There’s a certain style distinct to many didactic quotes: they express claims in a wise-sounding but opaque way, so that they automatically appear deep without requiring the reader to actually think about them. This can cloak empty language and doubtful claims in a veneer of impressiveness—not to mention being uncommunicative if the ideas really are good.
It looks to me like these match that style. The ideas here could be both true and interesting, but making them into aphorisms (to fit Twitter) removes the explanation and examples that would convince me they’re true and interesting. As it is, they sound meaningless to me—the medium totally obscures the message.
I’d be interested in a post exploring some of these ideas, but tweets seem to me to be a format utterly unsuited to the topic.
[Also, I really think that this should not be on the front page. If even commenters have to puzzle over many of these, it’s not a good choice for the general audience.]
Mostly, I think of pithy quotes as the conversational equivalent of icons in GUIs. If you don’t already have a pretty good clue what an icon does, the icon by itself isn’t very helpful… but once you become familiar with it, it can be very helpful.
Similarly, the nice thing about pithy quotes is that once you’ve understood the associated thought, they provide an easier way to bring that thought to mind on demand.
They can also provide a hook. That is, tossing a pithy quote into a conversation and providing additional explanation if there seems to be interest in it can be more comfortable than trying to toss a large chunk of exposition into conversation. (Well, for me, anyway. Some people seem more comfortable with tossing large chunks of exposition into conversations.)
Michael Vassar has this quote on Twitter: “Every distinction wants to become the distinction between good and evil.” Which I’m sure I would have understood differently had I not previously read the post from which it (I believe) originated:
Math/Logical style analysis seems like the original of the far-mode paradigm. Fiddling with things with your hands without explicit executive scrutiny over what you are doing while trusting in non-conscious cognitive processes to figure out a solution seems like the paradigm for near-mode thought. Both have an important place, but it seems to me that placing math in near mode is simply an attempt to place everything that works, or that you have affectively labeled as good, in near mode. Every distinction wants to become good versus evil.
Your wariness of good pithy quotes makes sense, they are intended to be infectious memes. Just as our bodies need lotsa bacteria in order to function, infectious memes increase the carrying and staying power of ideas in our mind. Just as our bodies are screwed if we get the wrong bacteria, our thinking can be ill with the wrong memes.
For myself, I take the fact that I like a lot of these quotes as motivation to learn more about the ones I don’t understand. I am weak on the difference between beliefs and preferences, yet I’m sure it is on the edge of a very active part of my current thinking. I suspect the “high discount rate for learning, low for knowing” is backwards but I need to work it through to decide. Etc.
Pithy quotes like this increase the likelihood that I will follow through on learning more. Hopefully this is an effective way to protect against “bad” pithy quotes getting a neuron-hold on my brain.
There’s a certain style distinct to many didactic quotes: they express claims in a wise-sounding but opaque way, so that they automatically appear deep without requiring the reader to actually think about them. This can cloak empty language and doubtful claims in a veneer of impressiveness—not to mention being uncommunicative if the ideas really are good.
It looks to me like these match that style. The ideas here could be both true and interesting, but making them into aphorisms (to fit Twitter) removes the explanation and examples that would convince me they’re true and interesting. As it is, they sound meaningless to me—the medium totally obscures the message.
I’d be interested in a post exploring some of these ideas, but tweets seem to me to be a format utterly unsuited to the topic.
[Also, I really think that this should not be on the front page. If even commenters have to puzzle over many of these, it’s not a good choice for the general audience.]
The real problem with pithy quotes is that if you disagree with the quote, it’s hard to argue without appearing unpithy.
(How was that for a pithy quote?)
Mostly, I think of pithy quotes as the conversational equivalent of icons in GUIs. If you don’t already have a pretty good clue what an icon does, the icon by itself isn’t very helpful… but once you become familiar with it, it can be very helpful.
Similarly, the nice thing about pithy quotes is that once you’ve understood the associated thought, they provide an easier way to bring that thought to mind on demand.
They can also provide a hook. That is, tossing a pithy quote into a conversation and providing additional explanation if there seems to be interest in it can be more comfortable than trying to toss a large chunk of exposition into conversation. (Well, for me, anyway. Some people seem more comfortable with tossing large chunks of exposition into conversations.)
All of which is to say, I’m fond of them.
I agree with you. My dispute is that ‘pithy’ means not ‘short’ but ‘concisely meaningful.’ If a line is short but confusing, it’s not pithy.
Michael Vassar has this quote on Twitter: “Every distinction wants to become the distinction between good and evil.” Which I’m sure I would have understood differently had I not previously read the post from which it (I believe) originated:
Your wariness of good pithy quotes makes sense, they are intended to be infectious memes. Just as our bodies need lotsa bacteria in order to function, infectious memes increase the carrying and staying power of ideas in our mind. Just as our bodies are screwed if we get the wrong bacteria, our thinking can be ill with the wrong memes.
For myself, I take the fact that I like a lot of these quotes as motivation to learn more about the ones I don’t understand. I am weak on the difference between beliefs and preferences, yet I’m sure it is on the edge of a very active part of my current thinking. I suspect the “high discount rate for learning, low for knowing” is backwards but I need to work it through to decide. Etc.
Pithy quotes like this increase the likelihood that I will follow through on learning more. Hopefully this is an effective way to protect against “bad” pithy quotes getting a neuron-hold on my brain.