[xrd]

Thank you for assuring me I wasn't the only one wondering throughout the article: "I must be a really poor reader to have missed the topic of the article!"

I don't finish the article because when I got to that point it seemed problematic but not something that couldn't be overcome. Aren't all learners going to find strategies to learn something and then alter those over time with the right teachers and introspection?

I didn't finish the article but does it explain (perhaps after a dozen or so foreshadowing paragraphs) why this method could not be overcome once learned?

[bawolff]

I agree, i find the style of writing this article uses endlessly frustrating.

[MaxBarraclough]

Even the BBC aren't above this sort of thing. My 'favourite' example of this kind of writing is a BBC News article titled This little-known inventor has probably saved your life. [0]

You have to read about half of the lengthy, rambling article before you discover what on Earth they're talking about. Turns out to be about the inventor of the flight recorder. It follows of course that the title is simply untrue, which makes for a nice bonus.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-49012771

[SV_BubbleTime]

I wish it was less common, but I’ve been seeing a lot of this ... article extending. I think that’s what it is.

[Groxx]

It's encouraged by being paid by the word (implicitly via time-on-page due to ads) in some cases.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, I’ve started to skip the first two paragraphs of all articles, now. This, combined with click-bait headlines, has started to make media articles more and more worthless. (In scientific writing and encyclopedia entries, they start with a summary so they immediately get to the point...)

[SV_BubbleTime]

> Yeah, I’ve started to skip the first two paragraphs of all articles

I go down and read the last two paragraphs to see if they summed it up well. It’s a 33% I read the whole article based on summary and content.

I’m not asking for a great writer... just someone that knew what they were writing about before they started typing.

[msie]

Yes, it will fail to reach a wide audience on such an important topic.

[_hofstadter]

Finishing the article is highly recommended. It is very good the entire way through and ends with a doozie!

[xrd]

Thanks for saying that, I will!

[SV_BubbleTime]

Apparently writing is just as hard as reading.

It was first mentioned 17 “paragraphs” in that:

memorizing words, using context to guess words, skipping words they don't know — are the strategies that many beginning readers are taught in school. This makes it harder for many kids to learn how to read, and children who don't get off to a good start in reading find it difficult to ever master the process.

That should have been the opener.

[causality0]

Learning something badly can be disastrous. I self-taught myself to type years before I took a typing class in school. Despite multiple attempts to learn both qwerty and dvorak I still use my invented four-finger method that doesn't allow me to fully touch-type without looking down.

[klibertp]

I recently read somewhere (maybe on the Wiki?) that there was a study that didn't find any advantage of classical touch typing over self-learned touch typing, in terms of speed of input at least.

In other words, nothing is stopping you from using your four fingers to type without looking at the keyboard. If you spend a whole day typing anyway, make a conscious effort, for a few minutes every day, to type by guessing where to move your fingers (whichever finger feels the closest or just the most comfortable). If you're like me, you already know where the keys are, you're just looking down to make sure. After a while, you'll see that you can write without looking, no problem. And at that point, it stops mattering if you use 4, 5, 6, or 10 fingers.

I was a 5-6-fingers non-touch typer for a very long time, my input speed was satisfactory anyway, so I didn't feel the need to learn the "proper technique," which seemed like a huge PITA. I was convinced that the proper touch typing is the only way to type without looking at the keyboard. I changed my mind due to a situation at work, where I was explaining something to a co-worker and had to use her laptop for demonstration. The catch was that her keyboard was completely blank. I was stumped for a while, but - having a reputation of a senior to uphold - I said (internally) 'fuck it, whatever happens, happens,' closed my eyes, and just typed. It worked, not 100%, but close enough. The co-worker wasn't impressed (well, she was the one who used such a keyboard, to begin with), but I was in awe. I realized that looking at the keyboard is just a habit, not an essential part of the typing process. Now I type mostly by touch, still use 5-6 fingers, still have satisfactory WPM, and I look down at the keyboard only when I'm distracted or when I have to reach some very rarely used key (like F5 - F9).

To summarize: if your work is based on typing on the keyboard, then the chances are that - after a few years - your fingers already know where the keys are. It's like riding a bike with hands away from the handlebar: if you've been cycling for a few years, you most likely are capable of doing this, you just need to realize it.

[est]

> I didn't finish the article

The last part about Ken Goodman was the best of the whole article.