I’ve suddenly lost interest. Take it up with someone else, sorry.

*seen* the figures. It was about 2 years ago, I’ll do what I can.

Gapminder does pretty much show how raising GDP helps everyone in many ways.

The point about biofuels was not that the fuel made couldn’t meet demands it was that due to land clearance and planting the crops the net effect was to raise carbon emissions 6 fold (for this ‘green fuel’). It was both more damaging to habitats and accelerated carbon emissions.

This is kind of pointless. I’ve the figures.

What you are addressing is the circle of hype that is a side affect of the mainstream media not doing credible journalism and credible analysis. — boethius

What I was actually saying was an international body did a global survey of how environmental issues were being funded and tackled by governing bodies and organizations. I’ll have another look for it later.

I agree with your positive attitude that "we can solve these problems" but I disagree with you framing that environmental groups have been somehow counter productive — boethius

In terms of distribution of funding, they are. The ‘trendy’ causes that get the limelight and funding tend to be the least effective (short term and long term).

If it was a business model for how to get the best results the vast majority of environmental activists would be sacked for wasting both time and money.

This is simply not true. China has had the fastest rise in standard of GDP and living standards (according to our shortsighted metrics), but at large environmental cost.

In the West there was a phase of "getting so rich we can have nice plants around", but this was achieved by simply offshoring all dirty production to mostly China and India and resource extraction to mostly Africa and South America. Furthermore, fracking and tar sands, soil degradation, and insect declines (likely due to poisonous pesticides) are strong clues this phenomenon was short term (lobbies are now strong enough to on-shore environmental destruction), and of course if climate change turns large parts of Europe arid then the recent European net-reforestation doesn't matter in the slightest.

Is your position just denying these environmental costs? — boethius

If they’re taking from poorer countries then it goes with what I say (plus in terms of emissions China is comparatively low per capita compared to western and middle eastern nations. China isn’t exactly a ‘poor’ nation).

I can’t find the paper I was referring to. If I do I’ll post it.

Note: I haven’t seen the film nor do I plan to. I find Micheal Moore quite obnoxious.

People are to blame.

The mass media is driven by a demand to be entertained and to stare at as many car wrecks as possible.

If we’re going to blame someone or something else for our ‘ethical’ position then we’ve admitted to shirking responsibility and essentially avoided making any serious ethical stance.

The function of governments is the same. People have the power, but we’ve always had a hard time directing it and using it with responsibility. More access to information in the current age means we’ve been burden with greater responsibilities than previous generations - the truth is people tend to hate this as they cannot defend their ignorance with any reasonable excuse beyond being idle and lazy.

I’m bored of not being bored.

I thought that’s what I did after that opening.

Basically if what we ‘experience’ - our ‘experiencing’ - is what we call consciousness, how is this any different from our ‘experiencing’ of temperature?

Keep in mind that a molecule has no temperature, our ‘experience’ is expressed in the phenomenon of temperature (feeling hot and cold). In this sense ‘consciousness’ is just a name we give to experiencing something and there is nothing to suggest that ‘heat’ or ‘consciousness’ exists in a molecule - the terms literally have no meaning at that level.

From that principle ‘panpsychism’ is a no goer. Any rational approach would be more willing to accept that the interactions of certain cells leads to ‘consciousness’ at some point. I’m willing to be open to the suggestion of some proto/pre-conscious states leading to the emergence of what we term as ‘consciousness’.

Some people push it too far imo. To me some things I hear online in this area equate to someone saying a Table is the same thing as a Banana, when they say electrons are conscious, by covering up this with claims that it’s just a different kind of conscious. That is what I find to be nonsense in the sense that a Table is just a different kind of Banana ... No! It just isn’t.

It makes sense to fish. If someone is convinced there’s a big fish to catch I’m willing to let them guide me to the right spot.

I’m presenting to commonsense interpretation because I assume there may be more to what Phf meant beyond this.

Note: Everything is a grind ;) sometimes there is a happy reward at the end ... but usually not!

