Could it be that you have misunderstood this topic? It looks like it. The advice to assume your readers are stupid, lazy, and mean, is merely an arresting, memorable way of saying you should write clearly, concisely, and should argue carefully. — jamalrob

I address this:

Even interpreted generously as "simple and concise", many of "the great philosophers" are not in such a category. — boethius

I am aware of this interpretation of the words.

The OP uses these terms, so I don't see why I won't use the terms of the OP to refer to the same thing as the OP.

As you say, the saying is supposed to be provocative, so if people then use the saying to debate it's merits it seems natural that it will stay provocative.

I am arguing against "simple, clear and concise" as well. Many philosophers simply don't do this. We can debate if it served their purpose, we can also debate their purpose, but I don't think it's a controversial point that many philosophers were and are very much unclear and not simple and purposefully left many things up to the reader to contemplate.

"

In philosophy we are taught a mnemonic to help ensure our writing will be as clear, concise, and unambiguous as possible — Pfhorrest

I have issue with. It's certainly good advice for writing papers in the classes of the professors making this statement, but it can't simply be generalized to "philosophy" in general. Many philosophers are famously the opposite of "clear, concise, and unambiguous".

OP has not stated what the goal is (get published? political revolution? enlighten the intrepid few?), and so defined his audience.

In the context of the other threads and comments, it seems to be that there is reticence to perform such a task and this thread is at the "negotiation" phase of the process. It is a positive step, but the "goal and the audience" is still required for the advice of the OP to be constructively debated.

As it is, the OP is just generally applied to all of philosophy, so I am arguing against such a position.

I make a second argument that for mainstream media propaganda purposes, this nominal advice really is taken literally to setup straw-men that must be relentlessly rooted out and flogged as well as really is the spirit of such writing. For instance, take the recent kerfuffle around Joe Biden allegations; the mainstream media first choice was to be stupid (just ignore the hypocrisy), lazy (not bother to interview anyone or ask any uncomfortable questions to Joe Biden or anyone else), and mean (viciously attack anyone bringing the subject up as supporting Trump).

However, I am not implying that @Pfhorrest wants to do this, only pointing out that academia puts people on such a path with the certainly harmless "mnemonics" of thinking of people as "stupid, lazy and mean" as a hapless luck-charm to remember to be "simple, concise and disambiguate" for the purposes of institutional writing. But this is only a thematic connection to the OP.

Thanks for enlightenment :sparkle:


Thanks for welcome back :smile:

However, I am not implying that Pfhorrest wants to do this, only pointing out that academia puts people on such a path with the certainly harmless "mnemonics" of thinking of people as "stupid, lazy and mean" as a hapless luck-charm to remember to be "simple, concise and disambiguate" for the purposes of institutional writing. — boethius

You may be right, and I agree that aiming for clarity, concision, and logical comprehensiveness is not the recipe for a great work of philosophy. But it is at least good to write like that sometimes in philosophy, say in academia; or here on the forum, as you obviously attempt to do yourself; or when writing for non-specialists.

Although, like I said, I think it's counterproductive and a waste of time to write for "mean" readers.

But it is at least good to write like that sometimes in philosophy, say in academia; or here on the forum, as you obviously attempt to do yourself; or when writing for non-specialists. — jamalrob

Yes, definitely the advice makes sense for many purposes.

However, without the purpose the advice is putting the cart before the horse, especially if we're talking about a book, and even more if we don't even have the goal to write something that will become "philosophy".

For instance, a work of fiction is a popular place writers use to hash out their own ideas or introduce new ideas to a broad audience, precisely to avoid the context of heavy intellectual debate of exhaustive disambiguated pedantry.

No argument there.

