Putting Ideas into Words

Putting Ideas into Words


Putting Ideas into Words

February 2022

Writing about something, even something you know well, usually shows
you that you didn’t know it as well as you thought. Putting ideas
into words is a severe test. The first words you choose are usually
wrong; you have to rewrite sentences over and over to
get them exactly right. And your ideas won’t just be imprecise, but
incomplete too. Half the ideas that end up in an essay will be ones
you thought of while you were writing it. Indeed, that’s why I write
them.

Once you publish something, the convention is that whatever you
wrote was what you thought before you wrote it. These were your
ideas, and now you’ve expressed them. But you know this isn’t true.
You know that putting your ideas into words changed them. And not
just the ideas you published. Presumably there were others that
turned out to be too broken to fix, and those you discarded instead.

It’s not just having to commit your ideas to specific words that
makes writing so exacting. The real test is reading what you’ve
written. You have to pretend to be a neutral reader who knows nothing
of what’s in your head, only what you wrote. When he reads what you
wrote, does it seem correct? Does it seem complete? If you make an
effort, you can read your writing as if you were a complete stranger,
and when you do the news is usually bad. It takes me many cycles
before I can get an essay past the stranger. But the stranger is
rational, so you always can, if you ask him what he needs. If he’s
not satisfied because you failed to mention x or didn’t qualify
some sentence sufficiently, then you mention x or add more
qualifications. Happy now? It may cost you some nice sentences, but
you have to resign yourself to that. You just have to make them as
good as you can and still satisfy the stranger.

This much, I assume, won’t be that controversial. I think it will
accord with the experience of anyone who has tried to write about
anything nontrivial. There may exist people whose thoughts are so
perfectly formed that they just flow straight into words. But I’ve
never known anyone who could do this, and if I met someone who said
they could, it would seem evidence of their limitations rather than
their ability. Indeed, this is a trope in movies: the guy who claims
to have a plan for doing some difficult thing, and who when questioned
further, taps his head and says “It’s all up here.” Everyone watching
the movie knows what that means. At best the plan is vague and
incomplete. Very likely there’s some undiscovered flaw that invalidates
it completely. At best it’s a plan for a plan.

In precisely defined domains it’s possible to form complete ideas
in your head. People can play chess in their heads, for example.
And mathematicians can do some amount of math in their heads, though
they don’t seem to feel sure of a proof over a certain length till
they write it down. But this only seems possible with ideas you can
express in a formal language. (1) Arguably what such people are
doing is putting ideas into words in their heads. I can to some
extent write essays in my head. I’ll sometimes think of a paragraph
while walking or lying in bed that survives nearly unchanged in the
final version. But really I’m writing when I do this. I’m doing the
mental part of writing; my fingers just aren’t moving as I do it.
(2)

You can know a great deal about something without writing about it.
Can you ever know so much that you wouldn’t learn more from trying
to explain what you know? I don’t think so. I’ve written about at
least two subjects I know well — Lisp hacking and startups
— and in both cases I learned a lot from writing about them.
In both cases there were things I didn’t consciously realize till
I had to explain them. And I don’t think my experience was anomalous.
A great deal of knowledge is unconscious, and experts have if
anything a higher proportion of unconscious knowledge than beginners.

I’m not saying that writing is the best way to explore all ideas.
If you have ideas about architecture, presumably the best way to
explore them is to build actual buildings. What I’m saying is that
however much you learn from exploring ideas in other ways, you’ll
still learn new things from writing about them.

Putting ideas into words doesn’t have to mean writing, of course.
You can also do it the old way, by talking. But in my experience,
writing is the stricter test. You have to commit to a single, optimal
sequence of words. Less can go unsaid when you don’t have tone of
voice to carry meaning. And you can focus in a way that would seem
excessive in conversation. I’ll often spend 2 weeks on an essay and
reread drafts 50 times. If you did that in conversation
it would seem evidence of some kind of
mental disorder.
If you’re lazy,
of course, writing and talking are equally useless. But if you want
to push yourself to get things right, writing is the steeper hill.
(3)

The reason I’ve spent so long establishing this rather obvious point
is that it leads to another that many people will find shocking.
If writing down your ideas always makes them more precise and more
complete, then no one who hasn’t written about a topic has fully
formed ideas about it. And someone who never writes has no fully
formed ideas about anything nontrivial.

It feels to them as if they do, especially if they’re not in the
habit of critically examining their own thinking. Ideas can feel
complete. It’s only when you try to put them into words that you
discover they’re not. So if you never subject your ideas to that
test, you’ll not only never have fully formed ideas, but also never
realize it.

Putting ideas into words is certainly no guarantee that they’ll be
right. Far from it. But though it’s not a sufficient condition, it
is a necessary one.

Notes

(1) Machinery and
circuits are formal languages.

(2) I thought of this
sentence as I was walking down the street in Palo Alto.

