That’s a good point, thanks for the feedback. I wasn’t sure about how much history to include, but wanted to give some background for the ideas which come later. I think that if the ideas were presented out of the blue, without any context for where they came from, they might seem a little incredible. But yeah, less history may have been better.
The history finishes pretty early in the next post, so hopefully that’s a little better in this regard.
Here’s some more specific advice, which I’ve also heard wrt academic writing: we do not want to hear about the exact process of discovery, what we want is the key insights at each point. In this case, you’ve got several paragraphs about reading/watching material, taking notes, revising notes, thinking about notes and material, and so forth, none of which are particularly relevant to what you actually got out of them.
For example, these paragraphs:
As I went through the 20-hour program I typed up about 90 pages of notes. The presentation was full of perspectives I’d never thought of, outlining a way to approach life that was not only highly attractive on all levels, but excitingly feasible. There were many paraphrased points I put in the notes, as well as direct quotations that were too good to omit. I very often paused the videos to reflect on what was said, jotting down analyses of how a point related to my own experiences, what it would imply, or how I could use it.
I would come back to these notes often, and I always found them both inspiring and illustrative. After reading them I would be significantly more confident and comfortable, sometimes dramatically so. But I would repeatedly forget about the perspectives over time, and get the same boost again when I went back to the material; clearly, something wasn’t sticking.
Could just as easily have been written as:
The 20-hour program was full of perspectives I’d never thought of, outlining a way to approach life that was not only highly attractive, but seemed excitingly feasible. But there was a problem: while reading the notes I’d taken on the program made me significantly more confident and comfortable, I would repeatedly forget about the perspectives over time until I came back to read them again. Clearly, something wasn’t sticking.
Good advice, and a nice shortening of those paragraphs. In this case though I think that the original presentation, while it certainly could be improved, has some restrictions and beneficial aspects which may present a reason to do things differently.
As for presenting the key insights at each point, unfortunately the insights actually gained at the time aren’t very helpful to present. They were useful, but they’ve since been improved and refactored a number of times before reaching their current state. I think it would be distracting and unhelpful to present earlier and less refined versions of the actual conclusions; besides distracting from later versions of the ideas, the earlier ideas were also just messier and harder to understand.
The post could also be more succinct by omitting details about the process of discovery, but this seems relevant for assessing the likely use and validity of the ideas (presented later). This is like the difference between a scientific article that mentions something like “a study was conducted” and one that mentions “a meta-analysis of studies in the past year, with a total sample size of 2,493.” If true, the latter description provides more information for the reader to use in assessing the results.
This is like the difference between a scientific article that mentions something like “a study was conducted” and one that mentions “a meta-analysis of studies in the past year, with a total sample size of 2,493.” If true, the latter description provides more information for the reader to use in assessing the results.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing the relevance of that particular analogy, because your story is still firmly in anecdote-land—when you say you tried really hard to apply all these insights, I believe you within the context of the story, and the extra detail isn’t of the type that I can use to draw any useful conclusions. If a meta-analysis is of 10 studies vs 50, that means something to me and tells me something about how robust its conclusions are, but what should it mean for you to have taken 90 pages of notes rather than 20? I don’t know anything about your note-taking habits, so it’s just a meaningless number to me (eg. two classmates who I work closely with routinely turn in assignments that are more than twice as long as mine despite containing exactly the same content). Does the fact that you often paused the video to reflect on what was said a sign that you’re a deep and insightful thinker, a sign that you’re slow and can’t process information efficiently, a sign that you’re easily distracted, a sign that the information in the video was either extremely dense or extremely poorly explained, or something else entirely? Since I don’t know you, I can’t say, and that’s what moves the ‘process of discovery’ material from ‘useful for assessing the validity of your ideas’ to ‘extra stuff that creates a giant wall of text’.
As for the key insights you had at each point, I didn’t mean so much for you to present the intermediate insights you had at each point (because that’s clearly not the thrust of these posts), but rather to work out what the core part of each stage of your journey was and present those as clearly as possible, only putting in as much detail as is necessary to carry those central points.
It’s certainly a much fuzzier form of evidence than commonly presented in scientific studies and meta-studies, but from a Bayesian standpoint the details of the process are not completely uncorrelated from other things, so they present at least some amount of evidence. Given, that evidence may be slight.
BTW, regarding:
Does the fact that you often paused the video to reflect on what was said a sign that you’re a deep and insightful thinker, a sign that you’re slow and can’t process information efficiently, a sign that you’re easily distracted, a sign that the information in the video was either extremely dense or extremely poorly explained, or something else entirely?
