[timr]

Yes, the "all writing must be clinical and concise" comments are one of those absurd nerd memes that I wish would die. The Atlantic is not the primary literature, and you can't impugn an entire research program based on a pop-science summary written for mass consumption.

If I could teach nerds only one thing about the world, it's that dismissing non-technical forms of communication as useless does not impress anyone with your intellectual skill -- it just makes you annoying and hard to tolerate.

[akamaka]

I posted my comment as a helpful warning to HN readers. People come to this site because they value their time, and want to be picky about what they read. My personal preference is academic-style writing.

But there's a few simple things article writers can do to improve readability. -Summaries (explain what the reader can expect to get out of the article) -Sideboxes (highlight key passages or points from each paragraph) -Descriptive paragraph headings

This article had none of those, and I felt like it was just trying to keep me hooked so I'd keep clicking to get to the next page and find the good part.

[silentbicycle]

> But there's a few simple things article writers can do to improve readability. -Summaries (explain what the reader can expect to get out of the article) -Sideboxes (highlight key passages or points from each paragraph) -Descriptive paragraph headings

Dude, the magazine has a cover story about Spongebob. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200906/spongebob) Perhaps you're being a tiny bit silly in expecting them to "highlight key passages or points from each paragraph" for you?

[akamaka]

Touché

[silentbicycle]

It seems like a lot of good programmers have hobbies to help get out of the all-tech, all-the-time mental rut. Balance is healthy.

Also, the information bandwidth of social communication is incredibly high. Much of our mental resources are dedicated to social decisions (friend or foe? are they lying?), which computers tend to handle very poorly.