Writing and Speaking • Hacker News Board

Re: Writing and Speaking

#231

Post by paulsutter » Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 6:44 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #201

pg wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were driven by a disinterested search for the truth, your comments would not have the tone they do.

I never claimed to be driven by a disinterested search for truth. I said I am intellectually galled. I find lazy thinking to be extremely irritating.

It's fascinating that the same essay makes you intellectually galled, and me intellectually stimulated. I don't think it's because one of us is right and the other wrong. And I'm skeptical that lazy thinking is the source of the conflict.

Take the quote "Having good ideas is most of writing well."

My reaction was "that's an interesting belief", and I stopped to think about it. It seemed plausible, and that was enough for me to move along. I knew he was setting up an intuitive frame in order to make a larger point. I didn't bother to agree or disagree with the statement because I knew I could circle back to it if it was crucial to his major point. Even after all this debate, I feel no need to agree or disagree with the statement. I'm perfectly satisfied feeling that it is plausible.

Now I'm going to stick my neck out, because this is the part I'm trying to understand:

Perhaps you view statements like that as an attempted declaration of scientific fact. From that perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to respond "Woah cowboy, slow down! Either break this down for me or at least cite some references here, because that's a provocative statement". I bet that if pg had also written an essay on "Ideas and Writing Well", even that is a citation you would find useful, it wouldn't have to come from Aristotle.

Apologies if I am guessing wrong here, but if that is the way you view it: you are not wrong, I am not wrong, and pg is not wrong. We're just viewing the same statement differently.

I'm willing to bet that this is a subject pg has considered deeply. And from his perspective, I'm certain his statement is true. The criteria for "good writing" is definitely an opinion, and his is probably a well considered opinion. Your opinion could even be diametrically opposed, and that wouldn't make either of you wrong. It would just mean that you disagree. And that's perfectly OK.

It was your comment about the lack of references that hit me like a punch in the nose. From my perspective, that seemed to come way out of left field. But in retrospect, it could be a totally valid question when viewed from another perspective.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#232

Post by ahoyhere » Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 1:44 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #215

ahoyhere wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laughter is social lubricant. There is lots of research on this: people laugh more in groups; inferiors laugh more than superiors; nervous people laugh at themselves, and laughing at yourself is also kind of way to efface yourself and show that you are part of a group. If only HNers would read basic Intro to Psychology books, there would not be so many chimes of "I noticed this too" and, hopefully, more discussion of…

What's wrong with noticing things?

Nothing at all.

It's just that when you see comments like these -- "I noticed that" or "me too" -- you so rarely see "and then I wondered why, and here's what I found…" as a follow-up.

The conversation is poorer because "I noticed" is where it ends.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#233

Post by ahoyhere » Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 1:57 AM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #231

ahoyhere wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never claimed to be driven by a disinterested search for truth. I said I am intellectually galled. I find lazy thinking to be extremely irritating.

It's fascinating that the same essay makes you intellectually galled, and me intellectually stimulated. I don't think it's because one of us is right and the other wrong. And I'm skeptical that lazy thinking is the source of the conflict. Take the quote "Having good ideas is most of writing well." My reaction was "that's an interesting belief", and I stopped to think about it. It seemed plausible, and that was enough…

Here are my thoughts:

Reading your comment is a totally superior experience to reading pg's essay. You explained your viewpoint. You reasoned it out. You backed up your views. You didn't make seemingly unconnected bald statements with a single sentence and then moved on.

If pg has thought deeply on the subject, it's impossible to tell. He doesn't "show his work" at all. He doesn't explain how he came to a conclusion (unless you consider one speaker ever that he referenced), or give illustrations. He certainly doesn't try to bring you around to his way of thinking.

He also doesn't use words like "It seemed" or "I believe" or "the way I see it," or "from my perspective." Certainly there is no indication that he ever questions his own motives or beliefs.

BTW - when I wrote "references," I wasn't necessarily talking about research (except when I specifically said studies or research). I'm talking about evidence of thought process, justification, reasoning, any kind of investigation, internal or otherwise.

