What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Be a Better Writer And Poster - Be a Better Person (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Thanks to my Buddy @Maurile Tremblay for sharing this with me.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Writing-Better-Will-Make/246406/#.XgY93xTBBic.twitter

We’re professors who try to write well. We also try to help our students and colleagues write well. But, really, why bother?

Among the standard answers: Because businesses want good writers. Because good writing is good thinking. Because good writing is beautiful. Each of those explanations has merit.

There is, however, another argument that’s often neglected: Writing is an ethical activity, and becoming a better writer can make you a better person.

That’s not a stretch for us — two ethics professors — but you may be having doubts at this point. Yet consider: If it’s true, this is quite a useful insight. For ruthlessly practical writing instructors, this could be one more way to motivate students to become better writers. For critics of the quality of academic writing, it would give teeth to their frequent laments. "It isn’t just incomprehensible," they could argue, "it’s unethical!"

Ethics concerns, among other things, how we treat people. Since writing is an action, done for an audience, it matters how writers view and treat their readers. That includes the scholarly writing done by graduate students and faculty members — our focus here.

So what are some of the ethical norms that should motivate good writing?

Try to do good things and avoid causing bad ones. Some writing makes people happy, pleased, or inspired. (Some may even "spark joy.") Other writing makes people sad, frustrated, annoyed, depressed, alienated, or worse.

Which features of writing have good consequences for readers, and which ones don’t? It seems reasonable that academic writers should try to figure that out and practice doing it.

Respect everyone, including your readers, as inherently valuable and rational beings. If you think readers are important, and that their time and reason are valuable, that should make a difference in how you write. If your writing gets the "TL;DR" reaction (too long; didn’t read), you might be failing to respect your readers: You’re wasting their time if you could have said the same thing more concisely.

Writing that is overly complicated, requiring too much thought to process, taxes readers unnecessarily. That’s bad in itself, but it’s also disrespectful, as the ideas weren’t presented in ways with which readers could readily engage — and, potentially, criticize.

Follow the Golden Rule. How do you like to be treated as a reader? Do you like it when a writer uses big words when small ones would do, thereby leaving you out of the discussion? Do you like it when you can’t figure out the source of some piece of information, since the author lazily chose not to reference it? Do you like it when the details of the argument are left for you to imagine, as opposed to having them stated explicitly?

No, of course you don’t. Like every other reader, you appreciate straightforward, well-referenced, well-organized texts. So produce them.

Good character traits produce good writing. Think about the traits you most value and apply them to writing: Empathetic people consider the points of view of other people; empathetic writers explain themselves with others in mind. Compassionate people are sensitive to the burdens that others bear; compassionate writers try to lighten the load on their readers. Honest people don’t just tell the truth; they also try to avoid lying by omission. Honest writers lay out the pros and cons of their views; they don’t hide them in hopes that others won’t notice.

For anything good about good writing, there’s probably an ethical justification for it. And there’s an ethical condemnation of what’s bad about bad writing. It’s not just an element of style, or someone’s personal preference, or an idiosyncratic instructor’s agenda. Ethics is, among other things, about how we treat others. And how we communicate with others is one dimension of how we treat them.

In short, there are moral considerations relevant to how you write what you write, and in general, those considerations should encourage you to do more to be better understood.

In our view, then, good writing is virtuous writing: It shows respect for readers and tries to benefit them. With all of that in mind, here are a few practical tips for writing more ethically, and thus more compellingly:

In a lot of academic writing, the goal is to persuade the reader to believe something. You’re expecting at least some of those readers to change their minds. So be as explicit, substantive, and powerful as possible. Also, be frank about the opposing argument — all the reasons your readers might not change their minds. That’s the honest thing to do — and it also can involve humility, if your reasons are more limited or weak than you wish they were.

Write in short sentences, paragraphs, sections, and articles. If a long sentence can be split in half, you probably should split it. If an extended section can be divided, you probably should divide it. If your article can be half as long, that’s fabulous. Brevity is usually good for readability, and it’s kind to your audience: It makes reading easier and more pleasant. Shorter books are often less expensive, so more people can buy and read them. And that makes academe more just, as it improves access to important information and insights.

Use ordinary words unless you’ve got to use fancy ones. Obviously, straightforward language helps you to be clear and concise. That matters because it helps you avoid alienating potential readers, which is cruel if it’s avoidable. Plus, it helps you stay modest, which is no small thing in academe.

By and large, don’t ask rhetorical questions. Make statements and support them. Don’t ask questions and hope that the reader will respond the way you hope they will. First, they might not. Second, it’s manipulative. When you ask a rhetorical question, you put readers in an awkward position — they’re supposed to respond in a certain way. Instead, acknowledge their independence. That’s only fair, as you’d want others to recognize the ways in which you differ from them.

Revise, revise, revise. And after that, revise some more. What can you say more clearly and concisely? What can you cut? What references should be added? After all, readers are giving you some of their time, which they’ll never get back. You owe it to them to make it time well spent.

It’s hard to become a good writer. That’s no surprise — it’s hard to become a good person, too.

 
Hello exactly. If we supposed to write good, they need to teach good. Or gooder, at least.
Goodest is not too much to ask for, imo. 

Wait. If we were all Goodest, what would it really mean? 

Would it be any different than if we were all baddest? 

If not, let's be bad. 

Good nuff fer ya? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My grandfather wrote for the New York Times coming out of the great depression.  He said if he didn't know much about whatever the subject was he would research it in the kid's section of the library. He was also a card carrying member of the communist party so there's that too.