Are we conscious? If so what we call ‘consciousness’ is in fact just ourselves being aware of ourselves as ‘conscious’.

From this basic linguistic assumption panpsychism is a no goer.

The confusion in this general area appears to be an array of what are intrinsically opposing ideas about what ‘panpsychism’ is.

I imagine we all appreciate what temperature is? If so do we all accept that temperature is merely our appreciation of interacting molecules but NOT a property of a single molecule - because temperature is emergent.

I think it makes sense to view consciousness in this way rather than trying to slap some non-applicable ‘temperature’ on a molecule.

We are conscious. A rock isn’t. Just like we have a temperature, but a molecule doesn’t.

:rofl:

stupid "those who don't really understand what we're trying to say"

lazy "those who don't really care what we're trying to say"

mean "those who don't really like what we're trying to say" — Pfhorrest

I don’t see any reason why all three of these cannot be addressed, in parallel, whilst writing.

The first just means to be as clear and concise as you can.

The second means to be interesting rather than giving a dry scholarly block of info.

The third means to address possible dislikes regarding the style, content and views expressed.

As I said initially, it is about ‘interest’ and ‘value’. It is certainly harder to catch the interest of someone who isn’t well versed in the subject matter, previously saw it as unimportant, and generally has a strong dislike for the subject matter. Assuming they’ve at least picked up the book and started to read, even though there is nothing to indicate they would, it is then a matter of presenting as quickly and clearly as possible why they should read further or not (express the value of the topic and build intrigue and interest).

All three, as stated, can be addressed at once. Nothing leads me to believe that only TWO at most can be addressed at a time.

Maybe you meant something else? I’m sure authors focus more or less on each of these three depending on the subject matter and the scope of people they are hoping to reach. If you just meant ‘we can’t please everyone,’ I agree. We can certainly widen our net though and catch the attention of more people if we wish to.

Felt like this lost way a little around the midpoint. The introduction was great and gave a very clear picture of what was to come.

I would, personally, have liked to have seen more written about ‘notionality’ in terms of Goodman (because I’m not very familiar to me). Maybe dropping in Hume’s ‘is or ought’ would’ve be a nice springboard into nominalism and language in general?

I want to support the underdog, and argue that the absolutist intuition that seems — bongo fury

This was where my interest started to seep away a tad. The ‘I’ is always something, I believe (irony I know!), that should be used as sparingly as possible as it distances the reader from the text - I’m not strictly against any personal pronouns, but I think they can shake the reader from their revelry in a subtle way: something that is generally more apparent, imo, during the opening sections of any piece of writing (more a case of ‘where to’ put the ‘I’ than to avoid it at all costs).

"Chair" has no immediate antonym or 'anti-chair' — bongo fury

I don’t wish to go into ‘content’ too much, but I feel like an opportunity was missed here (again, a personal thing, because my interest has focused in this area before). It would’ve been interesting to see a brief comparison of antonym types and where ‘chair,’ or some proposed ‘anti-chair,’ fit in - or not!? As well as a more concise point about language ‘use’ and its ‘practical’ evolution.

Last point for now ...

So 'data' about the one limits the theoretical reach of the other. So 'chair' means 'definite non-settee' and 'settee' means 'definite non-chair'. — bongo fury

I think this could’ve been hammered home more strongly. For me this seemed to be a critical point you were making in ‘defense’ of an ‘absolutist attitude’ (so to speak), but it was left hanging. (Note: I see that you tried to do this in the next paragraph, but I strongly feel that this should’ve been contained within the same paragraph AND less packed-in - given the word limit a near impossible task!)

To sum up, a strong spine of ideas, but an unfitting end - crammed in! The tone of the piece was nice (in comparison to my attempt you surpassed me - mine felt too, er ... whimsical, if you know what I mean).

Thanks for participating! I often find more use in offering critique than receiving it, because it makes me think more clinically about my own writing if I turn my words back on myself - I’ve always found it useful to see my critique of others as essentially a critique of my own shortcomings merely recognised in others (whether they have made the ‘mistakes’ I see or not it helps me understand what I find important and what ‘mistakes’ I am making by association).