(3) There are two
senses of talking to someone: a strict sense in which the conversation
is verbal, and a more general sense in which it can take any form,
including writing. In the limit case (e.g. Seneca’s letters),
conversation in the latter sense becomes essay writing.

It can be very useful to talk (in either sense) with other people
as you’re writing something. But a verbal conversation will never
be more exacting than when you’re talking about something you’re
writing.

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Patrick
Collison, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.



Source link

Postagens Similares

  • Deje entrar al otro 95% de los grandes programadores

    diciembre 2014 Las empresas de tecnología estadounidenses quieren que el gobierno facilite la inmigración porque dicen que no pueden encontrar suficientes programadores en Estados Unidos. Los antiinmigración dicen que en lugar de permitir que los extranjeros tomen estos trabajos, deberíamos capacitar a más estadounidenses para que sean programadores. ¿Quién tiene razón? Las empresas de tecnología…

  • ਚੰਗੀ ਅਤੇ ਮਾੜੀ ਹਾਰਨੈਸ ਇੰਜੀਨੀਅਰਿੰਗ

    ਯਕੀਨੀ ਬਣਾਓ ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਆਪਣੇ AI ਨੂੰ ਦੱਸ ਰਹੇ ਹੋ ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਕੀ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹੋ ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਿ ਇਸਨੂੰ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੈ ਅਪ੍ਰੈਲ 14, 2026  ਪਿਕਾਰਡ-ਚਾਲਬਾਜ਼ੀ… ਹਾਰਨੇਸ ਇੰਜਨੀਅਰਿੰਗ ਨੂੰ ਵਧੀਆ ਅਤੇ ਮਾੜੇ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੇ ਤਰੀਕੇ ਹਨ, ਪਰ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਮਹੱਤਵਪੂਰਨ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਬਿਟਰ ਲੈਸਨ ਇੰਜੀਨੀਅਰਿੰਗ ਦਾ…

  • Прогнозы моей ансамблевой модели CDC по Covid-19 — обновление на 05.09.20

    Оценка смертности от инфекций и уровня смертности Если бы мы знали количество инфекций и знали уровень смертности от инфекций (IFR), было бы очень просто спрогнозировать количество смертей на основе количества инфекций. Однако на протяжении всей пандемии мы оценивали как количество инфекций, так и IFR, и во многих случаях делали это плохо. Цифры также сильно различаются…

  • WikipediaのブラックリストArchive.today、695,000のアーカイブリンクの削除を開始

    物議を醸しているアーカイブ サイトがブログに対する分散型サービス拒否 (DDoS) 攻撃を指示するために使用されたことを受け、英語版ウィキペディアは Archive.today をブラックリストに登録しました。 DDoS を理由に Archive.today を廃止すべきかどうかを議論する過程で、Wikipedia 編集者は、アーカイブ サイトが Web ページのスナップショットを変更して DDoS の標的となったブロガーの名前を挿入していたことを発見しました。この改変は明らかに、Archive.today の管理者が複数のエイリアスで自分の身元を隠した方法を説明した投稿に対するブロガーに対する恨みによって煽られたようです。 「archive.today をただちに非推奨にし、実行可能な限り速やかにスパム ブラックリストに追加し (または新しいリンクの追加をブロックする編集フィルターを作成し)、そこへのすべてのリンクを削除するという合意が得られています」と、今日の Wikipedia の Archive.today ディスカッションの最新情報には記載されています。 「ユーザーのコンピュータを乗っ取ってDDoS攻撃を実行するようなWebサイトにWikipediaが読者を誘導すべきではないという強いコンセンサスがある(WP:ELNO#3を参照)。さらに、archive.todayの運営者がアーカイブされたページのコンテンツを改変し、信頼性を失わせたという証拠も提示されている。」 Archive.today への 695,000 を超えるリンクが、約 400,000 の Wikipedia ページに分散されています。アーカイブ サイトは、ニュース ペイウォールをバイパスするためによく使用されます。彼はFBIを持っています 求めた情報 サイト運営者の身元について、ドメイン登録業者 Tucows への召喚状を提出します。 「現状維持を支持する人たちは、主に検証可能性のための archive.today の有用性に議論を置いた」とウィキペディアの今日の更新には書かれている。 「しかし、既存のリンクの分析により、その用途のほとんどは置き換えられることがわかりました。この RfC (コメント要求) 中に数人の編集者が実装の詳細を検討し始めました。コミュニティは、archive.today へのリンクを効率的に削除する方法を見つけ出す必要があります。」 編集者はリンクを削除するよう要請 この決定の結果として公開されたガイダンスでは、アーカイブ サイトで使用されている次のドメイン名へのリンクを削除および置換するよう編集者に協力するよう求めています: archive.today、archive.is、archive.ph、archive.fo、archive.li、archive.md、および archive.vn。ガイダンスでは、元のソースがまだオンラインであり、内容が同一である場合、編集者は Archive.today のリンクを削除できると記載されています。アーカイブ…

Deixe um comentário

O seu endereço de email não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios marcados com *