Hey, you come across to me as an interesting, intelligent person with things to say. Things that I am interested in hearing. However, you tend to use a lot of words, and it seems to me that what you're trying to say often gets tangled up in the words you're using. I was wondering if you would be interested in a thought/expression experiment, which is to spend one month, or perhaps just the remainder of March, trying to express yourself using the fewest words possible?
Just a thought, no hard feelings if you don't want to try it.
Oh dear, that sounds like it might be a good challenge for me too. Or is it? I often feel like I sometimes get way too wordy, I wonder if that's just me or whether other people feel the same about that?
The reason is, sometimes I go off writing something, and a lot of tangential thoughts come out too. I usually read back my post to check it and fix mistakes, but if I already spent a lot of time writing a post (and this can be a lot of time), I don't always feel like cutting large bits out and make it shorter, but hope that the people reading it will figure it out.
I have no idea if it's actually bad or hard to read or anything. But if it is, I should probably try harder because I don't feel it's fair to leave the burden to sort it out on the reader. After all, it's one person's effort for me to fix it, but it is over 20-50 people's effort to read it.
One thing I could see working for myself is--paradoxically--making the post forms larger. Especially the "Quick Reply" box is only 7 lines long so I don't always see how large my post is. If it was larger I would see "hey what I'm trying to say shouldn't require that much paragraphs or text". (The regular reply box is ~12 lines long, but you can drag the bottom line to make it bigger) Is this a good idea? I'd make them 20-25 lines by default maybe?
Another trick I find that works well is, reading back my last sentence, or the entire post, when fixing mistakes or considering stylistic alternatives, I try to go for the shortest versions possible. I used to think extremely terse sentences would also be hard to understand and there might be a "sweet spot", but in fact as long as the short terse sentence is correct, it is almost always better than a longer lingering one.
OTOH if people think "don't worry about it, Trip, you're not too wordy" then I'd love to hear that too :)
I think lots of people have the same problem you are describing, Trip. I don't really think it's a problem though. While it's true that you post long things quite often, I don't think your ideas trip over themselves (that WHN who said that, no t me. HONEST! :oops: ). Which I think is what Nigel is talking about in regards to Nolodemiel. I THINK.
In short, I don't think you are too wordy, Trip, and I also don't believe it is necessary to expand the text boxes for posts. I mean, if you can't see the beginning of your post in the quick reply box, it's not really a "Quick reply", so if it bothers you, you might have wanted to go ahead and hit reply, yeah? Personally, I don't use the quick reply very often anyway, because it's a much bigger pain to quote with it, and I am occasionally forgetful of the format tags.
On the other hand, I do think that seeing more of what you are writing might be an incentive to be more concise for people, so maybe it's worth giving a shot anyway?
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 05:34:51 PM
Hey, you come across to me as an interesting, intelligent person with things to say. Things that I am interested in hearing. However, you tend to use a lot of words, and it seems to me that what you're trying to say often gets tangled up in the words you're using. I was wondering if you would be interested in a thought/expression experiment, which is to spend one month, or perhaps just the remainder of March, trying to express yourself using the fewest words possible?
Just a thought, no hard feelings if you don't want to try it.
It's a "when I'm running hot" sorta dealie. "Aspie" probably wasn't clinical, but it prolly wasn't far off. Most of my posts don't make it out cause I trip over my own spewage.
Pills help, but if I can work my will-it-down muscle as well, why the fuck not...hitting the manipulation thread now.
If you tend to ramble, and feel like rambling is a productive writing mode for you, my suggestion would be to go ahead and ramble, but at the end, come up with a one-or-two sentence summary, and then put it at the beginning of your post so that people have an idea what you are getting at going into it, and can read the rambling (if they choose) in that context.
Another good approach is to ramble, and then prune/rearrange your ramble to make it more concise and comprehensible.
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 06:17:37 PM
Oh dear, that sounds like it might be a good challenge for me too. Or is it? I often feel like I sometimes get way too wordy, I wonder if that's just me or whether other people feel the same about that?
