[532nm]

A neat guide for good technical writing goes as follows:

1. Tell the 'WHAT' (i.e what you have built/observed/intend to do/etc.)

2. Explain the 'SO WHAT' without which the WHAT is almost meaningless (i.e. that it reduces operating costs by X/.../etc.)

I often find myself focusing too much on the WHAT, neglecting the SO WHAT. However, the succinct phrasing helps me to also keep the SO WHAT in mind.

(I first stumbled upon this way of phrasing things in the neat little book 'Trees, Maps and Theorems' by Doumont)

[Swizec]

“So what” is otherwise known as why. And it often flows better if you put it before the what – why is it that you’re doing the what and why should I care?

Another good writing tip: replace every “and then” transition with a “and that’s why” or “and despite that” transition

[BugsJustFindMe]

> “So what” is otherwise known as why.

It's valuable to phrase it as "so what" rather than as "why", because people without focus in all fields end up writing only "why the thing being analyzed happened" and not "why this analysis/suggestion/whatever matters". The problem with "why" is that "why"ing the wrong thing ends up just being an extension of the "what". Or at least be up front and clear and say in its entirety "why you need to stop whatever else you are doing right now and listen to me". Writing advice can improve itself by careful attention to writer failure modes.

> And it often flows better if you put it before the what

Indeed. You want to quickly convince the reader to stick around. But often you need to give a little background first, so really it becomes "what, so what, what for real, how, etc"

[CharlesW]

> “So what” is otherwise known as why.

These are often different. "Why" is often interpreted to mean why the author did it, while "So What?" or "Why Should I Care?" is why the audience should care and continue reading.

[evanrich]

I am not sure “so what” equates to “why” in my mind. “Why” tells the cause of the “what”. “So what” explains the reason one should care about the “what”.

[grey_earthling]

I think this is a really useful way of analysing your argument and refining it, as long as you question whether that really is why.

If the form is applied thoughtlessly, there's a risk it's gonna feel like the prose equivalent of Corporate Memphis illustrations.

=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis

Announcements where personality has been deliberately injected seem to have a habit of beginning with a pithy-but-vague mission statement, immediately followed by “that's why” and then an unwelcome operational detail:

> Here at {company} we know you value {vague nice thing like fairness or something}. That's why we're sunsetting our 64 petaquux widgets, and transitioning all of our customers over to our popular 32 petaquux widgets, in order to enhance your experience.

If you believe what you're saying but you're struggling to articulate it, borrowing a form can help you along, but you really can't manufacture genuinely persuasive writing.

[blackshaw]

> replace every “and then” transition with a “and that’s why” or “and despite that” transition

The creators of South Park give the same advice for writing fiction: every two beats in your story should be linked not by an "and" but by a "but" or "therefore".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGUNqq3jVLg

[tpoacher]

what you're describing is Rolfe's reflective model in the pedagogical literature.

You're missing the 3rd step, which is "Now What?"

Example:

What: - What happened? - What was your role in the situation? - What were you trying to achieve? - What actions did you take? - What surprised you?

So what: - So, what have you learnt? - So, what was the importance of this learning? - So, what more do you need to know about this? - So, what broader issues have arisen from the situation?

Now what: - Now, what could you do to enhance/improve the outcome? - Now, what might you do to repeat this success in the future? - Now, what might be a consequence of your chosen course of action?