The writers I've come to most respect acknowledge how little they know. Conversely, the worst writings I've come across are from people who believe they've figured everything out. This is difficult to appropriately balance - engaging writing needs to exude a certain confidence but must avoid hubris. Gravitate towards writers who are clearly avid readers themselves. Drawing inspiration from a variety of references and depths shows they aren't just trying to show off how much they know - they are sharing in their active hunt for learning.
100%. Lyn is a great finance writer. She is one of the few to make parallels between today’s macroeconomy and the 1940s. She’s also a class act — she has had a pretty unique life experience and has some rare inner strength.
Everyone is quick to compare today's inflation to the 1970s. You're right, Lyn takes a look at the 40s and makes some (correct) observations and comparisons. She also offers a much more clear thought process than most who write about finance, which I always appreciate. In a very favorable way, her writing reminds me a little bit of Ben Graham's, although that's not the most fair comparison I could make... but that level of clarity is there.
I think that your method is a very useful and important way to maintain an optimum understanding of "the truth" in a rapidly evolving global social environment that is glutted with unqualified data/derived opinions almost beyond the ability to comprehend.
I had to evolve a sort of personal methodology--an information triage, as I conceive it--for information handling simply in order to remain an effective decision-make for myself and my family. And as you point out, ruthless (and rapid) evaluation--as objective as you can make it--is essential to this end.
There is a whole substructure of how to evaluate epistemological soundness that one must devise, and always, always, ALWAYS one must disconnect one's ego for these important first steps. Try your utmost to stay faithful to the ultimate goal of objectivity (as best a human can do, anyway).
After the triage and subsequent analysis and evaluation, one can more safely allow one's personal preferences to enter. So quite often you might come to a point of relative understanding on a topic and say to yourself "Well, that seems to be the most accurate and likely conclusion; I may not much *like* it, but it seems to be the fact."
Denial is your ultimate enemy. Life's hard enough without self-delusion.
If I am allowed, let me put down my two pennies, too.
Please, notice that "debunking" seems to be nearly exclusively reserved for the manipulators. On my end, I prefer to use "refute."
Other than that, a manipulator can be an EXCELLENT writer, and a good source might not sound all that sophisticated. Also, a good writer can use simple language in order to stay accessible for anyone interested even if they don't hold doctoral degrees. :)
In my experience, timeliness and consistency also matter. Timeliness, as in not publishing limited hangouts, and consistency in terms of not contradicting himself/herself.
Above all, I value ideas that I cannot find anywhere else; otherwise, it's a waste of my reader's time. Entertainment value and motivational aspects come in next.
“Ruthlessly prune” is also good advice for being a better writer. Writing a short article is harder than writing a long article, and the same applies to giving talks.
Reading and writing: two sides, one coin. Learn to read well to write better. Practice writing better to improve your reading. Facts above form. Suavitur in re, fortitur in modo marks out debate from polemic. Choose words carefully read first and last paragraph, first line of each para. If good, delve deeper. If not, move on. Pick me!
I particularly like Lyn Alden's advice, and always keep in mind her last statement:
"Hardly anybody does this, in any discipline."
That defuses a lot of writing that first comes over as alarming.
The writers I've come to most respect acknowledge how little they know. Conversely, the worst writings I've come across are from people who believe they've figured everything out. This is difficult to appropriately balance - engaging writing needs to exude a certain confidence but must avoid hubris. Gravitate towards writers who are clearly avid readers themselves. Drawing inspiration from a variety of references and depths shows they aren't just trying to show off how much they know - they are sharing in their active hunt for learning.
I like it.
For what it's worth, Lyn Alden is absolutely one of the best writers in finance.
100%. Lyn is a great finance writer. She is one of the few to make parallels between today’s macroeconomy and the 1940s. She’s also a class act — she has had a pretty unique life experience and has some rare inner strength.
Everyone is quick to compare today's inflation to the 1970s. You're right, Lyn takes a look at the 40s and makes some (correct) observations and comparisons. She also offers a much more clear thought process than most who write about finance, which I always appreciate. In a very favorable way, her writing reminds me a little bit of Ben Graham's, although that's not the most fair comparison I could make... but that level of clarity is there.
I think that your method is a very useful and important way to maintain an optimum understanding of "the truth" in a rapidly evolving global social environment that is glutted with unqualified data/derived opinions almost beyond the ability to comprehend.
I had to evolve a sort of personal methodology--an information triage, as I conceive it--for information handling simply in order to remain an effective decision-make for myself and my family. And as you point out, ruthless (and rapid) evaluation--as objective as you can make it--is essential to this end.
There is a whole substructure of how to evaluate epistemological soundness that one must devise, and always, always, ALWAYS one must disconnect one's ego for these important first steps. Try your utmost to stay faithful to the ultimate goal of objectivity (as best a human can do, anyway).
After the triage and subsequent analysis and evaluation, one can more safely allow one's personal preferences to enter. So quite often you might come to a point of relative understanding on a topic and say to yourself "Well, that seems to be the most accurate and likely conclusion; I may not much *like* it, but it seems to be the fact."
Denial is your ultimate enemy. Life's hard enough without self-delusion.
If I am allowed, let me put down my two pennies, too.
Please, notice that "debunking" seems to be nearly exclusively reserved for the manipulators. On my end, I prefer to use "refute."
Other than that, a manipulator can be an EXCELLENT writer, and a good source might not sound all that sophisticated. Also, a good writer can use simple language in order to stay accessible for anyone interested even if they don't hold doctoral degrees. :)
In my experience, timeliness and consistency also matter. Timeliness, as in not publishing limited hangouts, and consistency in terms of not contradicting himself/herself.
Above all, I value ideas that I cannot find anywhere else; otherwise, it's a waste of my reader's time. Entertainment value and motivational aspects come in next.
This was excellent advice, thank you!
“Ruthlessly prune” is also good advice for being a better writer. Writing a short article is harder than writing a long article, and the same applies to giving talks.
That's a great point Richard. When someone writes concisely it usually means they understand what is important. Another good trait to look for!
Good stuff, Tian.
Thank you Six Bravo!
Reading and writing: two sides, one coin. Learn to read well to write better. Practice writing better to improve your reading. Facts above form. Suavitur in re, fortitur in modo marks out debate from polemic. Choose words carefully read first and last paragraph, first line of each para. If good, delve deeper. If not, move on. Pick me!