The reason is, sometimes I go off writing something, and a lot of tangential thoughts come out too. I usually read back my post to check it and fix mistakes, but if I already spent a lot of time writing a post (and this can be a lot of time), I don't always feel like cutting large bits out and make it shorter, but hope that the people reading it will figure it out.
I have no idea if it's actually bad or hard to read or anything. But if it is, I should probably try harder because I don't feel it's fair to leave the burden to sort it out on the reader. After all, it's one person's effort for me to fix it, but it is over 20-50 people's effort to read it.
One thing I could see working for myself is--paradoxically--making the post forms larger. Especially the "Quick Reply" box is only 7 lines long so I don't always see how large my post is. If it was larger I would see "hey what I'm trying to say shouldn't require that much paragraphs or text". (The regular reply box is ~12 lines long, but you can drag the bottom line to make it bigger) Is this a good idea? I'd make them 20-25 lines by default maybe?
Another trick I find that works well is, reading back my last sentence, or the entire post, when fixing mistakes or considering stylistic alternatives, I try to go for the shortest versions possible. I used to think extremely terse sentences would also be hard to understand and there might be a "sweet spot", but in fact as long as the short terse sentence is correct, it is almost always better than a longer lingering one.
OTOH if people think "don't worry about it, Trip, you're not too wordy" then I'd love to hear that too :)
tl;dr >:D
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
:lulz:
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
:lulz:
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
But isn't e-prime supposed to be disengaging? Gland free communication for a sedate tomorrow?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
:lulz:
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
But isn't e-prime supposed to be disengaging? Gland free communication for a sedate tomorrow?
Yes. It's a perfect form of communication for androids.
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
:lulz:
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
But isn't e-prime supposed to be disengaging? Gland free communication for a sedate tomorrow?
Yes. It's a perfect form of communication for androids.
It
seems like a perfect form of communication for androids. I am not sure we can know without their input.
Beep boop.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 10, 2012, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
:lulz:
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
But isn't e-prime supposed to be disengaging? Gland free communication for a sedate tomorrow?
Yes. It's a perfect form of communication for androids.
It seems like a perfect form of communication for androids. I am not sure we can know without their input.
Beep boop.
:lulz:
A thought: perhaps it's not "too many words" as "not enough precision when using the words"?
I'm usually hesitant to tell someone to use fewer words, because they might continue with their ill-defined usage while saying even less, meaning the resulting point will be even more obscured.
But perhaps this is already understood.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 12, 2012, 12:10:24 PM
A thought: perhaps it's not "too many words" as "not enough precision when using the words"?
I'm usually hesitant to tell someone to use fewer words, because they might continue with their ill-defined usage while saying even less, meaning the resulting point will be even more obscured.
But perhaps this is already understood.
The whole point of the exercise is to think more carefully about the chosen words, and assess whether they express the intended meaning.
Crap. That might kill me. I'm game though.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 07:56:08 PM
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
But isn't e-prime supposed to be disengaging? Gland free communication for a sedate tomorrow?
Yes. It's a perfect form of communication for androids.
When I tell my friends about e-prime, they find it hard to believe that you can express (almost) every idea without the word "is". I do have one problem with e-prime: almost every mistake e-prime tries to avoid can still be made.
Allow me to demonstrate with an example from Quantum Psychology. RAW gives the following as an example of a wrong statement:
"The photon is a wave".
Bob tells us we should say "The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments". This fixes the original sentence using additional content not required by e-prime.
"The photon behaves as a wave" seems a better translation to me.
You could also say: "The concept 'photon' belongs in the category of concepts we call 'waves'". Now we have used e-prime, but we haven't solved the problem with the original sentence.
I take your point, but* "The photon behaves as a wave" is also not correct, because that implies the photon always behaves as a wave. "The photon behaves as a wave when observed under certain conditions" is more correct, which brings us closer to RAWs usage.
The point of the RAW passage was to clarify the observational context in which the sentence was made. You could also probably get away with "I observed the photon behaving as a wave", although strictly speaking** you aren't observing the photon, you're observing the results of your photon detector, which means you should be saying "I observed my instruments detecting wave-like behavior of the photon." And then, if you really want the point to get beaten to death*** you can say, "I observed my wave-detecting instrument detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."