As a brief critique of my own piece ...

It seems stretched between two different approaches. The ‘mood’ is sometimes whimsical, but sometimes the tone and word choices really oppose this initial approach.

Example - The poem could probably stay, but a little explanation regarding the point of it being there would likely help the reader guess what where this topic is focusing its attention.

Also, the ‘posterior’ remark is one whimsical point as is the pun on ‘furniture,’ which sets a less than serious tone. This followed by ...

Such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of, and apart from, and managed to extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common yet often unconscious need has expressed itself and perpetuated through multiple cultural iterations. — I like sushi

Which requires a reasonable amount of unpacking compared to the slightly glib introductory sentences - maybe a paragraph that highlights the importance of ‘permanence,’ ‘extraction/memes,’ and how the unconscious mind can direct ‘culture’ (perhaps even a brief attempt to outline what ‘culture’ means in this setting).

After this the most obvious thing that bothers me is the historical narrative structure. It could do with a clearer layout - meaning, to have a paragraph for different conceptual epochs of societal evolution (hunter/gatherer, sedentary living, the shift from oral to written traditions, educational institutes, and modern habits and symbols surrounding the term ‘Chair’.

Lack of planning is apparent and no real use of philosophical jargon for the reader to grapple with and ponder - not necessarily a bad thing, but given the audience it may not have hurt to throw in some clear sign posts.

Here’s more info on some of the false claims: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-michael-moore-new-film-gets-wrong-about-renewable-energy?fbclid=IwAR3ymZTNIFlmrwSAub1hC6KKUM9ERXuRwRn1A_-NS2B2weS8VnSuPx9hW3c

Fusion will probably be with us by the end of the century: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XNcGpQCX8a0

Nice vignette. I would personally like to see where this could be taken in terms of a philosophical piece - feels like a nice intro to some existential/dystopian novel.

Will there be more for us to get our teeth into by Friday?

Oh shiiiit! Completely missed it! Haha

Will have read and comment as soon as I have time :)

Have started another thread for next Friday btw.

The ‘deadline’ obviously isn’t strict. Post as and when, the ‘time’s up!’ was more for me than anyone else (kind of a boot up my own arse rather than delay, followed by delay, and delaying more delays!)

I’ll try and give myself a bit of tough love with this thing and see if I can cut out a decent self-critique.

@Pfhorrest You might find watching the first few minutes of this useful in terms of how to grab people’s attention and offer relatable material: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

Sushi was previously accusing me precisely of “showing off”, so just going into unnecessary depth on everything that I know about every philosopher I mention would just be more of that. I mention the details I think are necessary to mention to make the point I’m making, and no more. If you think there’s an important detail I’m omitting that’s relevant to a given point I’m making, TELL ME what it is. Don’t just tell me I’m missing something and leave me guessing as to what. — Pfhorrest

I’m pretty sure you’re confusing someone else’s words with mine there. I did comment that people don’t want to be told what you know, that was where the ‘high school’ remark came in - different audience type.

My very first comment was directed at the lack of depth. I said something along the lines of focus in on one particular area.

I have studied a lot of philosophy. Not the most that can possibly be studies, I don’t think I know more about it than absolutely everybody else about every facet of it, but enough to have what seem to be novel thoughts about it that take into account lots of priority work. I‘m not looking for cosmetic citations to sprinkle in, that is exactly the kind of useless advice I don’t want. I want any substantive omissions I might have made to be pointed out to me by people whose education may cover bits and pieces mine didn’t. — Pfhorrest

Novel thoughts addressed to laymen probably won’t work because they won’t recognise it as novel. The old ‘show don’t tell’ rule of thumb might be worth considering. A great deal of what you’ve learnt may seem too trivial to mention - for the laymen this is needed, but a very difficult thing to get across because we often neglect to mention the very things the reader needs to understand (a Glossary can help, but the terms would still need to be divulged within the main body of text in a memorable manner).