Public speaking didn't arise out of the late part of the 20th century, it's a tradition thousands of years old with thousands of years of opinions on it. It's extremely facile to simply declare it to be the bastard stepchild of writing (of course speaking came first), with little more value than appealing to the "mob" of the audience, without even acknowledging or disputing this history.

The whole essay is not argued at all, but a collection of bald statements (which I list above) which must be swallowed wholesale in order to continue reading.

It's "pure" exercise in a priori reasoning (although we don't see any reasoning).

But whether speaking has value or not is not something that can possibly yield to a priori.

Scott Berkun puts it more eloquently than me:

http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2012/on-writing-vs-speaking/

The thing that pisses me off isn't that I believe we're talking about facts -- although, of course, that's the way pg states things because he (mis)uses classic style -- but the sheer lack of argument. The whole essay hinges on several statements which are presumed to be true, and without which, none of the other points make sense. Begging the question in action.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#234

Post by rshe » Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 3:05 AM UTC

madhadron wrote: post #133

rshe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be particular to the field of biology, but I find biology talks to be much more interesting than papers. One contributing factor is that important papers in Science and Nature are subject to stringent length limitations. This limits the writer's ability to unfurl a coherent narrative. Oftentimes, years of research are condensed into a handful of figures and sentences that cannot convey the more subtle points…

As someone who's passed as a native in physics, biology, compsci, and math, this is peculiar to biology, or rather to the culture of academic biology today, where the laurels go to those who can make the biggest mountain out of their molehill of data. Thus you have grand assertions, followed by a slide with a dozen gels, half of which are blurred, which show that under some very strenuous assumptions and some very pa…

I have to disagree with your characterization of modern biology. I was more trying to make a point on the information value of talks versus papers. Your comment reminds me a frequent quarrel at my school on how math is superior to physics, which is superior to bio/chem. Of course everything in the humanities is "worthless." I don't what to attribute to you beliefs that you don't hold, but this is the undercurrent that I'm feeling: http://xkcd.com/435/

I do think there are many great papers coming out in biology today, and scientists are still fully capable of writing insightful books and essays for the general public. I can see why some papers feel like a collection of trivial data, but trust me, beautiful and convincing data is well appreciated. While exaggeration of results is also a problem, we are trained to read all papers with a critical eye. There are always good papers and bad, but here are some links to ones that I think are good:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6715/full/397168a... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7058/abs/nature03... http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(09)00963-5 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5928/807.abstract (Hopefully you'll be able to access these - if not, that's a whole nother problem about academic papers)

I won't comment too much on your generalizations, but I want to note that it is hard to predict a priori which findings from academic research will become useful for industry later on. I think you'll find defunding academic biology to be a pretty unpopular viewpoint. Perhaps you could elaborate on what serious biological research means? (Plus, I'd say paying graduate students 30k/yr is a pretty efficient labor force)

Re: Writing and Speaking

#235

Post by Dbase » Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 10:08 AM UTC

I think this post is simply a justification for being better at writing than speaking. Speaking is a clearer form of conveying ideas than writing. Speaking is also the most ancient & more evolved form of conveying ideas. Another way to look at it is via personality traits. Good speakers are usually extroverts, hacker types are mostly introverts which is why they find it easy to communicate with themselves than others, let alone an audience. Which is why they are better at writing words or code but not that good at public speaking. I think that there is no relation between being smart & being a better speaker, so it's wrong to call better speakers dumb. Its only a question of your personality type and that determines whether you will be a good speaker or bad one. Nothing to do with being smart.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#236

Post by niborsilliw » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 9:22 AM UTC

I am currently trying to get my speaking chops together in anticipation of launching our game changing, earth moving start up by following the course that Conor Neil has put together. http://www.conorneill.com/ Conor has also offered our budding Barcelona Internet Startup Community a series of workshops that have served a couple of purposes 1. to make us better speakers and 2. to unite us as a community. He's terrific. So far so good.

In my life as director of commercials I have often been required to speak to groups of people. Whether it's a conference call or the "pre pro" meeting since I be "the man" I have to deliver the goods and coming from the formerly reticent Portland, Oregon I was not exactly hard wired to be a good speaker. I also occasionally have to speak at conferences which is an entirely different experience.

