A reader comment prompts a quick post. It should not matter if one is "anonymous" or not: ideas should stand or fall on their own, regardless of the identity or credential of the one who speaks them
As someone who for many years wrote technical articles (and indeed had my own technical column in several cases) for automotive magazines, the issue of simplification was one I dealt with frequently. The reason I was hired by a number of different magazines (some of whom were in direct competition) was that I was good at simplifying the technical subject matter without misleading the readers. Mostly I did that by keeping to basics, by not getting too deep into the tech. The exception would be if a deeper level understanding of the tech involved, was necessary to understanding the subject I was discussing. I find you do a similar thing, though the constraints of print publication, and the state of the internet at the time, left less room for me to directly offer the reader links, and also required me to fit my thoughts into a specific number of words, which you thankfully do not suffer from.
I would never dumb down an idea, I would just not get too deep into it, if I felt doing so would interfere with my delivering on the whole of the subject. Many times folks would email me and ask for reference materials or sources, to get deeper into the tech. I always felt this was a good thing, that this was the way it worked best. Those who cared enough and put out the effort (minimal as it was) to try to find out more, were rewarded with a deeper understanding.
I've felt (ever since grade school in fact) that the best way to learn is to do your own research. So I would share some basics on the technical points, share my ideas on the overall subject, and then let those that wanted to, find out more on their own. My position as a writer was that I am just a guy who has ideas on a subject based on his experience and his study of the subject. That does not make me God, or omnipotent, so someone may come up with a better solution than me. I'm not writing to tell folks THE way, but to get them to study the subject, consider my ideas on it, and then find their own path. In fact I often saw my work as simply a clue for them to follow to find out more.
Having read this article (and others of yours) and discovered the parallels between my approach as a writer and both yours and Ethical Skeptic, I feel like I am in some pretty heady company. It is refreshing to find people on the net who don't respond to a complex-compound sentence by saying TLDR. Thanks!
CC, thanks so much for the vote of confidence in your article!
Regarding the commenter. I disagree with his/her following points:
1. Once one adopts a religious stance as a child, they can never do any further inquiry or doubt any aspect of it ever again - otherwise they are 'not of us'? This is wrong as a line of thinking, actually barbaric. As a strategy, I am sure the 'Anti-Christ' loves this approach, as it runs off more people than it attracts.
2. 1 John 2:18/19 was talking about the Anti-Christ, not people who think and research. No, you are wrong, I am not an/the Anti-Christ. Did you actually read the passage?
3. I have never said that I cannot write at a conversant level, you just made that up because it was convenient to your lie.
4. I never diss my readers. Instead I have the respect for them of not dumbing things down to where I am white-lying, in order to manipulate/gain understanding on their part...
Just as you did in these four points. Your post was a form of falsehood and disrespect in order to gain favor and false understanding - activity which I refuse to participate in with my readers. I call them my 'folleagues', because they can comprehend this - and they are harmed by the sea-lioning of the pretender. It is a term of respect and reasoned commitment to serve.
But technical and specification/legal writing is different from colloquial writing. These are complex subjects I address - and I do this professionally as well. The reason we have the wool pulled over our eyes, is precisely because everyone wants critically incorrect parables and pablum fed to them. Leaving them ill equipped when the wolf arrives wearing fuzzy-wool pretense.
Oh boy! I am digging myself a hole. I'm going to stop trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about and hold my head in shame. Living in the central-ish valley myself (far east bay as they call it here) I should know, but clearly I don't.
As someone who for many years wrote technical articles (and indeed had my own technical column in several cases) for automotive magazines, the issue of simplification was one I dealt with frequently. The reason I was hired by a number of different magazines (some of whom were in direct competition) was that I was good at simplifying the technical subject matter without misleading the readers. Mostly I did that by keeping to basics, by not getting too deep into the tech. The exception would be if a deeper level understanding of the tech involved, was necessary to understanding the subject I was discussing. I find you do a similar thing, though the constraints of print publication, and the state of the internet at the time, left less room for me to directly offer the reader links, and also required me to fit my thoughts into a specific number of words, which you thankfully do not suffer from.
I would never dumb down an idea, I would just not get too deep into it, if I felt doing so would interfere with my delivering on the whole of the subject. Many times folks would email me and ask for reference materials or sources, to get deeper into the tech. I always felt this was a good thing, that this was the way it worked best. Those who cared enough and put out the effort (minimal as it was) to try to find out more, were rewarded with a deeper understanding.
I've felt (ever since grade school in fact) that the best way to learn is to do your own research. So I would share some basics on the technical points, share my ideas on the overall subject, and then let those that wanted to, find out more on their own. My position as a writer was that I am just a guy who has ideas on a subject based on his experience and his study of the subject. That does not make me God, or omnipotent, so someone may come up with a better solution than me. I'm not writing to tell folks THE way, but to get them to study the subject, consider my ideas on it, and then find their own path. In fact I often saw my work as simply a clue for them to follow to find out more.
Having read this article (and others of yours) and discovered the parallels between my approach as a writer and both yours and Ethical Skeptic, I feel like I am in some pretty heady company. It is refreshing to find people on the net who don't respond to a complex-compound sentence by saying TLDR. Thanks!
CC, thanks so much for the vote of confidence in your article!
Regarding the commenter. I disagree with his/her following points:
1. Once one adopts a religious stance as a child, they can never do any further inquiry or doubt any aspect of it ever again - otherwise they are 'not of us'? This is wrong as a line of thinking, actually barbaric. As a strategy, I am sure the 'Anti-Christ' loves this approach, as it runs off more people than it attracts.
2. 1 John 2:18/19 was talking about the Anti-Christ, not people who think and research. No, you are wrong, I am not an/the Anti-Christ. Did you actually read the passage?
3. I have never said that I cannot write at a conversant level, you just made that up because it was convenient to your lie.
4. I never diss my readers. Instead I have the respect for them of not dumbing things down to where I am white-lying, in order to manipulate/gain understanding on their part...
Just as you did in these four points. Your post was a form of falsehood and disrespect in order to gain favor and false understanding - activity which I refuse to participate in with my readers. I call them my 'folleagues', because they can comprehend this - and they are harmed by the sea-lioning of the pretender. It is a term of respect and reasoned commitment to serve.
But technical and specification/legal writing is different from colloquial writing. These are complex subjects I address - and I do this professionally as well. The reason we have the wool pulled over our eyes, is precisely because everyone wants critically incorrect parables and pablum fed to them. Leaving them ill equipped when the wolf arrives wearing fuzzy-wool pretense.
EVG
TES
Those are definitely cherry trees because I live near them also
Nope! But I love cherry trees!
I stand corrected! Must be almond. The only other major fruit tree that I know of that grows in the central valley.
strike two!
Oh boy! I am digging myself a hole. I'm going to stop trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about and hold my head in shame. Living in the central-ish valley myself (far east bay as they call it here) I should know, but clearly I don't.