ALL US news channels are extremely poor places to go for information. They’re all there as entertainment services essentially - reporting actual news is clearly not a priority.

What’s hard to pick out?

The field extending

Sorry, not had time to look yet. Looks like you’re getting feedback anyway.
Maybe I’ll see if I have anything to offer later next week (probably not if I’m totally honest).

Only managed to cut it down to 850 words, but time’s up!

The First Chair

A small
Rickety
Wooden chair

Sits in
The shadowy
Corner.

It is not
For sitting,
Nor ignored.


The ‘First Chair’ here is, funnily enough, a means to furnish a narrative that reveals something intrinsically human about our modes of thinking and how they adapt. No one really thinks there was some ‘First Chair,’ a eureka moment where an inspired carpenter rushed to their workshop to fashion their furniture idea. Such is merely a flight of fancy to highlight how humans have explored the space they’ve found themselves a part of, and apart from, and managed to extract and contain this space in varying states of permanence through which a common yet often unconscious need has expressed itself and perpetuated through multiple cultural iterations.

What would it have been to a human to create the very ‘First Chair’? Not merely to select a spot and sit down, but to actually fashion an item meant for the sole purpose of planting one’s posterior on.

We could imagine a scene, millennia ago, where humans congregated at the day’s end to partake in social relations. They undoubtedly rested in this period, and therefore likely sat rather than stood. Would they have always sat in the same position or order relative to their fellows? Would that day’s achiever have had first choice of spot? Was there a strong social hierarchy involved that was symbolically reflected by each person’s position within the group?

Given the sparse dispersion of prehistoric humans it seems reasonable to assume that different cultural habits would’ve emerged where some tribe’s members attached social value to ‘sitting positions’ as a marker for status, and others would’ve perhaps have been mostly, if not completely, unconcerned with such habits and rituals of daily social life. Such daily social occasions are clearly of high import to human society due to their frequency, with hunters, cooks, shamans, or orators impacting the positioning of such gatherings for practical reasons alone - be it to tend to the fire, prepare a meal, or narrate the days events. It could’ve been that in some cultures elderly story-tellers were highly revered, and had their position - literally and figuratively - ‘elevated’. Perhaps a rock was designated for them to spin their tale from in full view of their captive audience. This ‘rock’ would still not be a ‘chair’ in the sense initially outlined. It would merely be a spot designated so that all the members of the tribe could better see, listen or even contribute*. So, we now have at least the precursor of our imaginary ‘First Chair’.

( *many rituals and gatherings are ‘active’ unlike the modern dynamic of a ‘passive’ audience. For instance during ritual ‘plays’ the ‘audience’ would often join the performance rather than simply observe.)

A nomadic lifestyle would mean prehistoric tribes would likely have only carried what was deemed ‘necessary’. A Chair would probably not have been deemed ‘necessary,’ but soft materials to sit on, and possibly a piece of material for support (be it a tool/weapon of some description), to form a more ‘purposeful’ sitting space: still, not a ‘chair’. To have meaningfully constructed a ‘chair’ would be something quite different.

A chair is a space in-itself, placed within a social space, where a sitting place is ever present within a social space and designated by the position of humans and where they place their arbitrary possessions. A chair is the space, the space is not a part of the chair - it is not a collection of non-fixed parts around any particular space.

What is especially unique about the chair is its ability to be shifted to suit the sitter. A ‘fixed-chair’ is just a seat! A ‘real chair’ transcends space and carries itself, with its space, to suit the whim and will of its owner. It is an instrument that can be used to challenge the authority of other people sitting in the same area, a means of taking centre stage, or even initiating your own circle of interest for others to join. Was any of this in the mind of our imaginary-maker of the First Chair? Why would or wouldn’t it be?

