Live data from Hacker News

How to think in writing

henrikkarlsson.xyz

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: How to think in writing

#121
post #54
post #33

I'm torn about this article. On the one hand, he's right: Writing helps refine your thoughts. On the other hand, if your goal is to probe the validity of your thoughts, this is painfully inefficient. You'll get much further if you do one or two simple passes on your writing, and then pass what you've written around and ask for feedback. I think I learned this in one of Haidt's books, and it has jived with my experien…

> On the other hand, if your goal is to probe the validity of your thoughts, this is painfully inefficient. You'll get much further if you do one or two simple passes on your writing, and then pass what you've written around and ask for feedback. And how do you avoid having to start with a blank page. I have been reading "How to take smart notes", which delves into Zettelkasten, and the point of writing and linking n…

I think people are overthinking starting. Just write down first two words and then next couple. Don’t even make it a sentence just bag of words on paper then make sentence out of that.

It doesn’t have to be perfect from the first paragraph. You will share fixed up version later.

Re: How to think in writing

#122
post #33

I'm torn about this article. On the one hand, he's right: Writing helps refine your thoughts. On the other hand, if your goal is to probe the validity of your thoughts, this is painfully inefficient. You'll get much further if you do one or two simple passes on your writing, and then pass what you've written around and ask for feedback. I think I learned this in one of Haidt's books, and it has jived with my experien…

Reminds me of this blog post: https://camhashemi.com/posts/organic-proposals/

> You'll get much further if you do one or two simple passes on your writing, and then pass what you've written around and ask for feedback.

I've found that the more time you spend "intellectualizing" your own thoughts, it'll become harder to back down, because you get so invested in your ideas.

Re: How to think in writing

#123

I don't mind this person relating their experiences, and encouraging others to do similar. But as someone who is (and strives to be!) non-verbal in a lot of my thought, keep in mind that there are other brain types out there (: This article is sprinkled with " people this" and " people that" terminology, which is mirrored in our broader culture. But I say it is actually " some people this" and " some people that." Do…

What a great comment.

Can you expand on why do you strive to be non-verbal?

Re: How to think in writing

#124

I don't mind this person relating their experiences, and encouraging others to do similar. But as someone who is (and strives to be!) non-verbal in a lot of my thought, keep in mind that there are other brain types out there (: This article is sprinkled with " people this" and " people that" terminology, which is mirrored in our broader culture. But I say it is actually " some people this" and " some people that." Do…

What a great comment. Can you expand on why do you strive to be non-verbal?

(sorry for the wall of text; I guess you asked for it :)

Mostly, I feel it slows me down. I'd rather continue on to the next thought than translate the current one into words in my head. It's a semi-conscious decision. I can almost feel the word-making machinery gearing up, but if I race ahead it doesn't have time to grab on.

Also, it can be a bit overly-constraining. Sometimes constraints are good, like the article mentions — they force you to make decisions and face issues. But sometimes I feel like ideas are better served left in an "un-collapsed" state, at least for a time. I feel like much of my most valuable thinking happens in that state. And sometimes manifesting the thought is better accomplished through artwork, or physical activity, or something else that's not writing.

So I guess there's a "to manifest or not manifest the thought" decision, and after that, there's a "to manifest in writing/words vs. another medium" decision.

I remember as a teenager talking to some friends about thinking, and the idea of thinking without words was surprising to them — for them, thinking was words. And I gather this is true for many people. But I also gather it's not true for many people, myself included (: Apparently, there are some people who have word-thoughts appear as text floating in their mind, which is wild to me — lots of weird mental variety out there[1].

Over the years, I've come to see my thoughts as more "tactile" than anything else. Lots of physical textures and movements involved. Just earlier, I was wrestling with an issue that has been on my mind, and it was like trying to solve one of those "separate the ring from the rope" puzzles — lots of turning, twisting, pushing, pulling. I've been struggling with this task, and writing about too, but I feel like I made more progress with that recent mental wrangling than I had with pen and paper. Though I can't quite (yet) put into words the progress I've made!

Anyway, when people write about "how to think" topics, I sometimes feel left out because there's often an implicit assumption/bias towards wordiness, and the primacy of words in thinking. Unsurprisingly, these writings are written by writers who love words, so there's a bit of a self-selection bias going on. Words sometimes get ascribed near-mystical powers ("In the beginning was the Word...", magic incantations, runes, etc), and they are kind of magical. But I also know from my own inner world that there's a nameless, wordless magic, too. But writers don't write about that as much ("write what you know"), so you don't hear about it, and it doesn't hold as much cultural sway.

So, I try to speak up for the alternatives, encourage people to keep a broader perspective.

[1] In case you're interested in such things, some interesting research: https://news.wisc.edu/that-little-voice-in-your-head-if-you-...

Re: How to think in writing

#125
post #18
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?

