What part of speech are you? — Statilius

Guess :joke:
What part of speech are you ?

It represents my rebellious finger to a probably longdead English teacher. And others of that ilk.
But curiously enough decided here, to positively join in the game.
Pourquois pas ?
* Gallic shrug *

there may be more to what Phf meant beyond this. — I like sushi

Yes. There is plenty beyond and behind this triangle.

In addition to the 3 'wants' already outlined * there could be hidden interpersonal psychological aspects at play.
Do I hear groans ?

I wonder if the article I linked to above on 'understanding' is useful in any way ?

Just another perspective...

Everything is a grind — I like sushi

A grind is a grind is a grind.
The needle can get stuck in the groove...

* Edit to add Forrest's 3 'wants':

"It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices.
1. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult.
2. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And
3. I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all.— Pfhorrest

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. — I like sushi

Oh for goodness sake, commonsense * would tell you people can be all that and more at any given time.
Depending.

I think I read somewhere* that this commonsense is what grounds Forrest's thinking ? So why no application of it here ? Why this continual grrriiiind...

* I've been lazily skimming and not taking notes.
If my understanding is wrong, I am sure that I will be corrected.

Philosopher chef biased by gustatory lust defends the practice with his reasons. — Nils Loc

Yum.

Yay @Baden :cool:

Although I don't have the writing talent of others here, the sharing of such creativity makes me :love: :party: :starstruck:

On understanding:

I believe one of our strongest desires in life is to feel understood.
We want to know that people see our good intentions and not only get where we’re coming from but get us. — Lori Deschene

https://tinybuddha.com/blog/the-best-thing-to-say-to-someone-who-wont-understand-you/

Si, ma pourquoi ? — Amity

@Statilius
Disappointed mit kein Feedback.
Don't you even want to know what part of speech I am ?
What kind of a divertimento is this anyway, huh ?
:sad:

whatever you do, just make sure it's translated to french — darthbarracuda

:cool:

But why pick on them ?

Biased criteria written by someone trying to maintain the pseudo elitism of professional philosophy. — A Seagull

Interesting take. What makes you think that is the aim of the author ? There is an awareness of the possibility of bias at the end of article.

A light is being shone on that category of philosophy professor who is aiming for a broader audience.
So, the list and explanations centre round the differences in requirements between popular v scholar.

It is pointed out that any professor should be careful and cause no harm by damaging public trust. With a perceived high social and intellectual status it is important to do as they preach. With power comes responsibility and duties.

Questions are posed at the end:

Do these criteria make sense? Are these criteria perhaps biased towards political philosophy/theory and (applied) ethics, the areas in which I work most?

Full disclosure: If these criteria survive the typically-smart-and-sharp discussion on this blog, I’ll use them to assess a particular book in a follow-up post. — Robeyns

There follows 58 substantial, thoughtful comments and replies.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that something has to be sacrificed. This simply isn't a theme in philosophy, — boethius

Exactly this.

I understood your OP.
I discussed your OP.
I disagreed with your OP.

That is all from me.

...supposing that the three difficult audiences we are advised to reach in philosophy, the “stupid, lazy, and mean”, are mutually limiting like the three constraints of the project management triangle. That you can only pick two out of three. Not that they are the same three. — Pfhorrest

That is your interpretation of a particular guidance advice given to students, already discussed and dismissed.

—the three constraints aren’t time, cost, and scope — Pfhorrest

Not in your version perhaps. However, you seem to have changed the original ( no source citation given ) to align with your own 3 'wants' related to the 'stupid, lazy and mean'.

1. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult.
2. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And
3. I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all. — Pfhorrest

The Project Management Triangle I am comparing it to is this:

( unable to copy and paste diagram here )

The original idea (and my modification) are not opposite the principle of charity but complimentary to it: be charitable, but beware that others won’t be. (Also be patient but beware that others won’t be, etc). — Pfhorrest

The original model with explanation here :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle

it's really interesting stuff, with the same anonymity based outrage, flamewars and feuds and so on as happens today on the internet. — boethius

I'd like to read examples. So far I've only got this:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-pamphleteers/

As for Joe Rogan, another first for me.
You live and learn...

I didn't come up with it, I heard it from a historian. — boethius

Who heard it from...
Oooh, I heard it through the grapevine :cool:

And that's all I have to say about that.

