The Curse of Knowledge

 Today I tweeted thinking about how to explain edge computing

This is called by Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor, the curse of knowledge . I feel a desperation trying to understand the main ideas from social networks
Why so much writing is so hard to understand? Why must a typical reader struggle to follow an academic article, fill a tax return or read instructions on how to install a home network?
The most popular explanation, says Steven, is captured in this NewYorker cartoon
 People intentionally opaque their prose. Bureaucrats and managers insists in gibberish to cover themselves. Plain clad technical writers ... seek revenge for all the girls who turned them down for dates. Pseudo-intellectuals spout obscure verbiage to hide that they have nothing to say.

There is a big difference between a coherent passage of writing and a flaunting of one erudition. A coherent text is a designed object, a window to the reader. Otherwise the text is unreadable for most people, who are not transformed in readers. They are  overwhelmed by gibberish.

Classic Style

We have a propensity to speak, not to write. 
Classic style is an antidote for academese, bureaucratise, corporatese, legalise. oficialise and other kinds of stuffy prose.
The classic style helps the reader see the world. The writer can see something that the reader has not yet noticed.  He orients the reader's gaze, so she can see for herself. The success means clarity and simplicity and disinterested truth. It also means people read what  you  write

Classic style is different from practical style. It gets through. It very relevant to how to evangelize edge computing, for example.

Comments

Popular Posts