[csa]

> I often wondered if Patrick uses unnecessarily convoluted sentences

One of my weird qualifications is evaluating text complexity. Most of Patrick’s writing is simply highly accurate and precise erudite language. Frankly, compared to other writers at a comparable level of erudition, his writing is downright economical rather than convoluted.

His texts tend to be very information dense in a way that I’m not sure all readers appreciate or value.

>. or if he is simply careful about using the proper terminology

Yep. All that.

> and my English is just not good enough to follow him like a native speaker would.

Probably (not sure about your English proficiency level), but that’s not a knock on your English.

Note that Patrick’s writing is very high level, and I think many native speakers don’t read his texts with a high degree of fluency. Specifically, they simply don’t make it through the text, they don’t understand what he wrote, or they are not able to identify the preciseness and accuracy (and sometimes artfulness) with which he communicates his ideas.

On a personal level, I am a big fan of his writing — it’s just a delight to read material on a complex topic with a high degree of confidence that what he says is extremely accurate.

Another author who I think writes at a high level is Scott Alexander of slatestarcodex and astralcodexten (or wherever he writes these days) — very high brow style on complex topics. It’s not for everyone. Fwiw, I’ve had to read (and reread) some of Scott Alexander’s pieces in small chunks with breaks to process what I had read — sometimes it’s just oozing with intellectual goodness.

For someone who writes in finance in a more casual style, I recommend Matt Levine and his newsletter Money Stuff (free).

[trealira]

I had never read Patrick McKenzie's writing before, but the linked article contains a link to a popular article of his from 2012[1], which I read, and his substack[2], a few articles of which I skimmed as well.

The salary negotiation article really doesn't come off as that formal and high level, to me; the tone is rather casual, although it requires knowledge of some advanced vocabulary like "fungible" and "administrativia". I'm not saying this to brag about my reading level; I'm genuinely a bit confused.

I had been expecting something like the preface from the second edition of Jane Eyre[3].

[1]: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/

[2]: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/

[3]: https://victorianweb.org/authors/bronte/cbronte/janeeyre/pre...

[csa]

I get your points. Some comments:

1. Some topics are easier to write about than others — certain types of complexity will not add to the quality of communication. I agree that the salary negotiation article of Patrick’s isn’t particularly complex.

2. High level texts don’t have to be inaccessible. One of the best high level texts that I’ve seen was a Turkish article that ostensibly looked like a sports story on football/soccer but was actually very high level political commentary. Some of the stuff that African story tellers do is absolutely mind-boggling in its ability to communicate on multiple levels.

3. The salary negotiation article may be simple for you and for many folks on HN, but I can’t tell you how many people I’ve sent this article to (with purpose) who didn’t even finish reading it. Specifically, I think the structure is longer and more involved than some folks like. Some of the (important, imho) topics also can put people to sleep — fully-loaded salary costs comes to mind.

4. I’m not sure what the view on the salary negotiation article is now, but it was an eye opener to many people when it was written. The way salaries are decided in tech companies is quite a bit different now than it was in 2012, and I think this article played at least a small part in that cultural change.

5. Even in an article on a relatively mundane topic like salary negotiation, Patrick comes up with gems like this: “If you have a kid brother who majored in Flemish Dance and got a modest full-time job at a non-profit, his fully-loaded cost is still probably $4,000 a month or more.” There is a lot of cultural load in that one. It might be easy for HN folks to parse it, but it’s not that easy for large swathes of the population, especially if non-native populations are included.

If I run into any of Patrick’s writing that showcases his some of his higher level stuff over the next 24 hours, I will reply here. It’s a busy day, so I’m not sure I will have the time.

As a fun side thing, here is a high-level text from Obama when Seinfeld ask him what sport politics is most like:

“It’s probably most like football. A lot of players. A lot of specialization. A lot of hitting. A lot of attrition. But then every once in awhile, you’ll see an opening, you hit the line, you get one yard, you try a play, you get sacked, now it’s like, third and 15… you have to punt a lot. But every once in a while, you see a hole, and then there’s open field.”

A reasonable comprehension question to ask on a text like this would be something like “Based on Obama’s comment, what are some specific occurrences in politics that might have conceptual parallels in [American] football?”I assure you that this passage is basically like Klingon to non-native speakers who have not immersed themselves in American culture.

[trealira]

You make some good points. I definitely understand where a non-native speaker would have trouble following American cultural references and phrasings; I was more confused by the people saying that they're also native speakers, but that following McKenzie's writing is still difficult for them.

> 3. The salary negotiation article may be simple for you and for many folks on HN, but I can’t tell you how many people I’ve sent this article to (with purpose) who didn’t even finish reading it. Specifically, I think the structure is longer and more involved than some folks like. Some of the (important, imho) topics also can put people to sleep — fully-loaded salary costs comes to mind.

This is also a good point. I think it's because a lot of people, even college-educated people, just don't read much, so most won't read a very long article, even if it's written in a casual tone, particularly if it's boring. Partly, I believe that reading has to be practiced and maintained, similar to maintaining a muscle. If you don't read articles regularly, reading a long one will be very mentally taxing. Even if you do, if an article is longer than what you're used to, you'll feel mentally tired after you're done. And it's harder to read long articles when they're about a bit of an unexciting topic, like salary negotiation.