One of my tricks for a small group is to try to get everybody to sit as closely together as possible and I often try sit between "the client" and whoever is my big buddy at the agency. Usually it's the producer or the creative director or the writer. I'm trying to keep this as warm, cozy and informal as possible. We're all one big happy family. Usually it works. Production wise we always have our act together. Mood books. Animatics. Examples from other better, films. Really good casting and the performances to back them up. And by nature I use a lot of goofy asides (thankfully I'm a comedy director) and I keep it moving at a good clip. My thinking is that if I talk fast nobody will actually notice that I have completely taken over the concept and returned it to the great idea the 22 year intern had in the shower 18 months ago before it was reduce to meaningless drivel by the focus group/committee/in law review paradigm. We'll shoot both ways is swell way to get around a conflict. Mostly it works... they usually rub out any creativity in the editing process but at least we try. So small is beautiful. I'm your buddy. "See you in Buenos Aires!" Works. And to tell you the truth... it's not an act. It's me. I'm a natural cub scout activities director. Mostly I like people. And oddly over the years I have actually become a real chatter box... which is quite a feat for a Northwestern guy where old schoolers are prone maybe uttering a guttural groan every six months or so.

The bigger shows are different. I write them. I use marital... sorry visual aids and make it as tight as possible. I always like to have a dry side and a wet side. The dry side is the scripted part which I practice a lot and is hopefully as tight as a drum... ok with lots of incongruous hopefully funny asides... and the wet side is where I make some poor schlub from the audience come up and bite creamed corn or something.

I went to Conor's first meet up and was impressed but... it seemed to me that he was in many ways pretty much just working the room. He was selling. There was a predictable rhythm to it. Ice breaker. Intrigue, involve, challenge. Repeat. Good night. We discussed this over emails and for the next session he completely changed his focus... which was commendable and interesting and much more honest and compelling.

So my take away from this current focus on public speaking is that I really don't like the super pros. The folks that could hold an audience in rapt attention reading a phone book. It's an act and when you actually see through the smoke and mirrors... there is usually not much there. It's like the "The Deer Hunter." I left the theater in a daze... and then about 4 minutes later I decided I had no idea what the film was about.

I watch the TED talks all the time. Here's a favorite. http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_crea... Sir Ken is funny. Informal. Self effacing and emotionally and intellectually compelling... absolutely spot on and I will follow him to hell.

The passionate, inspirational, self important, arm waving salesmen... forgetdaboutit.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#237

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 9:24 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Writing and Speaking

#238

Post by thomasjoulin » Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 11:07 AM UTC

I thought pg talk was amazing and inspiring. Really good speaker in my opinion, this didn't seem like he was reading. I think the only problem are the obvious and loud "huuuuuh", but that's something he can train himself not to say. I wouldn't qualify him as a bad speaker. Quite the contrary

Re: Writing and Speaking

#239

Post by beza1e1 » Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 10:41 AM UTC

beza1e1 wrote: post #23

Speaking is not about information transmission. Speaking is to make people do something. For example, Steve Jobs keynotes made you go to the Apple Online Store and preorder the latest products; Bret Victor in his "Inventing on Principle" talk makes you rant about the current state of IDEs. The effect of a talk disappears rapidly after the speaker has left the stage. In contrast, a written text stays.

Expanded into blog post: http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/writing_speaking.html

Re: Writing and Speaking

#240

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 9:17 PM UTC

wormwood28 wrote: post #218

paulsutter wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think there is more to this. My guess - small changes in the way you use words may reduce the chance that you are badly misunderstood by some people. I love your essays, but our personalities are probably similar. My friend Mike, who was always a word man when I was an idea guy, has a reaction to your writing that is so similar to hers that at first I was sure he was the author of her post. When I read her p…

I'd guess it's largely the nature of the Essay as a literary form. Some of the criticisms here are very reminiscent of those Arnauld and Pascal made regarding Montaigne's method and rigor.

[deleted]