[jessedhillon]

This is an excellent quote, which I have used to shape my thoughts and feelings on my writing:

"Good writers have two things in common: they prefer to be understood rather than admired; and they do not write for knowing and over-acute readers." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

EDIT: Let me elaborate a little about why I think this applies.

The GGP says that the idea that "research or strong points are not necessary" makes him sad. Joel is saying that one of his realizations is that writing does not need to be about compelling and unassailable logic, but can also be about communicating his personal experiences and emotions.

In other words, he prefers to be understood rather than satisfying the pedantic readers in his audience. I think this is the correct choice: being understood means that his emotions and experiences are related in such a way that the reader can emphasize with him; being correct means simply passing a mechanical examination of his logical structure.

At the end of the day, most people side with you because they empathize with you or because you stir their own emotions, not because you satisfy a system of equations.

[smacktoward]

There is surely a continuum between "unassailable logic" and "no research," no?

I've just read waaay too many blog posts (and tweets, and statuses, et al) making assertions that even the briefest, most cursory amount of research by the author would have proven incorrect, or at least more complicated than they seem at first glance. Like, a single Google search, you know? When I find a piece of writing where the author went to the trouble to put in that effort, it automatically goes up in my estimation a few notches.

I take Nietzsche's words about "knowing and over-acute readers" not as a call to not research your subject, but rather to write about it in a way that's accessible to the broad public rather than to experts on the topic. Good writers take complicated subjects and make them seem simple.