My own opinion is that this is evidence of (and due to) the density of the material, as well as the quantity of thinking done and my level of interest. (I would agree that it’s not much evidence for quality of thinking done.)
My own opinion is that this is evidence of (and due to) the density of the material, as well as the quantity of thinking done and my level of interest. (I would agree that it’s not much evidence for quality of thinking done.)
Yeah, I was deliberately being uncharitable for the purpose of making the point. And I agree that at least some of the details contribute evidence that there was insight to be found, I just disagree with you on which and how much of that detail does so.
As for the key insights you had at each point, I didn’t mean so much for you to present the intermediate insights you had at each point (because that’s clearly not the thrust of these posts), but rather to work out what the core part of each stage of your journey was and present those as clearly as possible, only putting in as much detail as is necessary to carry those central points.
This is good advice though. I don’t think I’m going go back and make large revisions to the post (could change my mind on that), but if I were writing it again for the first time I would probably cut down the amount of detail.
That’s a good point, thanks for the feedback. I wasn’t sure about how much history to include, but wanted to give some background for the ideas which come later. I think that if the ideas were presented out of the blue, without any context for where they came from, they might seem a little incredible. But yeah, less history may have been better.
The history finishes pretty early in the next post, so hopefully that’s a little better in this regard.
Here’s some more specific advice, which I’ve also heard wrt academic writing: we do not want to hear about the exact process of discovery, what we want is the key insights at each point. In this case, you’ve got several paragraphs about reading/watching material, taking notes, revising notes, thinking about notes and material, and so forth, none of which are particularly relevant to what you actually got out of them.
For example, these paragraphs:
Could just as easily have been written as:
Good advice, and a nice shortening of those paragraphs. In this case though I think that the original presentation, while it certainly could be improved, has some restrictions and beneficial aspects which may present a reason to do things differently.
As for presenting the key insights at each point, unfortunately the insights actually gained at the time aren’t very helpful to present. They were useful, but they’ve since been improved and refactored a number of times before reaching their current state. I think it would be distracting and unhelpful to present earlier and less refined versions of the actual conclusions; besides distracting from later versions of the ideas, the earlier ideas were also just messier and harder to understand.
The post could also be more succinct by omitting details about the process of discovery, but this seems relevant for assessing the likely use and validity of the ideas (presented later). This is like the difference between a scientific article that mentions something like “a study was conducted” and one that mentions “a meta-analysis of studies in the past year, with a total sample size of 2,493.” If true, the latter description provides more information for the reader to use in assessing the results.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing the relevance of that particular analogy, because your story is still firmly in anecdote-land—when you say you tried really hard to apply all these insights, I believe you within the context of the story, and the extra detail isn’t of the type that I can use to draw any useful conclusions. If a meta-analysis is of 10 studies vs 50, that means something to me and tells me something about how robust its conclusions are, but what should it mean for you to have taken 90 pages of notes rather than 20? I don’t know anything about your note-taking habits, so it’s just a meaningless number to me (eg. two classmates who I work closely with routinely turn in assignments that are more than twice as long as mine despite containing exactly the same content). Does the fact that you often paused the video to reflect on what was said a sign that you’re a deep and insightful thinker, a sign that you’re slow and can’t process information efficiently, a sign that you’re easily distracted, a sign that the information in the video was either extremely dense or extremely poorly explained, or something else entirely? Since I don’t know you, I can’t say, and that’s what moves the ‘process of discovery’ material from ‘useful for assessing the validity of your ideas’ to ‘extra stuff that creates a giant wall of text’.
As for the key insights you had at each point, I didn’t mean so much for you to present the intermediate insights you had at each point (because that’s clearly not the thrust of these posts), but rather to work out what the core part of each stage of your journey was and present those as clearly as possible, only putting in as much detail as is necessary to carry those central points.
It’s certainly a much fuzzier form of evidence than commonly presented in scientific studies and meta-studies, but from a Bayesian standpoint the details of the process are not completely uncorrelated from other things, so they present at least some amount of evidence. Given, that evidence may be slight.
BTW, regarding:
My own opinion is that this is evidence of (and due to) the density of the material, as well as the quantity of thinking done and my level of interest. (I would agree that it’s not much evidence for quality of thinking done.)
Yeah, I was deliberately being uncharitable for the purpose of making the point. And I agree that at least some of the details contribute evidence that there was insight to be found, I just disagree with you on which and how much of that detail does so.
This is good advice though. I don’t think I’m going go back and make large revisions to the post (could change my mind on that), but if I were writing it again for the first time I would probably cut down the amount of detail.