Of course, all of the above is probably only applicable to photons, because they're pretty fucked up things, Macro-istically speaking.
I think it's fairly well known that I use eprime (or some bastardization of it) quite often in my everyday posts. Don't hate me because I'm a robot.
:FFF:
*Sorry for the upcoming pedantry.
**I know, I'm doing it again.
***You know, we really do need a :requia: emote.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 13, 2012, 11:42:55 AM
Don't hate me because I'm a robot.
:FFF:
Sure, you come across as a robot as portrayed by this internet viewing device, or my viewing of the internet viewing device, but fuck you because I know you're a dragon!
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zQVKuliPvP4/T18-AVE7fUI/AAAAAAAAAbc/Qf2O2p2LPdc/s405/Dragon.JPG)
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 07:56:08 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:40:10 PM
You may find this of use.
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/
#4 is a biggie. Noticed it myself before reading that. I'm not sure why it hits my writing so hard. Speaking in that manner is not a tendency with which I am associated. :roll:
:lulz:
Yes, passive voice is sometimes necessary, but is incredibly disengaging when overused. That's one of the things I loathe most about e-prime; it relies heavily on passive voice.
Interesting.
I came to the opposite conclusion—that e-prime forces the active voice. It's the lazy version of e-prime that results in all these "seems to be" substitutions, when that was never the point. The trick to pulling off e-prime successfully has more to do with describing how two or more processes relate over time rather than sluggishly replacing natural incidences of "is" with "seems to be". It seems like a cop-out to avoid having to restructure your entire sentence, which requires a lot of time and creative effort and IMO results in 100% active voice.
My qualm with e-prime, oddly enough, was that it seemed to result in too many words. But never passive voice.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 13, 2012, 11:42:55 AM
I take your point, but* "The photon behaves as a wave" is also not correct, because that implies the photon always behaves as a wave. "The photon behaves as a wave when observed under certain conditions" is more correct, which brings us closer to RAWs usage.
The point of the RAW passage was to clarify the observational context in which the sentence was made. You could also probably get away with "I observed the photon behaving as a wave", although strictly speaking** you aren't observing the photon, you're observing the results of your photon detector, which means you should be saying "I observed my instruments detecting wave-like behavior of the photon." And then, if you really want the point to get beaten to death*** you can say, "I observed my wave-detecting instrument detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."
Of course, all of the above is probably only applicable to photons, because they're pretty fucked up things, Macro-istically speaking.
I think it's fairly well known that I use eprime (or some bastardization of it) quite often in my everyday posts. Don't hate me because I'm a robot.
*Sorry for the upcoming pedantry.
**I know, I'm doing it again.
***You know, we really do need a :requia: emote.
I agree with you here. That was actually my point, but it takes a lot of effort to make if you are trying to use e-prime, so I will stop doing that.
You can make correct statements using e-prime, you can make incorrect statements using e-prime, you can make correct statements in English, you can make incorrect statements in English.
So if we take the (incorrect, english) original statement "A photon is a wave", the direct translation "A photon behaves like a wave" is e-prime and incorrect.
RAW's translation "The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments" is correct and e-prime, but it is not correct because it is e-prime. It is correct because of the qualifier.
And if we define wave as follows: "something that can be described by a wave equation" (not e-prime, and a definition, so independent of correct or incorrect) we can make a correct English statement:
"A photon is a wave when constrained by certain instruments"
No need to apologize for the pedantry, that's the whole point here.
E-prime is a useful teaching tool, as it can highlight the different usages of "is" and teach you when they are a problem. It's also important in teaching you how to read: often you should subsitute "is" with some form of "seems to the author". But I don't think it's useful for communication.
Quote from: el sjaako on March 13, 2012, 02:55:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 13, 2012, 11:42:55 AM
I take your point, but* "The photon behaves as a wave" is also not correct, because that implies the photon always behaves as a wave. "The photon behaves as a wave when observed under certain conditions" is more correct, which brings us closer to RAWs usage.
