[pg]

Ok, let's start from the beginning. You believe it's false that having good ideas is most of writing well. Can you give a counterexample? Can you give an example of an essay you consider to be a good piece of writing, and yet whose author you believe didn't know what he/she was talking about? Present company excepted of course.

[dingfeng_quek]

ahoyhere and pg's argument isn't clashing - while pg wrote his essay from his personal experience, ahoyhere demands (or at least appeals to) the consideration of a broad set of ideas related to a long history of thought and research.

However, pg's essay is clear that it doesn't aim to be a well-founded research paper. Although ahoyhere is right that pg's essay will never be recognized as a good research paper (by intelligent people, i.e. not those who were conned by the sokhal hoax), the essay is not designed to be one.

pg: I can give examples of great scholarly works where the author is confused, but the domain is highly specific, and probably outside of your interests. For less technical subjects outside of expert-to-expert communication where some spend years to develop new ideas, there's generally less preference for insight over clarity.

ahoyhere: If you're looking for well-researched expositions in this area, I'm sure you already know where to look. Hm... But I think today's social-psych/cognitive research is better than what Aristotle says.

[ahoyhere]

PG once wrote:

"I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before. This sort of thing happens to a lot of people, and I would really like to avoid it"

Here I am, helping… by not letting him get away with saying stupider stuff than he has in the past.

I am not looking for a "well-researched exposition in this area." I'm looking for an essay that states baldly things such as "They're certainly inferior to the written word as a source of ideas." to actually back it up with some cogent argument.

That's not all that much to ask.

Also: Hm... But I think today's social-psych/cognitive research is better than what Aristotle says. That implies that social psych cognitive research backs up what pg wrote, and of course, it does not.

[jeremymcanally]

I think you're changing your question from the first sentence to the next. I think what ahoyhere is taking issue with is not that good ideas are essential to writing well, but that good ideas are most of writing well (a statement that I, too, would argue isn't entirely accurate).

To re-use some of your essay's ideas, I've seen just as many well-loved "motivational writers" (e.g., Joel Osteen [who seems like the king of this sort of writing] or to use nerdier examples, Malcolm Gladwell [in some cases] and Seth Godin [to some extent]) as you've apparently seen bubble mouthed motivational speakers. I read books from authors like that, and, while well written, they don't actually do much for me intellectually other than motivate me to progress my own thinking or actions (i.e., very few actually new ideas are introduced to my brain).

[ahoyhere]

The burden of proof is on you. It's your essay. Furthermore, I didn't state that I disagreed… I merely asked you to explain your reasoning. Argument isn't a case of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." You either have a case to make, or you don't. You either have a good reason to hold an opinion, or you don't.

And, as jeremymcanally pointed out, you switched from "good ideas being most of writing well" to asking me to show you writing from an author who didn't know what he was talking about.

That is a pretty epic switcheroo.

[pg]

On the contrary. I asked you to give me an example of something I wrote that you believe to be false. You gave me that sentence. The burden of proof is on you.

Just so we're clear, do you believe it's false that having good ideas is most of writing well? Or not?

[ahoyhere]

Yup, I do, but conditionally. But, like I said, that doesn't matter. What's at issue is not what I believe, but what you fail to demonstrate, argue, or prove.

You asked for statements I believed to be false. I took this to mean statements I didn't believe. Because you didn't argue any of the effectively. I consider them false until well argued -- and the statements I called out hadn't been backed up even in a cursory way.

No amount of arguing with me over what I believe is going to change that fact.

You are very skilled at turning the tables in an argument, bravo. Your essays would be a million times better if you would do it to yourself instead of taking the lazy route.

[pg]

You asked for statements I believed to be false. I took this to mean statements I didn't believe. Because you didn't argue any of them effectively. I consider them false until well argued

I find when a thread gets to the point where someone is arguing about the meanings of fundamental words like "false," nothing good is ever going to come of it. So if you don't mind I think I'm done here.