What really solidifies The Chair is sedentary life. A ‘chair’ is necessarily a ground-bound object. In an enclosed space, furnished with practical items spaced out for functionality, a mere stool would’ve been the go to sitting device; being easy to position to suit many daily tasks and craftwork. It seems again the ‘chair’ still has its prominence, its social symbolism, as an object of status designated for use by particular members of the community, yet the degree of privacy changes the symbolic function. In the modern world, publicly, this is certainly seen today, in offices and boardrooms, in courts of law and political meetings (often a person is literally given the title of ‘chair,’ like some overseer of the proceedings about to take place).

Did the maker of the First Chair even reflect upon how the ‘chair’ would change human life? Did they find the task engaging or ridiculous - I mean, it’s just a place to plant your posterior ... isn’t it?

So is this based on a "we're going to fix things once they're impossible to ignore" attitude, where we'll just scrape by on incremental improvements in both our ability to deal with the problems and reduce their causes? — Echarmion

What is based on that? Sorry, you lost me. You mean ‘resources’? We have enough. The data, ALL the data, indicates that raising the standard of living in developing countries help preserve them environment. Lots of money pumped into dealing with climate change and environmental issues does little to nothing - usual due to misinformed activist who understand little and don’t bother to look at the bigger picture.

Money was pumped into biofuels for no good reason. The factual evidence points directly at what I said. Raise GDP so people can be in a position to give shit, have smaller families and have time to focus on more than finding food to eat that day (poverty results in ravaging the immediate environment.

When in comes to developed countries the US needs to step up. Europe has made some steps that are better than nothing.

Yeah, things don’t look peachy, but they never really have. I do believe we’ll get through it and perhaps events will rouse some people and make them understand our vulnerability, or not. The human race is extremely adaptable. It’s a case of whether or not we can prepare and deal with what’s coming. I think we can, but it may be less than pleasant.

I genuinely believe the human race is up to the task. If not, so be it, many will die and it will mark an epoch in humanity’s history.

Yes

It’s worth throwing this out there again: https://www.gapminder.org/

A great resource that helps shed some light on what use disembodied statistics can be.

I’ve haven’t seen it either.

I have looked at previous sets of statistics about how effective the allocation of funds are and the results looked pretty conclusive to me. That is most of the things that get hyped up are seriously inefficient in terms of cost versus benefit and items like eco-plantations for bio fuels caused a six-fold increase in carbon footprints.

The clearest, and most effective means of combating climate change is, quite ironically, what many people keep complaining politicians focus too much on ... that is GDP. As GDP rises so does healthcare, education and access to opportunity, whilst malnutrition, disease and child mortality fall.

And before anyone says it, increasing GDP does necessarily mean inequality will likely go up (almost certainly for the cream at the top). Poverty causes damage to the environment that wealth.

Also, many millionaires and billionaires are the ones able to plug the holes governments would be criticized for trying to fill. This is because the attitude of ‘Why help children in Africa when kids are dying here?’ Will necessarily persist to sone degree or another - after all people have every right to suggest their taxes go toward helping their country/people regardless of what anyone else’s opinion is (and thankfully people still actively argue about this).

I would say both should be considered. — Amity

Well, yeah! I was trying to emphasis the flaw in being overly concerned with the quality of the audience rather than the quality of the writing in this case - wasn’t crystal clear because I got a touch carried away with that post :)

I’m much ‘happier’ to focus on myself as being the ‘lazy,’ ‘mean,’ and ‘stupid’ writer because I can at least attempt to do something about that directly.

Every analogy/aphorism has its opposite.

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ doesn’t hold up against ‘Many hands make light work’. The ‘ulitmate’ truth is context dependent. As a rhetorical means to emphasis a point/position they serve some purpose.

@Baden@Hanover Over time I’ve become convinced you two are either married or a lifelong couple!

Such strong love and respect bubbling under the surface :D

This thread isn’t supposed to be about me or my book, but whatever, if that’s all anyone wants to talk about... — Pfhorrest

I’ve got that, but it’s attached to the subject obviously - but certainly not greatly important to aspects of writing.

