Good post. One quibble I have is that, since the post itself is supposed to be an example of the state-explain-summarize structure, I would expect there to be a more distinct summary (I can’t identify a summary—the explanation seems to be ongoing until the end of the article). Also even if there was a summary, it would be less effective by virtue of the fact that the last line is a meta-comment unrelated to the post’s content (this is what sticks in people’s minds) - probably better to stick that kind of thing at the top of the article. Furthermore it might be worth noting that state-explain-summarize is the standard for scientific papers.
Regarding the “rule of three”, that may be part of the reason why this structure is effective. On the other hand, a more prosaic explanation is that people have an easier time understanding exposition if they know roughly where it is trying to lead them in the first place (hence the need for a statement of the subject), the explanation is there to actually provide evidence or arguments in favour of some conclusion, and the summary ensures that the reader comes away with a strong impression of the conclusion that the article was promoting, rather than being caught up in the details of some particular argument or piece of evidence.
On the other hand more informal kinds of writing can also be persuasive. I think that it depends on the relationship of the writer to his audience—how willing they are to read his writings without a guarantee of relevance or quality. Writers who have a familiar relationship with their audience (e.g. bloggers, high-status individuals on this site) can omit any introduction, and readers will be happy to invest time in reading the piece without necessarily knowing where it is leading them. On the other hand if one was to apply this policy to any random writer, a lot of time might be wasted reading irrelevant and poorly thought-out material. Furthermore such a writer knows that his readers will take the time to ponder the conclusions he is forwarding, so he doesn’t need to beat readers over the head by providing a summary.
The benefits of informal structuring are many: the writer can play tricks, surprise his audience, or finish an article with a joke; the prose will be more attractive; a summary might seem demeaning to an intelligent and critical audience—and so on. But state-explain-summarize is certainly suitable in the context of writing (as an average-status member) for Less Wrong.
I would expect there to be a more distinct summary (I can’t identify a summary—the explanation seems to be ongoing until the end of the article)
Huh, I guess I have to work on that skill.
On the other hand more informal kinds of writing can also be persuasive.
Indeed, but it is also much harder to write effectively. By sticking to the formula you can at least guarantee a certain minimum standard.
Furthermore it might be worth noting that state-explain-summarize is the standard for scientific papers.
You mean “is supposed to be the standard”. Having read an untold number of physics publications and arxiv entries, I find that the “standard” is followed in maybe half of them. It is not unusual for the authors to introduce new evidence in the Discussion section, toward the end of their paper, when it is time to summarize. It is quite common to launch directly into the background in the Introduction, without stating their point first.
And don’t even start me on the seminars… An average presentation by an expert in their field is structured much worse than the one given by EY.
Good post. One quibble I have is that, since the post itself is supposed to be an example of the state-explain-summarize structure, I would expect there to be a more distinct summary (I can’t identify a summary—the explanation seems to be ongoing until the end of the article). Also even if there was a summary, it would be less effective by virtue of the fact that the last line is a meta-comment unrelated to the post’s content (this is what sticks in people’s minds) - probably better to stick that kind of thing at the top of the article. Furthermore it might be worth noting that state-explain-summarize is the standard for scientific papers.
Regarding the “rule of three”, that may be part of the reason why this structure is effective. On the other hand, a more prosaic explanation is that people have an easier time understanding exposition if they know roughly where it is trying to lead them in the first place (hence the need for a statement of the subject), the explanation is there to actually provide evidence or arguments in favour of some conclusion, and the summary ensures that the reader comes away with a strong impression of the conclusion that the article was promoting, rather than being caught up in the details of some particular argument or piece of evidence.
On the other hand more informal kinds of writing can also be persuasive. I think that it depends on the relationship of the writer to his audience—how willing they are to read his writings without a guarantee of relevance or quality. Writers who have a familiar relationship with their audience (e.g. bloggers, high-status individuals on this site) can omit any introduction, and readers will be happy to invest time in reading the piece without necessarily knowing where it is leading them. On the other hand if one was to apply this policy to any random writer, a lot of time might be wasted reading irrelevant and poorly thought-out material. Furthermore such a writer knows that his readers will take the time to ponder the conclusions he is forwarding, so he doesn’t need to beat readers over the head by providing a summary.
The benefits of informal structuring are many: the writer can play tricks, surprise his audience, or finish an article with a joke; the prose will be more attractive; a summary might seem demeaning to an intelligent and critical audience—and so on. But state-explain-summarize is certainly suitable in the context of writing (as an average-status member) for Less Wrong.
Huh, I guess I have to work on that skill.
Indeed, but it is also much harder to write effectively. By sticking to the formula you can at least guarantee a certain minimum standard.
You mean “is supposed to be the standard”. Having read an untold number of physics publications and arxiv entries, I find that the “standard” is followed in maybe half of them. It is not unusual for the authors to introduce new evidence in the Discussion section, toward the end of their paper, when it is time to summarize. It is quite common to launch directly into the background in the Introduction, without stating their point first.
And don’t even start me on the seminars… An average presentation by an expert in their field is structured much worse than the one given by EY.