 
I like joe...so now I feel bad for having made a smartass response in here, instead of just leaving it.

But that's a lot of words to read from a smartphone. So many words. 

 
My grandfather wrote for the New York Times coming out of the great depression.  He said if he didn't know much about whatever the subject was he would research it in the kid's section of the library. 
The biggest recent Jeopardy champ did his research the same way.

 
El Floppo said:
I like joe...so now I feel bad for having made a smartass response in here, instead of just leaving it.

But that's a lot of words to read from a smartphone. So many words. 
Can't imagine reading all that since I'm on this site for entertainment.  I have a three paragraph limit.   

 
Joe Bryant said:
Be super clear.

Use shorter sentences.

Understand what your audience is looking for. 
Precision is key

Laconicism applauded

Spectator's perception luminates .

 
Lol... Just wondered because the article was long- which didn't seem to hit any of those three nutshell points you made. But I didn't read it, so :bag:
LOL. The article is 1,000 words. In the time we've spent talking about it you could have read it. ;)  

 
I think there’s some good stuff in there.

I think that it’s a stretch to portray most of the recommendations as “ethical”.

I think they somewhat mistake short and choppy for clear and concise.

 
No, not at all but his response looked like a haiku to me so I thought I'd just take a stab at it to be a smartass. 
Yeah, I was being a bad writer (and person) with my sarcasm. I knew haikus weren’t on the menu, especially with those bloated syllable totals.

 
Most people use more words than they need.
Managing partner at my new firm is absolutely incredible at saying in three sentencing what would undoubtedly take me three paragraphs. It’s crazy impressive and seems to be an actual talent. 

 
Be super clear.

Use shorter sentences.

Understand what your audience is looking for. 
I am on the fence about this.   There are many times when a shorter and more concise writing style is more effective and preferable. There are also times where thoughts and ideas need to be elaborated upon and presented in a longer and more eloquent way.    This trend towards abbreviating and shortening everything is slightly annoying and maddening to me.  It has taken centuries to develop a beautiful language, and for the past 25-30 years—it seems like everything has been done to devolve it.  The insatiable desire to reduce the number of words, the massive use of acronyms, and now the notion that somebody that writes in an abbreviated devolved style because it caters to a greater audience —makes one a better person?  

Catering to audiences doesn’t generally result in progress.  People being true to themselves and expressing their thoughts in a way that is true to them is what makes them a better person.  Who is a better artist—the one that paints things that their audience would buy—-or the one that produces art that comes from a place of self thought and introspection?   Writing in a more reduced and concise manner might make somebody more marketable, and possibly more desirable to more businesses—but it has nothing to do with them being a better or more ethical human being in my opinion.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am on the fence about this.   There are many times when a shorter and more concise writing style is more effective and preferable. There are also times where thoughts and ideas need to be elaborated upon and presented in a longer and more eloquent way.    This trend towards abbreviating and shortening everything is slightly annoying and maddening to me.  It has taken centuries to develop a beautiful language, and for the past 25-30 years—it seems like everything has been done to devolve it.  The insatiable desire to reduce the number of words, the massive use of acronyms, and now the notion that somebody that writes in an abbreviated devolved style because it caters to a greater audience —makes one a better person?   Catering to audiences doesn’t generally result in progress.  People being true to themselves and expressing their thoughts in a way that is true to them is what makes them a better person.  Who is a better artist—the one that paints things that their audience would buy—-or the one that produces art that comes from a place of self thought and introspection?   Writing in a more reduced and concise manner might make somebody more marketable, and possibly more desirable to more businesses—but it has nothing to do with them being a better or more ethical human being in my opinion.   
Well written and I agree with all of it except MUA.

 
I am on the fence about this.   There are many times when a shorter and more concise writing style is more effective and preferable. There are also times where thoughts and ideas need to be elaborated upon and presented in a longer and more eloquent way.    This trend towards abbreviating and shortening everything is slightly annoying and maddening to me.  It has taken centuries to develop a beautiful language, and for the past 25-30 years—it seems like everything has been done to devolve it.  The insatiable desire to reduce the number of words, the massive use of acronyms, and now the notion that somebody that writes in an abbreviated devolved style because it caters to a greater audience —makes one a better person?  

Catering to audiences doesn’t generally result in progress.  People being true to themselves and expressing their thoughts in a way that is true to them is what makes them a better person.  Who is a better artist—the one that paints things that their audience would buy—-or the one that produces art that comes from a place of self thought and introspection?   Writing in a more reduced and concise manner might make somebody more marketable, and possibly more desirable to more businesses—but it has nothing to do with them being a better or more ethical human being in my opinion.   
It's an interesting discussion for sure.

I think it's an issue of focus.

As a writer, I think an important question to ask is this:  Is the focus on yourself or is the focus on the reader?

Which also relates to the question: What are you trying to do?

Are you trying to make a statement? Are you trying to transfer a thought? Are you trying to inform? Are you trying to persuade?

Lots of variables and different goals are in the mix. And each will inform how one can best communicate. 

 
Managing partner at my new firm is absolutely incredible at saying in three sentencing what would undoubtedly take me three paragraphs. It’s crazy impressive and seems to be an actual talent. 
It's a HUGE talent. Rare and valuable. One can also do it with work. 

Mark Twain's famous line (whether he said it or not) is spot on: "Apologies for the length of this letter. I didn't have time to write a shorter one."

 
I get a lot of people submitting articles they'd like to have published. Without question, the biggest flaw I see is them being inefficient with words. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top