I terms of ‘style’ there are, as Frank pointed out, no hard rules (and as Orwell states in his last point - ‘break any or all these rules rather than write something barbarous’). Something I proposed once on another forum was writing the same section in several different styles alongside each other. The initial idea was more of an exercise in writing, but then I started to consider that it may actually serve as use to reader in that it would allow them to compare and contrast how the same thing can be said in many different ways and assess, in their own mind, what combinations work for them and could work for others - in a sense it wasn’t about ‘expressing’ my ideas, but more about the reader having an active interest in seeing how an idea can be expressed in different ways.

In terms of the OP if you have someone who is either very knowledgeable about the subject matter (anti-stupid), extremely studious and persistent (anti-lazy), or extremely charitable and open to interpret your words in various ways (anti-mean). None of these things matter a great deal if there is no interest - the exception being with ‘anti-stupid’ because greater knowledge of a subject would require a degree of active interest.

I would never suggest that there are certain set rules, but there are certainly things to be avoided. I believe the biggest hurdle for any writer is getting past the idea that they are trying to be understood by the reader (I would even say this is the case in philosophical writing too, although for obvious reasons a more subtle problem). I imagine we can all agree that any philosophical work that we’ve read has never been met with our full agreement - this is the KEY point in regards to ‘being understood’. As long as we find use/value in part of what is being expressed THROUGH the authors words that is all that matters to us (of course this isn’t to say we ignore the intent of the author because our interest in what is written is partially driven by the authors declarations of intent - and they have to fulfill them enough to satisfy the readers interpretation of said ‘intent’).

An example of ‘quality’ (in terms of Grice) I like to refer to Kant’s words from The Critique of Pure Reason. Other than his text being a kind of go-to read for people interested in philosophy, there is something brutally honest (‘quality’) he states early on. First the subject matter is clear - he posed a question to the reader (not literally a ‘?’ though).

In the preface to the first edition:

... Abbe Terrasson writes indeed that if we measured the size of a book, not by the number of its pages, but by the time we require for mastering it, then it could be said of many a book that it would be much shorter if it were not so short. On the other hand, if we ask how a wide-ranging whole of speculative knowledge that yet coheres in one principle can best be rendered intelligible, we might be equally justified in saying that many a book would have been clearer if it had not tried to be so very clear. For though the aids to clarity be missed with regard to details, they often distract with regard to the whole. The reader does not arrive quickly enough at an overview of the whole, and bright colours of illustrations hide and distort the articulation and organization of teh system, which, after all, matter most if we want to judge of its unity and solidity.

The main point here I personally have to drill into my head, over and over, is “... many a book would have been clearer if it had not tried to be so very clear.” I’m a whore for tangental thought and often go off-road without realising it (I have a feeling I could be doing it in this very post? Haha!)

My emphasis in a final draft would always be focused on what is compelling to the reader, what is of interest for the reader, and whether or not I’ve managed to express this without stating it explicitly - no one likes to be told what to think and how to think it. People come armed to the project with their own ideas and speculative thoughts ready and willing to bounce them off what they find.

The adeptness of the reader shouldn’t be a concern for the author. The adeptness of the author should be the concern of the author. The hardest thing is understanding who would find use/value in what you’ve written and whether or not you reach them quickly enough before they lose interest (the later is a great problem when the subject of concern is highly technical and requires copious background knowledge beforehand). So-called ‘philosophical works’ that I’ve found easier to digest are usually quite dated (Rousseau and such) and usually they’re focused more on what would now be categorised as ‘Social Sciences’ and/or ‘Psychology’, but there are more modern works that do a very tasty job of creating a fuller, yet less detailed, picture (Russell’s ‘A History of Western Philosophy,’ and more recently something I read the other year that makes use of combining History with Philosophy, Herman’s ‘The Cave and The Light’ which has a stronger narrative form than Russell’s work).