No matter what if you start out with a title like “How to Play the Piano” and the introduction talks exclusively about the the average size of a coconut in Jamaica, which then leads into the first chapter that jumps from the history of piano construction to what is, in the author’s opinion, the perfect size for a piece of paper ... well, I’d probably read on tbh! Haha! That’s though :)

Grice’s maxims of Quality and Relation. Be honest with the reader about what they’re going to read and stay on topic. If the reader is set up for x and reads on looking for it but never finding it then they’ll give s poor review, whilst if they read the first few paragraphs and decide ‘this isn’t for me’ they may still recommend to someone whose interests it may suit.

Basically don’t waste the reader’s time or it could effectively stop what you’ve done reaching an audience that would value it.

The advice to assume your readers are stupid, lazy, and mean, is merely an arresting, memorable way of saying you should write clearly, concisely, and should argue carefully. — jamalrob

Why doesn't it exemplify the care and clarity it recommends instead of this sensationalist macho hyperbolic tone? No, i think it betrays a real attitude that is as problematic as it is prevalent in academia.

Basically don’t waste the reader’s time or it could effectively stop what you’ve done reaching an audience that would value it. — I like sushi

:up:

Maybe I'm being too charitable.

Although, like I said, I think it's counterproductive and a waste of time to write for "mean" readers. — jamalrob

Well, no it isn't always the case that it is counterproductive or a waste of time.
If 'mean' is defined as @Pfhorrest suggests:

“Mean” in that if they understand you at all it will be in the least charitable way, so you need to unambiguously explain exactly what you do and don't mean so you can't be misinterpreted.

'If they understand you at all' - is key.

It is one of the most difficult things to apply the principle of charity when you are reading something against or attacking your whole being. Like an omnivore reading Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation'.

Some people don't want or care to understand. It would mean they might have to change their way of thinking or lifestyle.

If posters or authors give up writing a response or persuasive text because of potentially 'mean' readers, then ignorance and lack of understanding persists.

Know your audience but don't just play to those who clap...

"Many famous philosophers were miserable communicators" is not an argument against good writing tips (unless you want to argue that they were great because they were miserable communicators).

Why doesn't it exemplify the care and clarity it recommends instead of this sensationalist macho hyperbolic tone? No, i think it betrays a real attitude that is as problematic as it is prevalent in academia. — unenlightened

This seems a valid observation.

Sure, but it doesn't follow that the way to persuade them is to follow the quoted advice, i.e., to use disclaimers and clarifications to remove all ambiguities.

A "persuasive text", one that could even persuade mean readers, might not be one that is written with them in mind. And maybe you don't persuade by pandering to nitpickers, but by showing them the way, strongly and confidently.

Most of what I want to say here has already been said by others, but just to be clear about myself:

The original idea is not to actually assume bad things about your real audience, but to write with even the worst of audiences in mind, to make your writing better.

I am saying that perhaps it is just not possible to reach the absolute worst audience, and trying to do so requires sacrifices in aspects that would otherwise have helped to reach other segments of the audience.

The Project Management Triangle I am comparing it to is this:



The original idea (and my modification) are not opposite the principle of charity but complimentary to it: be charitable, but beware that others won’t be. (Also be patient but beware that others won’t be, etc).

I didn’t reference that Yablo paper because I didn’t get this directly from there but verbally from multiple old professors, and a Google search showed multiple written sources using that phrase, so I figured it was just common knowledge among philosophy professors these days.

This thread isn’t supposed to be about my book or the arguments surrounding it, though it was inspired by those conversations, but not in the way that’s been implied. I was already trying to write for a “stupid, lazy, and mean” audience from the beginning, so this isn’t an insult to anybody who has commented there. But as I have gotten conflicting advice from multiple different sources, it struck me to remember that you can’t please everyone, which inspired this idea. I think my writing is currently weak against the lazy (because they’re uninterested in the topic and don’t care to look for what’s going to be of interest to them later). But looking for ways to fix that kept exposing vulnerabilities against the stupid or the mean (saying things early on to pique interest, but consequently without the setup necessary for someone to understand them correctly). That made me think of the Project Management Triangle, how trying to increase speed can lower quality or raise costs, etc... hence this thread.

