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

Writing is thinking

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: Writing is thinking

#21

Post by slightwinder »

carlesfe wrote: post #10

While I agree with the underlying message, "writing is thinking" is only circumstantially correct. It wasn’t always like this. We learned to think by writing only after writing became cheap. Yes, we’ve trained our brains to develop ideas by editing raw thoughts on paper, but it is just one of the possible methods. I have read a lot of late 18th, 19th and early 20th century books and diaries, and it is plainly clear t…

> We learned to think by writing only after writing became cheap. Yes, we’ve trained our brains to develop ideas by editing raw thoughts on paper, but it is just one of the possible methods.

I think you have some misconceptions here. First, the article does not claim that thinking is writing, and especially not that there is no thinking without writing. They only explain that writing is supporting and driving a higher quality of thinking.

Second, paper isn't the only medium to write. And writing isn't the only persistent form of communication to support and improve thinking.

> Thinking used to be detached from writing.

It still is.

Re: Writing is thinking

#22

Post by markhahn »

We think by association. We can sometimes tighten up the process when there's a formal logical framework that applies, but it's not as natural or automatic.

What writing changes is that in words, you have to make it explicit how one thing leads to another. Partly, that's just due to the imposition of sentence structure.

Ironically, this is precisely the crazy thing about Trumpspeech: it's just associations - vibe-chaining if you will.

Re: Writing is thinking

#23

Post by tl »

carlesfe wrote: post #10

While I agree with the underlying message, "writing is thinking" is only circumstantially correct. It wasn’t always like this. We learned to think by writing only after writing became cheap. Yes, we’ve trained our brains to develop ideas by editing raw thoughts on paper, but it is just one of the possible methods. I have read a lot of late 18th, 19th and early 20th century books and diaries, and it is plainly clear t…

As a similar but distinct theory, you might find Larry McEnerney‘s work interesting. Writing has two classes: a writing for thought and a writing for communication. Larry uses horizontal and vertical spatial metaphors here. Writing for thought still pre-dates cheap paper (and Socrates), but is mostly a private act. Writing for communication is a broad enough brush to span fiction and journalism. For his part, Larry teaches classes aimed at thesis writers who struggle to bridge the divide of using writing to think about a problem to conveying their answer in a paper.

Re: Writing is thinking

#24

Post by allturtles »

carlesfe wrote: post #10

While I agree with the underlying message, "writing is thinking" is only circumstantially correct. It wasn’t always like this. We learned to think by writing only after writing became cheap. Yes, we’ve trained our brains to develop ideas by editing raw thoughts on paper, but it is just one of the possible methods. I have read a lot of late 18th, 19th and early 20th century books and diaries, and it is plainly clear t…

Before paper became cheap, wax or wooden tablets were used for ephemeral writing.

> I have read a lot of late 18th, 19th and early 20th century books and diaries, and it is plainly clear that writers such as Tolstói, Zweig, Goethe and others developed full books in their mind first, then wrote them from cover to cover in 20-30 days.

I seriously doubt that it was ever common for writers to compose a whole book in their head and then write it down. Maybe some writers with exceptional memories did this. But there's a whole book about how War and Peace was written based on textual evidence that wouldn't exist if it had simply popped out of Tolstoy's head fully formed: https://www.amazon.com/Tolstoy-Genesis-Peace-Kathryn-Feuer/d....

Re: Writing is thinking

#28

Post by cubefox »

This is an important point:

> For example, LLMs can aid in improving readability and grammar, which might be particularly useful to those for which English is not their first language.

I don't know whether this has been empirically confirmed, but I have the strong belief that a manuscript with poor grammar, by a non-native English speaker, has a much higher probability of being rejected than the same manuscript but copyedited by something like Grammerly or a SOTA LLM.

Ideally writing style should matter much less than the quality of the research, but reviewers are not just influenced by objective criteria but, unconsciously, also by vibes, which includes things like writing style and even formatting.

Re: Writing is thinking

#29

Post by motohagiography »

the act of writing takes raw experience, puts it in front of the eyes, and then filters it back through your critical faculties so you can refine and reason about it. the iteration makes it higher quality thought.

making writing valuable is another skill (see this evergreen lecture from the university of chicago leadership lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFwVf5a3pZM)

however when I encounter people with low written or verbal acuity, they have to survive somehow, so it's wise to observe what tools of cunning they tend to reach for.

Re: Writing is thinking

#30

Post by ysofunny »

jll29 wrote: post #12

To add: Reading is also thinking (ideally). And because reading and writing are thinking we must not delegate it to AI models as a matter of habit. In particular, during students' formative time, they need to learn how to think in reading and writing mode - reflecting, note-taking etc. Compare it with the use of a pocket calculator: once you have a solid grounding, it's fine to use electronic calculators, but first o…

it's like those kids will live in the future, where there's advanced AI

I think we should trust children enought that they'll also figure out a crazy changing technological world.

on the other hand, internet millenial ideals are fast dying. the digital dream of cultural and mediatic abundance is turning into a nightmare of redundant content as information wars saturate the figurative airwaves

Post reply on HN