"It’s puzzling that there isn’t a stronger tradition of “user testing” for writing. Occasionally I’ll give a friend something I’ve written and implore them, “Please circle anything that makes you feel even slightly unhappy for any reason whatsoever.” Then I’ll ask them what they were thinking at each point. There are always “bugs” everywhere: Belaboring of obvious points, ambiguous phrases, unnecessary antagonistic language, tangential arguments about controversial things that don’t matter, etc."<p>This is called an editor. They're invaluable!
Some scattered thoughts on this article (which I enjoyed):<p>1. I often find myself <i>purposely</i> presenting caricatured arguments for different (often extreme) viewpoints. This is useful since it works with human nature to bring out objections. This is especially useful when you're presenting views to people who might feel uncomfortable disagreeing with you. If you present a caricatured argument, people will feel more comfortable bringing up objections, and you can get closer to the truth faster (esp. in management contexts).<p>2. I often find perfectly hedged essays (with every minor caveat and edge case identified and handled) really boring and tedious to read. E.g., it is more concise and to the point to sometimes just write "I believe that X", as opposed to spending several more paragraphs to explain more fully, "I believe that X, but of course in cases Y, Z, and W, there might be exceptions" (assuming Y, Z, and W are actually obvious).<p>This is why academic papers can sometimes be really boring to read: writers are forced by convention to explore tedious caveats and to signal their epistemic humility for pages and pages, but it doesn't really add any value to the readers.[1][2]<p>[1] Of course, sometimes it's useful to explore the nuances of an argument, and to double-check that even "obvious" objections really don't hold water. But often this leads to boring essays, and you should avoid doing this in a lot of circumstances just to avoid negative comments.<p>[2] But do you see that [1] is an example of what I mean above? =] It's arguably an obvious hedge that doesn't really add anything to my point.
As an Online Person for nearly 40 years, many things in this resonated with me. The "engagement has a sample bias" part seems particularly relevant, and neither OP nor I are the first to notice that people are more likely to speak up in disagreement than in support.<p>Overall, I think many of the ills that OP describes come back to the same thing: writing on the internet is mostly more like public speaking than normal conversation. This is especially true for blogs, but even in places like Twitter or here there's a division between you as writer and many strangers as readers. That's not how people normally operate IRL. In-person discussions are usually among only a few people, up to maybe a few dozen in a big conference room, and they're more interactive. One-way speaking in front of hundreds or thousand of strangers is something many people never do, and many more consider it the most anxiety-creating thing they've done. But here online, we all do it all the time, and we all learn to do it in a very particular way - using the voice of authority (or the "high school debate club" voice) instead of our normal conversational voice, anticipating disagreement or even hostility (see above about sample bias), and so on. The more antagonistic the forums you've been in, the more you'll adopt that style yourself. Just look around right here. It wouldn't be <i>at all</i> surprising to see examples outing themselves in replies to this very comment. And yes, I'm exemplifying that tendency myself. It's deliberate, so no need to call me a hypocrite for it.<p>I've been thinking about ways to foster a more "living-room-like" environment without these malign effects, but haven't really come up with anything. Maybe the so-called metaverse - for all the other issues with that concepts - will at least feel real enough that people will feel inclined to interact as their normal selves instead of as their current (and generally not so congenial) internet selves.
I found this to be very insightful. A good read for anyone wanting to do better at putting their ideas out there (aka me). Sometimes I consider not reading any comments / online feedback, but I think this article makes a good argument for the value that online feedback can provide if your goal is to effectively reach people. But then I also see some benefit of ignoring that and maintaining artistic or value integrity. Sometimes people produce amazing new things because they ignore what others tell them. Or maybe despite it? I don't know, just gets me thinking...