Know your audience but don't just play to those who clap... — Amity

That's an excellent principle, but I would add "...and don't assume that people who don't clap are lazy stupid or mean." In particular, there is the role of advocatus diaboli, which does not apply only to @Hanover, but is a quite general principle of considering the opposing view in all seriousness. One's most sympathetic friends ought to be one's sternest critics.

Indeed. Considering the opposite view is essential.

From the referenced Guidelines article:

There are a variety of things you might aim to do in your paper. You'll usually begin by putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then you'll go on to do one or two of the following:

Criticize that argument or thesis
Offer counter-examples to the thesis
Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism
Offer reasons to believe the thesis
Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible
Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis
Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true
Revise the thesis in the light of some objection

You'll conclude by stating the upshot of your discussion. (For instance, should we accept the thesis? Should we reject it? Or should we conclude that we don't yet have enough information to decide whether the thesis is true or false?)

You'll conclude by stating the upshot of your discussion. (For instance, should we accept the thesis? Should we reject it? Or should we conclude that we don't yet have enough information to decide whether the thesis is true or false?)

Or you can handle it the way it is handled in a vast majority of debate/discussions on the Internet. Simply declare that you have established some point or another.; that you have "won" the intellectual battle that has been taking place; and declare that anyone who cannot see that you have is just missing the point...almost certainly because he/she is too stupid to understand things.

Why write books like this to begin with? If your goal is to formulate and express your ideas about philosophy for your own sake then don't worry about an external audience. But, if you anticipate a readership that embraces and appreciates your efforts, what sort of validation of this expectation do you have?

I created a website some years ago that contained original, albeit amateur, historical research on topics that had not been subject to investigations. Then, some time later, I wrote several print-on-demand books based on my site. I did this primarily to insure some records of my efforts survive after I pass away and the site vanishes. I check periodically and find that several of these books are bought each year, but, more importantly, copies reside in a library devoted to these pursuits. I make no money, and consider these books my contributions to these specific areas of activity. I suspect they are rarely checked out and read, but that's OK. The mere fact they exist provides satisfaction.

I have several old friends who are writing what I consider end-of-life projects. I doubt their books will be finished and published, but it gives them a purpose, a reason to persist and grow, even in old age. I suggest to them they have other projects waiting in the wings should they actually finish these books.

What motivates you to write this book? I'm sure you have explained this primary aspect of your project, but I would like to know.

Sounds like basically the same reason who wrote your history. To make some minor contribution to the field. I didn’t find what I was looking for in my philosophical studies, so I decided to make it, for those who came after me. I don’t care about money and I don’t think academic recognition is a reasonable expectation. I’d just like it to be interesting food for thought for someone, something that helps others along in the same quest I was on that lead me to here.

Specifically, while there’s tons of great research in specialized areas of professional philosophy, I haven’t found very much connecting all of that together into a unified whole, or bridging between that professional research and lay people. Most of my attempted contributions are in making those connections.

I’m trying to get people here to read it basically to sanity-check that it is readable and successfully communicates the things I’m trying to communicate. It’s hard to tell if you’re making any sense if the only person you can bounce things off is yourself.

I am not sure why the Project Management Triangle has
1. 'Done quickly' as opposed to Done slowly, or carefully.
2. 'Low cost' as opposed to High or Medium cost.

Arguably a 3. 'High Quality', or even a good piece of philosophical writing requires sufficient time, careful reading and reflection.

Perhaps you could explain further ?

Also why the need to choose 2 out of the 3 ?
As in your :
" I propose that like the famous Project Management Triangle (“good, fast, cheap — pick any two”), in practice we can at best write for an audience that is any two of these things, but not all three at once".

Sure, but it doesn't follow that the way to persuade them is to follow the quoted advice, i.e., to use disclaimers and clarifications to remove all ambiguities. — jamalrob

Whose advice is being quoted here, this ? :

You can write for a stupid and lazy audience, with clear, concise explanations, only if you can assume they’re charitable enough to look for your intended meaning without lengthy disclaimers and clarifications. — Pfhorrest

There is no need for lengthy disclaimers to be able to write clearly and concisely so as to avoid misinterpretation.