(jk, I'll say way more if asked to do so.) — boethius

I bet you have lots more where that came from.
I now want to read Voltaire, badly and bigly.
Wasn't he the one who said:
'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'
He would have loved Trump...and his Tweets.

the merger of the discourse universes has started. — boethius

Is there a theme tune for that ?

Which claim? — boethius

This:

All this to say, we are back to a pamphleteer time — boethius

I don't understand this conclusion. Perhaps I am tired or just stupid...

Ah, it seems you have edited the explanation. It makes more sense now. Thanks.

What do you mean by evidence? — boethius

Support for your claim.

So, public discourse shifting to a non-institutional internet based discussion where people believe what they want to believe and no person or institution is viewed as widely legitimate by actual people (it is only the elite who continue to believe the old institutions mean a tenth of what they used to mean) has massive consequences. — boethius

Yes. For sure, there has been a shift away from institutions to a more open conversation with consequences relating to trust, one of the first things discussed:

The reader has to be able to trust the author that she has done the research needed to be able to write a book on this topic...
...it makes a difference whether the author is also a professor, since the general public tends to grant professors the status of an expert on the topics they are writing about. — Robeyns

I tend to trust any writer who has clearly done the research and cites sources, or further reading, professor or not.
I am glad that philosophy has become more accessible, even with any accompanying problems. People will nearly always believe what they want to believe in any case.

we are back to a pamphleteer time and pamphleteering is a different thing than conventional book publishing, in terms of form, style, resources to work with, promotional activity, as well as level of engagement available. — boethius

Where is the evidence for this pamphleteering philosophy?

Never mind the Triangle.
Here's something about creating a good quality product.
Considering:

...the case of philosophy professors who are writing a book that is explicitly aimed at a broader audience, and who may or may not also have written scholarly articles on the topic of their popular-philosophy book. Which quality-criteria should that book meet?... — Ingrid Robeyns

There follows discussion of 6 criteria:
1. Trust
2. Accessibility
3. Arguments
4. Not for profit
5. Plagiarism
6. Noblesse oblige

https://crookedtimber.org/2013/07/15/what-makes-a-popular-philosophy-book-a-good-book/

Your thoughts ?

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 — I like sushi

Excellent.

If I have a thought that, after a pretty extensive study of philosophy, seems novel to me in light of everything I’m aware of having gone before, how can I know that it is not novel without someone telling me, or somehow being certain that I have read absolutely everything that there is to read? — Pfhorrest

If your 'pretty extensive study of philosophy' included a literature review this should have helped identify any gaps.

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Your goal as stated: to reach an audience of

Primarily people like I was 20 years ago. People interested in philosophy, including those not yet very familiar with it, who I expect will not find what they are looking for in the existing corpus of it, because after a decade of study I still hadn’t. — Pfhorrest

What is it that you think beginners are looking for ?
A general overview in an introduction to philosophy.
A particular author or entry point which grabs their attention, specific interest or concerns.
New to them but not usually to the field of philosophy.
Already plenty on the market. But always room for more.

I think there is a tension between your various aims.
Perhaps this is where the aspect of sacrifice might have to enter the picture. For example, re-evaluate the Scope.
A talk to beginners is not likely to succeed if overwhelmed by a heavy weight corpus - A Codex Quaerentis.

But I see that similar suggestions have been offered before by I like sushi, boethius, jkg20 et al.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7547/the-codex-quaerentis/p2

Why don't you take on board the specific advice:
'Pick your audience rather than trying to cater to all (it won’t work).'

Wow. Still a lot going on here about that book.
So, rather than continue with the Triangle topic, I decided to take a look at the Summary.

http://www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/summary.php

Looks like a lot of time and effort has gone into a wide scope of philosophy. But as to its quality and if it meets the goal of the author, that would seem to be an open question.

The thread title is about a tool which focuses on 3 constraints with regard to a quality product.
Philosophy Writing Management where there are apparent trade offs in 1.Time 2. Cost and 3.Scope.

This is likened to the problems of reaching an audience who are imagined to be 1. Stupid 2. Lazy or 3. Mean.

From what I have read so far, there has been a significant amount of time spent on this writing project of enormous scope.

