in separate but related news, high-calorie food is better digested when it’s mixed with lots of low-calorie fiber. relevant link
edit: to clarify, it’s relevant because it’s the same with ideas. “high-impact ideas” are better received when they’re mixed with a lot of low-impact context and examples.
I’m familiar with both the formal and informal versions of this idea. I actually wrote a pretty good essay on it for a communications class like twenty years ago.
Doesn’t change the fact that some ideas simply are not easily or legally conveyed in this format. Many, in fact. Some of them really fucking important. Lefties who got their entire grasp of shit from twitter posts are useful primarily as mass.
You’re an addict defending your brain rot surrender as noble crusade for truth. I won’t scold you for not doing the hardest kind of activism, but dont entrench yourself in the failures of those around you to make space for you and not suck by defining your cope as high morality.
In an ecosystem full of text-based discussions, a single individual putting up an enormous wall of text that fails to engage the reader is often ignored in favor of a number of smaller posts layout out the argument piecemeal.
Also, iterative comments expressing the same view in a few short words can reinforce the idea as popular in the eyes of a reader. A long winded spiel can come across as defensive, by comparison, and weaken the argument in the end.
You understand that this is not a good state of affairs?
in IT there’s the Signal-to-noise ratio concept. i think verbosity increases the noise, mostly. i try to keep my comments succinct and to the point.
That just means not taking longer to say a thing than necessary.
Some ideas take longer. Short understandings of long ideas can have disastrous results.
in separate but related news, high-calorie food is better digested when it’s mixed with lots of low-calorie fiber. relevant link
edit: to clarify, it’s relevant because it’s the same with ideas. “high-impact ideas” are better received when they’re mixed with a lot of low-impact context and examples.
I’m familiar with both the formal and informal versions of this idea. I actually wrote a pretty good essay on it for a communications class like twenty years ago.
Doesn’t change the fact that some ideas simply are not easily or legally conveyed in this format. Many, in fact. Some of them really fucking important. Lefties who got their entire grasp of shit from twitter posts are useful primarily as mass.
You’re an addict defending your brain rot surrender as noble crusade for truth. I won’t scold you for not doing the hardest kind of activism, but dont entrench yourself in the failures of those around you to make space for you and not suck by defining your cope as high morality.
Separate reply; information theory isn’t ‘from IT’. The inverse is closer to true.
In an ecosystem full of text-based discussions, a single individual putting up an enormous wall of text that fails to engage the reader is often ignored in favor of a number of smaller posts layout out the argument piecemeal.
Also, iterative comments expressing the same view in a few short words can reinforce the idea as popular in the eyes of a reader. A long winded spiel can come across as defensive, by comparison, and weaken the argument in the end.
You’re explaining what is and I’m saying the way this is has me seriously concerned. Its bad. This is bad. It’s the opposite of good.
I’m not confused about what it is. I’m saying the thing you described is bad.
It’s a heuristic for absorbing information that’s predicated on people not having infinite time or attention.
Lots of Wall Of Text posts aren’t actually worth reading.