didn't matter. Like if you go to 5 social functions but miss…

I agree with you in general. Unfortunately, that only applies to people who are in some sort of position of power. (This is the main crux of what I meant by "things changed from 2009 until now." Previously, it seemed like what you were saying mattered more than who you were.) If you are a regular Joe and try saying everything you want to, you'll find your life gets much harder, possibly for no benefit.

If there is a benefit, though, I'd be interested to know what it is.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#299

Post by AgentME »

roryokane wrote: post #294
AgentME wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I really going wrong in interpreting this text as saying "it's wrong to criticize impoliteness if the author happens to be right"? >Someone was telling the author that he would achieve more if he phrased his point in a more "polite" way, just because the certainty of the writing made the critic mad. Thankfully, the author was here in the comments responding, and he didn't budge. >That interaction was very refreshi…

I interpret that quote differently. To me, it says, “some people mistake being right for being impolite; don’t listen to those people.” I can imagine that someone could confuse being right for impoliteness would happen if the other person were right about an inconvenient truth. I don’t think the quote says anything about ways of being impolite that don’t consist solely of being right, such as being impolite by sweari…

I read it all again with your interpretation in mind and it looks like that one was intended.

I think I missed or skipped past that interpretation to another because I think luord's original framing was a very misleading/unuseful way of looking at a situation. The post he linked to (elsewhere in the thread, that prompted his original post) wasn't complaining just about someone's certainty, but their impoliteness while being so certain. It seems very misleading to reduce this down to being a complaint about being "too certain", rather than being about tone/politeness:

>Y'know, you can have all the valid points in the world and still come on a _bit_ too strong.

>I get the point the author is making re: LARPing, but this kind of attitude and tone is bordering (or, bluntly: is) condescending to anyone who doesn't know as much as you.

Sure, they phrase it as "coming on too strong" at first, but then they get specific and talk about the tone/attitude problems. They suggest things that could be changed other than the certainty level.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#300

Post by hliyan »

gfody wrote: post #203
mrandish wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good call. That's an excellent example of Paul's idea in action. In calling that OP's style rude, respondents are really equivocating on the OP's central point. The OP is demonstrating Paul's 'Strength' concept by boldly asserting "all encrypted email is not fit for purpose" in an unequivocal way. The respondents seem to agree in part but disagree at the edges and want the OP to accept qualifiers.

It's just setting the tone of the discussion. Emotionally charged writing can be fun to read but can also be tiresome especially at length.

This is how I read it too. The problem was not the to-the-point critique, it's the author's emotions leaking into the writing.
Post reply on HN