I think I found you on Twitter, it's good that you're writing.
I don't want to be a blowhard, but I have some advice.
In software, there's the warning that you should avoid premature abstraction. Well, I think it's even more applicable to writing. Writing should avoid premature abstraction.
I'm pretty sure that when you were writing this post, there was a specific person in your head. The post would have been interesting if it was about that person.
Suppose you have a mundane conversation with an old man, and when you think about the conversation later, it randomly sparks insight into the meaning of life.
The novice writer will take that insight, and write an article on the meaning of life, maybe offhandedly mention the old man at the end.
The advanced writer will write *entirely* about the conversation with the old man, and maybe offhandedly mention the meaning of life at the end.
If you are the ladder, the reader discovers the meaning of life at the same time that you do, because you planned it that way.
When some observations trigger a larger realization, it's tempting to boil down that realization to it's most general essence, and opine about that general principle in your writing.
Don't. Start with a story for each example, and if the connection is obvious, then it will reveal itself. If not, you can describe the insight. But not as the first thing.
Hey Sean! I appreciate the advice! I actually had 3 distinct groups of people in mind when I wrote this but I didn't want to call anyone too directly, haha
I felt that too! Cutting to the heart of the matter seems to require some combination of courage and stupidity. Or perhaps security. Someone might consider themself too classy to air dirty laundry online, but still expect a pointed subtweet to be useful to their audience while maintaining enough plausible deniability to dissuade the submentioned parties from retaliating if they suspect they're the ones being called out.
if you get into those ppl's friend groups and attempt to expand the range of topics & tactfully call out the behavior of the antisocial social person (ASP) you'll notice ppl often reacting positively lol, they just hadn't realized they are being restricted by the ASP
"What’s happening is that there is a trove of people who have a very limited range of possible interaction within which they are perfectly competent and comfortable. Because they are very, very, competent and comfortable within that range they seem every time you look at them from the outside, perfectly social and socially competent. "
Most People Are Idiots, and everyone is an idiot about something, and some people are idiots but they know that they are idiots, and that ALMOST makes them smart. The same applies to social intelligence as well.
Hey guy.
I think I found you on Twitter, it's good that you're writing.
I don't want to be a blowhard, but I have some advice.
In software, there's the warning that you should avoid premature abstraction. Well, I think it's even more applicable to writing. Writing should avoid premature abstraction.
I'm pretty sure that when you were writing this post, there was a specific person in your head. The post would have been interesting if it was about that person.
Suppose you have a mundane conversation with an old man, and when you think about the conversation later, it randomly sparks insight into the meaning of life.
The novice writer will take that insight, and write an article on the meaning of life, maybe offhandedly mention the old man at the end.
The advanced writer will write *entirely* about the conversation with the old man, and maybe offhandedly mention the meaning of life at the end.
If you are the ladder, the reader discovers the meaning of life at the same time that you do, because you planned it that way.
When some observations trigger a larger realization, it's tempting to boil down that realization to it's most general essence, and opine about that general principle in your writing.
Don't. Start with a story for each example, and if the connection is obvious, then it will reveal itself. If not, you can describe the insight. But not as the first thing.
Scott Alexander is good at this. He will explain [why whales don't get cancer](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/) firstly, and make his argument secondly.
Hey Sean! I appreciate the advice! I actually had 3 distinct groups of people in mind when I wrote this but I didn't want to call anyone too directly, haha
I felt that too! Cutting to the heart of the matter seems to require some combination of courage and stupidity. Or perhaps security. Someone might consider themself too classy to air dirty laundry online, but still expect a pointed subtweet to be useful to their audience while maintaining enough plausible deniability to dissuade the submentioned parties from retaliating if they suspect they're the ones being called out.
if you get into those ppl's friend groups and attempt to expand the range of topics & tactfully call out the behavior of the antisocial social person (ASP) you'll notice ppl often reacting positively lol, they just hadn't realized they are being restricted by the ASP
"What’s happening is that there is a trove of people who have a very limited range of possible interaction within which they are perfectly competent and comfortable. Because they are very, very, competent and comfortable within that range they seem every time you look at them from the outside, perfectly social and socially competent. "
Most People Are Idiots, and everyone is an idiot about something, and some people are idiots but they know that they are idiots, and that ALMOST makes them smart. The same applies to social intelligence as well.