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

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: How to think in writing

#21

Post by guyomes »

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…

Taking the statement completely out of context, it states : if A implies B, then not A implies not B. This is a logical flaw.

The correct statement from a logical point of view is: if A implies B, then not B implies not A.

In this case, even if writing down your ideas makes them more precise, there might be other methods that make your ideas more precise. Again this is just the logical point of view, out of context.

Re: How to think in writing

#22

Post by andrei-akopian »

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.

Yes this is some terrible logic, but the idea is true.

Writing about something fixes (most) wrong thoughts, and since you are wrong in 99% of cases you can safely say that you are wrong unless you have written about it.

Re: How to think in writing

#23

Post by nequo »

guyomes wrote: post #21
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…

Taking the statement completely out of context, it states : if A implies B, then not A implies not B. This is a logical flaw. The correct statement from a logical point of view is: if A implies B, then not B implies not A. In this case, even if writing down your ideas makes them more precise, there might be other methods that make your ideas more precise. Again this is just the logical point of view, out of context.

> Taking the statement completely out of context, it states : if A implies B, then not A implies not B. This is a logical flaw.

The statement in TFA is not that though. Instead, it is "if A implies B, then not A implies not C."

  A: writing about thoughts
  B: thoughts become more complete
  C: thoughts are most complete
If "A implies B" is true, then it also doesn't matter if other methods also make your ideas more complete, because "A implies B" means that writing would make them even more complete, therefore "not C."

Re: How to think in writing

#24

Post by wanderingstan »

JadeNB wrote: post #13

> 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…

I suspect you’re taking that excerpt too literally. By my reading, the author is expressing their surprise to learn something to improve their writing from an unexpected source (a book about mathematics), and is even more surprised at this source being written by someone very different from the author culturally (Hungarian) and philosophically/politicaly (Stalinist).

Re: How to think in writing

#25

Post by willsmith72 »

andrei-akopian wrote: post #20
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).

> if you write digitally you can look stuff up as you write

is that supposed to be a good thing? if the goal is developing ideas, i would wager that it's not.

Re: How to think in writing

#26

Post by guyomes »

nequo wrote: post #23
guyomes wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking the statement completely out of context, it states : if A implies B, then not A implies not B. This is a logical flaw. The correct statement from a logical point of view is: if A implies B, then not B implies not A. In this case, even if writing down your ideas makes them more precise, there might be other methods that make your ideas more precise. Again this is just the logical point of view, out of context.

> Taking the statement completely out of context, it states : if A implies B, then not A implies not B. This is a logical flaw. The statement in TFA is not that though. Instead, it is "if A implies B, then not A implies not C." A: writing about thoughts B: thoughts become more complete C: thoughts are most complete If "A implies B" is true, then it also doesn't matter if other methods also make your ideas more comple…

You're perfectly right. It is indeed perfectly logical then. It could be reformulated like this: if f(A) > f(not A) then f(not A) is not maximal.

f: a function indicating how complete the thoughts are.

A: writing about thoughts.

Re: How to think in writing

#27

Post by andrei-akopian »

willsmith72 wrote: post #25
andrei-akopian wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> if you write digitally you can look stuff up as you write is that supposed to be a good thing? if the goal is developing ideas, i would wager that it's not.

If looking up helps you catch a misconception or missunderstanding about the real world, it's great.

I find it very hard for external sources to support my thinking (if they do I don't read them but save for later comparison). If anything they prove me wrong when I am on the wrong path.

Re: How to think in writing

#28

Post by pxoe »

writing can be so pervasive, even compulsive, especially nowadays and in digital spaces, that it might be due for a counter: how to just think. how to think freely. think unburdened by having to put thoughts into a form, written or spoken, out loud or internal, or even verbalized in any way at all, without being slowed down by any of those things

Re: How to think in writing

#29

Post by CyberDildonics »

electrodank wrote: post #9
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.

[flagged]

Only lately?

Re: How to think in writing

#30

Post by card_zero »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #15
wyum wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or with writing about it. But there's an implicit "if you haven't already written about it". We might wonder what other implicit preconditions there are.

Similarly, if walking North always brings you closer to the North Pole, then you can never reach the North Pole without walking North, or at all. But look out for oceans.

Post reply on HN