This can be seen as a cost to the individual/s concerned.
Is it worth it ? Is the book likely to achieve its aims ?
Will you find something 'new' here that is not already in the existing corpus ? Does that matter ?

What matters is the work in progress. It is a learning process.
I applaud the effort and energy required.
If it doesn't reach certain standards of quality, as in citing the sources of study and research, that can and should be remedied.

I think I will leave it there.
It's a bit like Groundhog Day. Fascinating but time consuming.
I hope the end product benefits from all contributions.
Best wishes.

I stand corrected. Thanks.
Boxed in to a 2 dimensional triangle.
More to come on this Triangle.

To return to the topic:

I propose that like the famous Project Management Triangle (“good, fast, cheap — pick any two”), in practice we can at best write for an audience that is any two of these things, but not all three at once. — Pfhorrest

In my response so far, I am trying to 'get' how this analogy works.
First by going through the 3 points and your 'wants' to see the fit, if there is a fit.

Currently, my thoughts are that this is too narrow an outlook. Boxing the writing process in to a one dimensional triangle ?

Bloody excellent. Captures the spirit of the day, the coronavirus way. :mask:

Stretch it out and live without living, or finally live. — praxis

Live without living is not an option. Stretching the imagination; finally live a little - in or out of the bubble, with or without pants.

Love your work. Can I have more...please :cool:

Si, ma pourquoi ?

the problems we commonly recognise in our day to day lives, which remind us that how we conceptualise reality isn’t quite as accurate as we need it to be: — Possibility

Thanks for this. Common problems are a useful place to start.
The attempt to find solutions or comfort in challenging times is one we can all relate to.
The accuracy of what we know or think we know is so relevant right now. Just as it has been historically. Others have taken similar journeys. Why do some find it difficult to follow paths proven to be successful in terms of improving wellbeing?

Joseph Campbell’s book “Hero With a Thousand Faces” is quite a heavy-going book suggesting underlying threads tying all human mythology together, such as Jung’s archetypes. — Possibility

Well. Probably not for me right now. I have taken to light and quirky reading to ease my mental discomfort.

They struggle to acclimatise to this strangeness, but soon recognise that it’s better or more accurate or more ‘real’ than where they came from in particular ways, and begin to feel more ‘at home’ there. — Possibility

Interesting parallels to how people have had to adapt to a new reality in this corona virus crisis. Instead of escaping to work, holidays or visiting friends and family, we are physically at home out of necessity. However, the constraints can bring a new awareness of how being at home with ourselves involves a different way of thinking, being and doing. It can be freeing...

A vice is a negative quality. What else would you call them? — Pfhorrest

We are talking about an imagined audience here, right ? One that you keep in mind as you write. It is a strategy which helps you to write better if you think of them as 'sad, lazy or mean'.

When it comes to real life, reaching out and getting through to an audience, people need first of all to be attracted or seduced by an author or book. Reasons to read.

I, for one, am unlikely to be persuaded or trust someone who thinks in terms of 'vice' with all its moral connotations. Even if that is not what you intend, that is what comes over.

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices.
1. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult.
2. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And
3. I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all. — Pfhorrest

I have numbered the points to help relate to the 3 'vices':

1. The 'stupid' - a derogatory term for those who lack knowledge, experience and who find the subject difficult.
So, the target audience here is who ? Not academic peers but those new to philosophical ideas. There will be different qualities, a broader range to consider: age, comprehension levels.
Why would they be attracted ? What is your goal ?
To explain your new ideas, to share your personal journey, to survey the wonder of the whole field of philosophy?

I would suggest that instead of imagining your audience as 'stupid', you think in terms of an individual. You don't need just to spell things out in terms of difficult concepts, you need to set them on fire. Make philosophy an adventure. Your ideas prompting a desire to know more...

2. To be continued...
I'd like to hear your thoughts on 1. first. Thanks.

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices. — Pfhorrest

First off:
Why do you use the word 'vice' ?

Portolano
I carry wool. Between ports. Following no lines or borders.
Fuzzy gateway. Coasting along. Casting on.
Purls before knits. Cast off. Castaway. Desert island. No map. No sail. Silentio.