I wouldn’t say people read philosophy for ‘fun,’ but it is an act of self-cultivation that can certainly be uplifting. Because philosophy doesn’t have an ‘end goal,’ per se, it is a difficult subject to frame for the layman so buttressing it up against something else (be this history, motorbikes or keep fit) helps to spread the net wider. The whole scope of philosophy is, in my mind, completely at odds with day-to-day living, but certain magnification of ‘parts’ of philosophy do readily slot into day-to-day living. A project hoping to reach the general public the is infused with a complete overview of the philosophical endeavor is likely doomed to failure unless it can wrap itself around more obvious aspects of human life that connect with human activity in a visceral manner.

Anyway, sorry if I’m being a tangent monster - it’s not my intention! I guess what I believe is that what my ideas are and what I want to say are not necessarily of any particular interest to the reader. My focus, once I have my ideas and what I want to say lain out, then my focus should shift to the reader’s perspective - what they may or may not find fruitful and how turning up or down the contrast here or there would balance the work enough to be an engaging read that the reader can work with rather than the reader being a passive receptacle for what I believe is important and interesting.

I like writing :)

No argument there.

No matter what if you start out with a title like “How to Play the Piano” and the introduction talks exclusively about the the average size of a coconut in Jamaica, which then leads into the first chapter that jumps from the history of piano construction to what is, in the author’s opinion, the perfect size for a piece of paper ... well, I’d probably read on tbh! Haha! That’s though :)

Grice’s maxims of Quality and Relation. Be honest with the reader about what they’re going to read and stay on topic. If the reader is set up for x and reads on looking for it but never finding it then they’ll give s poor review, whilst if they read the first few paragraphs and decide ‘this isn’t for me’ they may still recommend to someone whose interests it may suit.

Basically don’t waste the reader’s time or it could effectively stop what you’ve done reaching an audience that would value it.

I was just fishing for an invitation :(

To get through to an audience, they must be at least one of those three things:
- Smart enough to understand precise technical language
- Patient enough to read through a fortress of clarifications, or
- Charitable enough to look your intended meaning.

Any audience that is none of those things will be unreachable no matter how much you try, and the more effort you put into fortifying against one kind of vice, the more you sacrifice toward your defense against at least one of the other two. — Pfhorrest

I generally disagree with this. The audience is not an audience. A person reads for themselves so the primary things to consider when writing is who will read it and of what use is it to them (if we’re talking about a technically minded reader). This means no flip-flopping (ie. ‘Maybe x or maybe why.?Let’s see.’). The reader wants to know the point from the get go, not to be corralled into a corner for the big reveal.

If the point is established then the reader knows why they should care. They want to know what is of value for them NOT what your ideas and thoughts are (that’s tangental).

Maybe it’s better to think as the reader as ‘selfish’. If there is nothing of apparent interest, nothing they care for, nor any visible value within the first few paragraphs, then they’ll move on - unless they’re paid to read (editors, researchers, scholars, teachers and professors).

In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you'll probably get an A.

It certainly makes more sense in terms of the above. What I think many here, including myself, took it to mean was something quite different as to how it’s set out here.

When writing any technical paper the writer assumes that the reader understands the subject matter well enough so as not to have to literally teach them something like basic arithmetic. The ‘stupid’ as concise writing, the ‘lazy’ as impatient (get to the point) and the ‘mean’ as actively looking for flaws in your position (people read for their own benefit not the writers benefit).

Two of my go to ‘guides’ for all general writing are these:

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html

Grice’s Maxims were made for ‘speech,’ but I’ve found them a sturdy enough guide - especially for evidence based writing. Orwell is simply a master.

Essays and thesis aimed at teachers are quite different beasts - they are being PAID to read your work.

Well, when it comes to the social sciences they don’t conduct anything like the same kind of rigor that physics, chemistry or biology does simply because we’re not allowed to experiment on humans en masse - that’s for the politicians! Haha! ;)

I remember such ideas being parroted in physics classes when writing up experiments - works for that because every, ‘seemingly pointless,’ detail matters if experiments are to be repeated.

It that sense, for scientific writing up scientific experiments, it’s a pretty solid base to start from.

It is the thing we do most besides feeding, sleeping and surviving. — ttjordy

Not for me! That would be a shitty life :)