The Project Management Triangle assumes that people would like their projects done as well as possible, as quickly as possible, and at as little cost as possible, but shows that attaining all three of those desires simultaneously is not possible. Faster will lower quality or else raise costs, cheaper will lower quality or else take longer, and better will take longer or else cost more.

There is no need for lengthy disclaimers to be able to write clearly and concisely so as to avoid misinterpretation. — Amity

If the few words you use to write clearly and concisely could admit of multiple possible interpretations, you will need to spell out in more depth what interpretations you do or don’t mean to avoid misinterpretation, which sacrifices brevity; or else you could regain brevity by instead explaining things less step-by-step, instead sacrificing accessibility.

↪jgill
Sounds like basically the same reason [you] wrote your history. To make some minor contribution to the field. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for the explanation. I do the same thing with mathematics, writing short notes on whatever topic interests me and posting on researchgate. Once upon a time I wrote and published, but I lost interest in the formalities and the topics I was writing about when I retired twenty years ago. It's a lot more fun now! :cool:

Thanks for further explanation. I guess I disagree with the sacrificial aspect. I think it possible to meet all criteria.

Indeed, writing in depth or fully is necessary once you have concisely addressed the specific problem.

but to write with even the worst of audiences i — Pfhorrest

Perhaps it is just the I'm sure unintended pejorative tone, to which earlier referred? Maybe "least receptive"?

In philosophy we are taught a mnemonic to help ensure our writing will be as clear, concise, and unambiguous as possible: to write for an audience assumed to be “stupid, lazy, and mean”. — Pfhorrest

You spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on style. The old saying that it's not what you say but how you say it is ultimately wrong. It's what you say. There is no good way, for example, to serve a shit sandwich, dress it up as you may.

Wittgenstein and Kant, for example, didn't win their adherents from their mastery of form and clarify. If you have something of brilliance to say, it's brilliance will be deciphered from the chunks if your only way of speaking is to vomit it out.

If you've found the cure to cancer, please don't withhold it from us until you've figured out the poetry to say it.

And so please do note: you submitted a tome for our digestion in another thread and no one engaged you in any of its substance, but they quibbled over your use of conjunction and split infinitive.

If you want to get meaningful feedback, I'd suggest you point to whatever section of your book that you think made some headway, and then pay attention only to those criticisms that address its merits. You can figure out how to add polish later, but, especially for philosophy, substance matters over form.

This thread isn’t supposed to be about me or my book, but whatever, if that’s all anyone wants to talk about...

I’m only looking at form because that’s all anyone has given me feedback on.

And I did break it down one piece at a time. That’s why I started a new thread for each chapter, and waited for each to die before posting another.

Most of what I asked for feedback on was which parts were genuinely novel to people vs what was old hat, so I could later focus on what actually warranted in depth discussion of the substance when it came to that stage.

The few things that did garner preemptive argument about the substance were, disappointingly, the most old-hat parts of it, the boring groundwork. When I finally got to the interesting details, nobody was paying attention anymore.

Sushi et al seem to be suggesting that that’s for stylistic reasons that make nobody want to pay attention through the setup to the payoff, hence this diversion into style.

This thread is about style generally through, not about my book in particular.

Gee lol what a brilliant idea to apply that to philosophy! I don't know who invented that triangle thing, but it's been around quite a while, at least since the mid 1980s.

Have you thought of any OTHER things like that to apply, like the pyramid of needs for example?

You seem less than earnest.

No really Im serious. I first saw it on a cube wall in LSI Logic in 1985. It never occured to me it could apply to philosophy, lol, that's brilliant.

Oh okay that’s good. I know the project management triangle is old but I thought your “brilliant” was sarcastic.

I’m not just directly applying that same triangle though, but making an analogous one.