I am saying that perhaps it is just not possible to reach the absolute worst audience, and trying to do so requires sacrifices in aspects that would otherwise have helped to reach other segments of the audience. — Pfhorrest

I was trying to emphasis the flaw in being overly concerned with the quality of the audience rather than the quality of the writing — I like sushi

Yes. I think it unfortunate that the description 'stupid, lazy and mean' as used in a particular Guidelines article ( or 'verbally from multiple old professors' ), has taken root and influenced someone's mental state or attitude so much. It seems obsessive...

I am pretty sure I read that 'How to Write a Philosophical Paper' years ago. I didn't take this advice so very seriously. Indeed, it made me smile. Great idea - like imagining the audience naked if you are a bit nervous at public speaking.
It served its purpose at the time and in those circumstances.

However, to continue to think in those 3 terms I would find negative, narrow and generally not helpful.

Why would anyone want to 'reach the absolute worst audience' or even those with 2 out of 3 of the qualities ?

Philosophical paradigm shifts are similarly difficult, in that you need to start where people are at in their lives, and then take them on a journey of discovery, without bogging them down in the technical nature of the process. — Possibility

I’m reminded of Joseph Campbell’s descriptions of the Hero’s Journey. — Possibility

How can you know where readers are at in their lives before you start the philosophical narrative ?
Do you mean in a general sense - what is happening in our society - the challenges involved ? Eternal problems ?

How does it remind you of the Hero's Journey?
I haven't read it, so what would make me want to delve in ?
Is everyone a Hero ?

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. — I like sushi

What ? All three at once ?! :wink:

I enjoyed your mean post - love the lazy passion and getting stupidly carried away.

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. — I like sushi

Yes, that is clear. It depends on context.
Getting the balance right is tricky.
I am not sure that the triangle diagram is included for rhetorical purposes, is it ?
It seems like a model too neat so as to slot an already prepared 3 point idea in place.

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. — I like sushi

I would say both should be considered.

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 sushi

For an exploratory process such as this this thread seems to be, it is necessary to engage the reader from get go.
We don't yet know what might be fruitful.

The audience is a mix of talents and qualities. Various stages of 'at readiness'.
I have found it an enjoyable read. It is a writing project managed not just by one main writer but by everyone who cares to join in.

I’m not just directly applying that same triangle though, but making an analogous one. — Pfhorrest

This thread is about style generally through, not about my book in particular. — Pfhorrest

The old saying that it's not what you say but how you say it is ultimately wrong. It's what you say. There is no good way, for example, to serve a shit sandwich, dress it up as you may. — Hanover

Do you think the substance of the OP and proposal is a 'shit sandwich' ?
Does the analogy work ?

Thanks for further explanation. I guess I disagree with the sacrificial aspect. I think it possible to meet all criteria.

Indeed, writing in depth or fully is necessary once you have concisely addressed the specific problem.

Sure, but it doesn't follow that the way to persuade them is to follow the quoted advice, i.e., to use disclaimers and clarifications to remove all ambiguities. — jamalrob

Whose advice is being quoted here, this ? :

You can write for a stupid and lazy audience, with clear, concise explanations, only if you can assume they’re charitable enough to look for your intended meaning without lengthy disclaimers and clarifications. — Pfhorrest

There is no need for lengthy disclaimers to be able to write clearly and concisely so as to avoid misinterpretation.

I am not sure why the Project Management Triangle has
1. 'Done quickly' as opposed to Done slowly, or carefully.
2. 'Low cost' as opposed to High or Medium cost.

Arguably a 3. 'High Quality', or even a good piece of philosophical writing requires sufficient time, careful reading and reflection.

Perhaps you could explain further ?

Also why the need to choose 2 out of the 3 ?
As in your :
" I propose that like the famous Project Management Triangle (“good, fast, cheap — pick any two”), in practice we can at best write for an audience that is any two of these things, but not all three at once".

Indeed. Considering the opposite view is essential.

From the referenced Guidelines article:

There are a variety of things you might aim to do in your paper. You'll usually begin by putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then you'll go on to do one or two of the following:

Criticize that argument or thesis
Offer counter-examples to the thesis
Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism
Offer reasons to believe the thesis
Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible
Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis
Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true
Revise the thesis in the light of some objection

You'll conclude by stating the upshot of your discussion. (For instance, should we accept the thesis? Should we reject it? Or should we conclude that we don't yet have enough information to decide whether the thesis is true or false?)