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

How to think in writing

henrikkarlsson.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 131 posts

Re: How to think in writing

#11

Post by cryptoz »

throwaway55533 wrote: post #8
codelord wrote: post #6

"If writing down your ideas always makes them more precise and more complete, then no one who hasn't written about a topic has fully formed ideas about it." Apparently, even writing it down didn't help the author with this flawed deduction.

How is it flawed logcally? Seems perfectly correct to me. Although I'd agree it's a bit over-literal. As if the emotional workings of the human mind can be precisely reasoned about (i.e. precisely enough to say "always"). Regardless, I've experienced this effect a lot when writing design docs. Iteration and objective criticism on a tangible thing (a doc) is an extremely effective way to see the problem from all sides…

Disclaimer: I'm not OP and I haven't read the full post yet.

But the quote above says "If..." and then makes a statement that isn't true and then having a conclusion based on that false premise. I can tell you it isn't true because I can recall countless times in the last few months alone where writing down my ideas has resulted in a muddier thought; lost ideas while writing them down; confusing me and missing some parts; it does not "always make them more precise and more complete". So the rest of the statement is just silly.

Sure, sometimes writing down ideas helps clear things up. Most times even. But always?! Definitely not.

Re: How to think in writing

#12

Post by wyum »

throwaway55533 wrote: post #8
codelord wrote: post #6

"If writing down your ideas always makes them more precise and more complete, then no one who hasn't written about a topic has fully formed ideas about it." Apparently, even writing it down didn't help the author with this flawed deduction.

How is it flawed logcally? Seems perfectly correct to me. Although I'd agree it's a bit over-literal. As if the emotional workings of the human mind can be precisely reasoned about (i.e. precisely enough to say "always"). Regardless, I've experienced this effect a lot when writing design docs. Iteration and objective criticism on a tangible thing (a doc) is an extremely effective way to see the problem from all sides…

The deduction is flawed because the success of one method (thinking with writing) does not necessarily disprove the success of other methods (such as thinking without writing).

Re: How to think in writing

#13

Post by JadeNB »

> But then I read Imre Lakatos’s Proofs and Refutations. It is not, at first glance, a book about writing. It is a book of mathematical philosophy. By a Hungarian Stalinist, no less.

I don't see what "Hungarian" has to do with it, and, though I do see what "Stalinist" might have to do with it, it probably shouldn't. (Someone's politics don't have to be good for them to make a valuable contribution to knowledge.) But, according to Wikipedia, this isn't true literally as written, unless one takes the view "once a Stalinist, always a Stalinist:"

> After his release, Lakatos returned to academic life .... Still nominally a communist, his political views had shifted markedly, and he was involved with at least one dissident student group in the lead-up to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.

> ... He received a PhD in philosophy in 1961 from the University of Cambridge; his doctoral thesis was entitled Essays in the Logic of Mathematical Discovery, and his doctoral advisor was R. B. Braithwaite. The book Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, published after his death, is based on this work.

Re: How to think in writing

#14

Post by FreakLegion »

wyum wrote: post #12
throwaway55533 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it flawed logcally? Seems perfectly correct to me. Although I'd agree it's a bit over-literal. As if the emotional workings of the human mind can be precisely reasoned about (i.e. precisely enough to say "always"). Regardless, I've experienced this effect a lot when writing design docs. Iteration and objective criticism on a tangible thing (a doc) is an extremely effective way to see the problem from all sides…

The deduction is flawed because the success of one method (thinking with writing) does not necessarily disprove the success of other methods (such as thinking without writing).

You're objecting to the premise, not the conclusion*. The deduction is valid for the premise (the part in the 'if'). Well, assuming you accept that an idea that can be "more complete" isn't "fully formed", but I'd say that's definitional.

* Although it's not really right to use this kind of language here (premise, conclusion, deduction). It's a casual statement, so I suppose people can somewhat reasonably argue about it, but the assertion is tautological ('if something is incomplete, it isn't fully formed').

Re: How to think in writing

#15

Post by xboxnolifes »

wyum wrote: post #12
throwaway55533 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it flawed logcally? Seems perfectly correct to me. Although I'd agree it's a bit over-literal. As if the emotional workings of the human mind can be precisely reasoned about (i.e. precisely enough to say "always"). Regardless, I've experienced this effect a lot when writing design docs. Iteration and objective criticism on a tangible thing (a doc) is an extremely effective way to see the problem from all sides…

The deduction is flawed because the success of one method (thinking with writing) does not necessarily disprove the success of other methods (such as thinking without writing).

The keyword is "always". IF writing about something always improves it, that implies it cannot ever reach full potential without writing about it.

Re: How to think in writing

#17

Post by furyofantares »

codelord wrote: post #6

"If writing down your ideas always makes them more precise and more complete, then no one who hasn't written about a topic has fully formed ideas about it." Apparently, even writing it down didn't help the author with this flawed deduction.

The deduction is logically sound; it's of the form "if then ".

This is, of course, even worse than a logical error.

Re: How to think in writing

#18

Post by troupe »

nxicvyvy wrote: post #5

The PG quote is a hot take. Yes, writing can be a productive focusing mechanism, it can also provide you with good reflections. But so can meditation, so can a good walk. It's a tool, not a requirement. It also has it's own downsides in that it forces you to think a certain constrained way, and while that is also one of its strength, it does limit your ability to think creatively. Similar to how using ChatGPt to draf…

Can you give any examples of someone whose idea formation was not improved went they undertook the task of writing their thoughts down?

Re: How to think in writing

#19

Post by amadeuspagel »

codelord wrote: post #6

"If writing down your ideas always makes them more precise and more complete, then no one who hasn't written about a topic has fully formed ideas about it." Apparently, even writing it down didn't help the author with this flawed deduction.

There's no logical flaw here. An idea can't be fully formed, if it could be more precise and more complete.

Re: How to think in writing

#20

Post by andrei-akopian »

nxicvyvy wrote: post #5

The PG quote is a hot take. Yes, writing can be a productive focusing mechanism, it can also provide you with good reflections. But so can meditation, so can a good walk. It's a tool, not a requirement. It also has it's own downsides in that it forces you to think a certain constrained way, and while that is also one of its strength, it does limit your ability to think creatively. Similar to how using ChatGPt to draf…

Things you write down stick better (according to school teachers) and if you write digitally you can look stuff up as you write.

There are similar quotes about meditation and walking so they are all part of the same toolkit (and it is great if you can use any part of it).

Post reply on HN