site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 19, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How much does someone making a point briefly and simply make you more likely to believe them?

"Believe" feels like a wrong word there. If it's an argument, I'd definitely be more inclined to follow succinct and clear argument more than a complex and windy and obscure one. If it's just a statement, then I guess a simple one would make it easier for me to evaluate, but for something like "The Moon is made of swiss cheese" isn't not going to make me more likely to accept it as the truth.

In math, a short proof is better than a long proof, but a "proof" that skips a non-trivial step is not a proof at all.

This is a thousand times less rigorous when applied to less formal reasoning, but the principle is similar.

Perhaps in the informal case the other distinction to make is between arguments which are long because of additional steps made in "parallel" vs "serial"? If I believe A and you're trying to convince me of X, then "A -> B -> X" is slightly shorter than "A -> C -> D -> X" and much shorter than "A -> B -> X; A -> E -> X", but the second argument is probably less convincing than the first (now there are three steps I have to agree with instead of two, so I'm more doubtful unless they're each much simpler and more obvious inferences) and yet the third argument is at least as convincing than the first (there are now four steps, but so long as I agree with either the first two or the second two I will reach the same conclusion). The only catch with "parallel" arguments is that they ought to be ordered from most-convincing to least-. If a writer I don't already trust throws out dozens of arguments but the first three are obviously nonsense, I'm going to mutter "Gish gallop" and not bother to investigate whether number twenty is actually really persuasive.

A little bit more, because brevity suggests the ideas have been stewing there long enough for them be contextualized and lose their unnecessary parts. Not too much because it's hard to tell if he really knows what he is talking about or just faking it.

Much.

To me that is infinitely preferable to the pages long waffling that Scott specializes in and that sadly took hold on /r/ssc and then The Motte. You aren't paid per word, people.

You guys are getting paid?

For all his faults Scott at least is a good writer, it's entertaining to read him. It's pure torture when someone less talented tries to reproduce his style.

As long as they aren't glossing over important details (which is a huge caveat), I prefer brevity. I'm bad at living up to this myself, which is why I'm not a very good writer (or part of why anyways).

For me, more likely to believe. But lots of people response to unclear and unnecessarily long communication, aka "woo".

Ever wonder what happens when you click on a "one weird trick" ad? Would it surprise you that the answer is a 15-30 minute video?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210318073302/https://slate.com/business/2013/07/how-one-weird-trick-conquered-the-internet-what-happens-when-you-click-on-those-omnipresent-ads.html

Every time Lon seemed about to get to the spicy heart of the matter, he’d go off on a tangent. This video wouldn’t stay on the Internet for long, he said. The cure is for people “ready to put down the flaky answers.” Indeed, “if you’re looking for a miracle cure or new age fad, leave this page now.”

More than the person that won't shut-up.

Brevity is the soul of wit.