I've had many ideas that have been watered down by the editing process that by the time I'm done have lost the impact or connection to the original idea.

Maybe I lack the vocabulary? Writing skills? Maybe I'm self censoring? Maybe it's my perfectionism optimising the local maxima?

I don't know but I do know writing has ruined some, not all, of my ideas.

This also wasn't my main issue above. I was more concerned that the idea you can't have good ideas without writing them down was deeply flawed and a bit gatekeepery.

Re: How to think in writing

#126
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the book Refuse to Choose by the late Barbara Sher. This book helped me fill notebooks where before I would start a notebook and throw it aside after a handful of pages. https://amzn.to/3RSCGov

Just out of curiosity, having looked at the blurb, I'm left wondering, what do you fill notebooks with? Planning projects and what you want to do? From the description, I'd personally think I could be labelled a scanner, but I'm trying to work out if this is a read now or read later book/ At present I'm interested in unpacking more of what's going on in my head and putting it down on paper, and I'm curious to know wh…

The book gives you permission to lean into your scanner personality type. It explains that exploring our ideas is often enough and you can do so in a notebook. Interestingly, I eventually complete many of the projects I write about in my Scanners Daybook. It could be that writing them down somehow solidifies the idea and focuses your mind. Still, writing it down is enough in many cases too and I’m perfectly happy to move on, having explored the idea as deeply as I wanted right now.

Re: How to think in writing

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a great comment. Can you expand on why do you strive to be non-verbal?

(sorry for the wall of text; I guess you asked for it :) Mostly, I feel it slows me down. I'd rather continue on to the next thought than translate the current one into words in my head. It's a semi-conscious decision. I can almost feel the word-making machinery gearing up, but if I race ahead it doesn't have time to grab on. Also, it can be a bit overly-constraining. Sometimes constraints are good, like the article…

Thank you. This is very different from my own experience and I find it fascinating.

My thoughts are mostly verbal. I do hear an inner voice all the time. I cannot easily catch the moment before words start to form. This excessive wordiness often leads me to a negative experience, it’s relatively easy to fall down on a spiral, worrying to much, going over and over about all the things that can go wrong. I just wish I had the ability to stop. I’m looking into meditation because of this.

Re: How to think in writing

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(sorry for the wall of text; I guess you asked for it :) Mostly, I feel it slows me down. I'd rather continue on to the next thought than translate the current one into words in my head. It's a semi-conscious decision. I can almost feel the word-making machinery gearing up, but if I race ahead it doesn't have time to grab on. Also, it can be a bit overly-constraining. Sometimes constraints are good, like the article…

Thank you. This is very different from my own experience and I find it fascinating. My thoughts are mostly verbal. I do hear an inner voice all the time. I cannot easily catch the moment before words start to form. This excessive wordiness often leads me to a negative experience, it’s relatively easy to fall down on a spiral, worrying to much, going over and over about all the things that can go wrong. I just wish I…

I agree, it's a very interesting topic (:

One bit of research that stuck with me is the "split brain" experiments in the 1960s [1][2]. There do seem to be multiple different "personalities" at work, fairly independent of each other, with different strengths and weaknesses. The idea of a non-speaking but more spatial/visual consciousness in the right half of the brain resonates with me. The verbal side does seem to be reluctant to give up control, sometimes[3].

For me, on some low level, I've always wanted to be comfortable in my own skin, so I feel like my various parts can ultimately agree on that goal, and it helps avoid conflict. There is some level of self-trust that's required for wordy-me to give up some control to the bigger, quieter, less predictable me(s).

I definitely feel like I understand what you mean about the spiral of worrying and I too associate that with the wordy/controlling part of myself, somewhat. I wish you luck on trusting yourself(s) and releasing that grip a bit, from time to time.

[1] Some direct footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv4K5aStdU

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

[3] A book that theorizes about broader implications of this stuff (I haven't read it myself) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_His_Emissary

Re: How to think in writing

#129
post #116
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What books can I read to reason like this? EDIT: shortened sentence

This might sound strange but a book on real analysis or topology that walks through proofs could be one.

+1, pg is using a pretty typical argument you see in analysis/topology.

If you want to get to real analysis/topology the typical sequence is

1. Logic and Set theory (recommendation: How to Prove It, Velleman)

2. Linear Algebra (don't have a good recommendation)

3a. Real analysis (recommendation: PMA, Rudin)

3b. Topology (recommendation: Topology, Munkres)

I'm not sure I'd recommend learning math. It's an extremely expensive skill -- though pretty valuable in the software industry. People who go learn math are generally just drawn to it; you can't stop them even if you wanted to.

But be aware, (1) you'll have no one to talk about math with. And (2) you'll be joining a club of all the outcasts in society, including the Unabomber.

Re: How to think in writing

#130
post #64
post #23

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 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…

What books can I read to reason like this? EDIT: shortened sentence

[dead]
Post reply on HN