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

BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

animalz.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#111

Post by blablabla123 »

blaesus wrote: post #110

Former journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0]. CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively to build an article. Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first": 1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers; 2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a…

It's funny that this has even a name and is so wide-spread. One can also apply this principle to talking and I used to work with people that were obsessed with this style. I totally agree with you that there are pitfalls and probably one could even add more to the list.

Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are actually talking about.

This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#112

Post by blablabla123 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #48
joe_the_user wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One unfortunate thing about the opposite, very polite or "guess" communicator, is that sometimes when one provides all necessary data immediately, that communication is simply not heard. Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.

I'm aware. I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.) I get that there is no single standard that works everyw…

Yes, this is the point. I think there is no single right style of communication. People should be aware of that and especially in the workplace not only encourage that but also base hiring decisions on that. Large groups that regular meet in the workplace and consist only of people talking overly polite might hide issues under the rug. The paradox is that one has the same situations with people talking in this top-down military style because complex problems cannot be communicated this way effectively, they often take patience to listen.

Also indeed there is no correlation between both styles and whether the people talking like that are polite or impolite. Massive impoliteness can also be hidden behind polite phrasing and intonation and vice-versa.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#113

Post by blaesus »

blablabla123 wrote: post #111
blaesus wrote: post #110

Former journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0]. CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively to build an article. Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first": 1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers; 2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a…

It's funny that this has even a name and is so wide-spread. One can also apply this principle to talking and I used to work with people that were obsessed with this style. I totally agree with you that there are pitfalls and probably one could even add more to the list. Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is goin…

Writing formulae are like design patterns. They give us names to think and talk about structures, but too often become dogmata.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#114

Post by webninja »

ryacko wrote: post #102
seidlitz wrote: post #99

Tactics like BLUF are the sad sign of times. We put too much emphasis on hacks, efficiency, and tactics instead of learning and practicing age old rules for good writing or whatever else we need to master.

Often times people like to hear themselves speak and everyone forgets the point of communication.

Communication can also be for relationship and community building

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#115

Post by Buttons840 »

derekp7 wrote: post #3

This is a sore spot for me, someone sending an IM with a quick "Got a minute?", which pulls me out of my thought zone. And once I answer back, I have no idea how long it is going to take for them to tell me what their issue is (could be 30 seconds, or a couple minutes -- I've often waited for 10 minutes, then got up to go for a meeting, and they get upset when I don't answer). I'd much rather them just tell me what p…

I learned this from #python on irc.freenode.org.

"Don't ask to ask, just ask" is their rule, and the frequently repeat it.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#116

Post by jameshart »

dllthomas wrote: post #92
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3096

Was that the wrong link? I was excited that someone had done the digging in language log to find a post that clarifies (I'd bet there's a few), but that one doesn't seem relevant.

It seems to be relevant in that it describes how the common formation of adjectival phrases in English (from which these new transitive formations discussed in the Language Log are a deviation) is based on adjective + prepositional phrase, and our subject sentence follows that pattern - "entitled" is being used as an adjective, and "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.

You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year

You are familiar with this aircraft

Nobody would argue that that second sentence is a 'passive sentence', and it consists - in this analysis - of exactly the same grammatical elements.

But this all just comes down to the fact that 'to be' is a weird verb and it screws with a lot of grammatical assumptions; that the way participial adjectives are used blurs the question of what is the 'verb' in a sentence, and even that the verb 'to entitle' is a strange one in that it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb.

I think we can all agree that it's basically a terrible choice of a sentence if you want to provide a clear example of how to favor the active voice in writing :)

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#117

Post by miguelmota »

It reminds me of the format for git commit messages; where the first line is short and sweet and to the point of what it is, and the content following it is supporting details and more verbose.

It's interesting to see known patterns applied in different environments and named differently but the essence is the same.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#119

Post by foldr »

jameshart wrote: post #116
dllthomas wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that the wrong link? I was excited that someone had done the digging in language log to find a post that clarifies (I'd bet there's a few), but that one doesn't seem relevant.

It seems to be relevant in that it describes how the common formation of adjectival phrases in English (from which these new transitive formations discussed in the Language Log are a deviation) is based on adjective + prepositional phrase, and our subject sentence follows that pattern - "entitled" is being used as an adjective, and "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.…

> "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.

It's an infinitival clause ('to' is not a preposition here).

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#120

Post by dllthomas »

foldr wrote: post #119
jameshart wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be relevant in that it describes how the common formation of adjectival phrases in English (from which these new transitive formations discussed in the Language Log are a deviation) is based on adjective + prepositional phrase, and our subject sentence follows that pattern - "entitled" is being used as an adjective, and "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase.…

> "to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year" is a prepositional phrase. It's an infinitival clause ('to' is not a preposition here).

I've been reading "jump pay" as a compound noun.
Post reply on HN