The point of the RAW passage was to clarify the observational context in which the sentence was made. You could also probably get away with "I observed the photon behaving as a wave", although strictly speaking** you aren't observing the photon, you're observing the results of your photon detector, which means you should be saying "I observed my instruments detecting wave-like behavior of the photon." And then, if you really want the point to get beaten to death*** you can say, "I observed my wave-detecting instrument detecting wave-like behavior of the photon."
Of course, all of the above is probably only applicable to photons, because they're pretty fucked up things, Macro-istically speaking.
I think it's fairly well known that I use eprime (or some bastardization of it) quite often in my everyday posts. Don't hate me because I'm a robot.
*Sorry for the upcoming pedantry.
**I know, I'm doing it again.
***You know, we really do need a :requia: emote.
I agree with you here. That was actually my point, but it takes a lot of effort to make if you are trying to use e-prime, so I will stop doing that.
You can make correct statements using e-prime, you can make incorrect statements using e-prime, you can make correct statements in English, you can make incorrect statements in English.
So if we take the (incorrect, english) original statement "A photon is a wave", the direct translation "A photon behaves like a wave" is e-prime and incorrect.
RAW's translation "The photon behaves as a wave when constrained by certain instruments" is correct and e-prime, but it is not correct because it is e-prime. It is correct because of the qualifier.
And if we define wave as follows: "something that can be described by a wave equation" (not e-prime, and a definition, so independent of correct or incorrect) we can make a correct English statement:
"A photon is a wave when constrained by certain instruments"
No need to apologize for the pedantry, that's the whole point here.
E-prime is a useful teaching tool, as it can highlight the different usages of "is" and teach you when they are a problem. It's also important in teaching you how to read: often you should subsitute "is" with some form of "seems to the author". But I don't think it's useful for communication.
That's RAW's take on it anyway. I could be wrong, but I think Korzybski intended more pervasive philosophical changes to the use of language than RAW really gets into.
Quote from: el sjaako on March 13, 2012, 02:55:38 PM
But I don't think it's useful for communication.
Sure it is (uh... can be). It's just not a noble vanquisher of illusion. It's merely a tool to be used with care when communicating.
And I've always felt that it's more than simple word substitution. The underlying
intent of eprime underscores the selective nature of perception, and tries to eschew over-generalized meta statements. So once you understand the intent, you can construct your sentences to reflect that.
Where a lot of people seem to get it wrong is when they feel the need to use it when there's nothing really to clarify. "The rose is red" is not eprime, but unless you're talking to someone from Alpha Centuri, people know what you're talking about. To say "the rose appears to me as red when I look at the petals" makes people want to slap each other.
The place to use eprime is when you're trying to discuss or explain something that could either be easily misconstrued, or if it's unfamiliar territory for the audience. It's absolutely necessary to include subjective context to the language in order to prevent misunderstanding.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 13, 2012, 03:07:14 PM
The underlying intent of eprime underscores the selective nature of perception, and tries to eschew over-generalized meta statements. So once you understand the intent, you can construct your sentences to reflect that.
Where a lot of people seem to get it wrong is when they feel the need to use it when there's nothing really to clarify. "The rose is red" is not eprime, but unless you're talking to someone from Alpha Centuri, people know what you're talking about. To say "the rose appears to me as red when I look at the petals" makes people want to slap each other.
The place to use eprime is when you're trying to discuss or explain something that could either be easily misconstrued, or if it's unfamiliar territory for the audience. It's absolutely necessary to include subjective context to the language in order to prevent misunderstanding.
I agree that if you get the intent of E-prime you can write about certain things more precisely and clearly. It's just that if you understand the intent of E-prime, you can use "is" without causing the problems E-prime tries to solve.
But I'm not really sure we're disagreeing about anything.
Quote from: Net on March 13, 2012, 03:02:31 PM
That's RAW's take on it anyway. I could be wrong, but I think Korzybski intended more pervasive philosophical changes to the use of language than RAW really gets into.
This whole discussion has reminded me about how interesting the whole subject is. Has anyone read any books on the subject besides quantum psychology? Were they any good?
You could always get Korzybski's "Science and Sanity", if you feel like reading a doorstop.
RAW's "Prometheus Rising" and Leary's "Info-Psychology" also cover parts of this.