For many people communication in online forums is an ego sport. They are here to snipe and crush. If they can interpret your words in a way that makes you look foolish, then that is the interpretation that they will speak to. If they can find a literal inconsistency, then they will take the literal approach. If you speak in contradiction of the conventional view then they will stand atop castle conventionality and pour flaming oil on your head, laughing. If all else fails they will point out grammatic errors.

I see people reacting to this environment. They are hesitant to let their strange opinions dangle free. It definitely inhibits free communication.

I have faith that we will, as a society, pass through this fire and emerge educated. We will all learn to just say "fuck it" and let our special sauce flow.

I read this as "I've become a better writer". 99.99% of the time, what you consider your unique, personal style is just bad writing.

For me, it just boils down to a tradeoff. Oh, you want instant access and the ability to influence the billions of people who are on the Internet, and to do it for free? Then don't expect the insulation you get when your writing was previously restricted to a published journal or local newspaper column.

Tangentially related: In the academic world, people have been abuzz about Steven Salatia, a professor who was nearly in the door as a tenured professor at University of Illinois until the board of trustees, made aware of his stream of inflammatory tweets about Israel and Palestine, nixed the offer, leaving Salatia without a job:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/10/steven-salait...

Besides espousing the value of academic freedom, Salatia's defense has been: If you had only read my entire tweet stream, you would've seen that I don't hate Israel, and that my seemingly violent sentiments were just rhetorical flourishes when viewed in context.

Sure, I see his argument and I empathize with him. But he's being naive and Pollyanish about communication. The world doesn't have time to explore your mind-palace...each of us are already preoccupied with our own lives and thoughts. If you wanted to make catchy soundbites over a complicated issue so that you could catch our attention amidst the global debate, well, the other side of catchy soundbites is that sometimes they catch you.

Frankly, I don't think the world loses much if, when it comes to complex nuanced issues, we put down the Twitter client and put our thoughts in a medium (no pun intended with Medium) intended for expansive discussion. Does it slow you down? Sure. And that's a good thing.

Over the years I have come to appreciate pg's essays as an example of the happy medium: he doesn't pull punches, but he doesn't generalize to the point of hyperbole either, and I find his writing style to be more effective because of this balance.

Second, while I appreciate stylish and direct writing, I'll take bloated but well reasoned writing if I have to. The world is full of writers who "have no ideas, and the ability to express them", but that doesn't help us. Precision and careful thought often push us towards difficult and ugly writing.

Edit: the worst kind of hedge is the one that makes your opinion harder to understand. I'm guilty of adding that pointless "almost" and I've been struggling to overcome that habit for a long time.

Defensive writing, on the other hand, is generally a good thing. Precision and careful logic are essential in writing. We don't have the benefit of physical emotional cues. Common sense isn't common, and even if it was there are so many perspectives on the web that you at least need to be thinking about the potential for misunderstanding. You need to try to head off trivial or otherwise unproductive avenues of debate. These are all responsibilities of conscientious communicators. And if you find yourself using a lot of vague language, it's probably better not to say anything. Any other policy is willfully contributing to the proliferation of BS on the web.

Reality is messy so sometimes you have to use imprecise language to describe it. In that case, it may be helpful to try to precisely specify how imprecise you mean to be, or use some other more specific phrase than "sometimes X" or "sort of Y". If it needs to be said, you can usually find a way to add more information.

For some subjects, the precision is absolutely warranted. Good communication requires people to be on the same page. One of the issues with the Internet is that you can have an extremely diverse audience, and this creates communication challenges that you don't have (or rarely will have) in meatspace. One of the things I have been working on is audience development and how to get my message to the people ready to hear it or who have the background or whatever. This is a challenging thing to do online. Figuring out a means to segment out your audience will help reintroduce the ability to "just have a conversation."

Sadly, I don’t have any concrete proposals and am unsure what to do about all this, but… er, I welcome your comments.

Aside from segmenting out your audience and engaging in audience development/education, which is kind of a different thing, you can model respectful communication and social formality. Social formality is useful in situations where we know little about another person. Given the high diversity you run into online, this is one of the antidotes to the problem.

(Though, really, I am torn about posting this comment for other reasons, one of them being that I often feel like I give away my best ideas and can't figure out how to get money out of what I do. SIGH. Money is a chronic source of stress in my life. :-/ )

For these reasons my goal for blog posts is high views, low comments. It means you talked about an interesting topic and covered it so thoroughly there was nothing left to be said on the matter.

One significant thing the internet has done is to allow scientists and engineers to communicate directly with general audiences without journalists, etc. acting as mediators. Where a journalist might make a false claim because it feels stronger or more compelling, a scientist or engineer will usually add honest qualifications so as not to deceive. Perhaps it is from this new, direct dialogue with non-journalists that the general public has learned to write in this style.

Another possible source of this style is politics. The U.S. is far from the only country where partisan politics have taken root. Parties opposed to one another often have very similar platforms and policies because they know very well what appeals to the majority. With few major differences in policy to distinguish themselves from their opponents, they must instead rely on personality. With that comes the practice of pouncing on an opponents tiniest slip of the tongue (or pen) to chip away at their credibility. Thus, politicians must be as careful as scientists to leave no room for deliberate misinterpretation of their words. We no doubt emulate the defensive communication style of our leaders to at least some degree.

However defensive writing has slipped into the mainstream, it combines with the anonymity of the internet to allow anyone to appear credible beyond their qualifications, provided they are careful. The spirit of scientific peer review, the example of our leaders' incessant jockeying for credibility, and awareness of the fallibility of writers have all encouraged the general public to read with a skeptical eye. The written word is no longer above suspicion. If something we read contains even just one error, can we trust the rest of it? People don't just write defensively now, they read defensively too, and for good reason!

Content now rules over style in most spheres of writing. I find myself nitpicking even fiction these days. It sometimes takes conscious effort to suspend disbelief and simply enjoy a good story in spite of the writer's inability to simulate reality without error. Perhaps we have lost something. However, we have also gained much. Writers are becoming more accountable to the truth and readers are less likely to be duped by lies than ever. Perhaps all that is missing is for honest mistakes to become more acceptable so that writers may be free to take worthy risks without paralyzing fear.

More ever, internet-writing encourages short, clear and concise sentences and argument points which is a very useful and necessary skill in any social context.

Blog posts are inherently short-form writing, optimized for getting to the top of Reddit. You have to make bold claims to attract readers, and avoid detailed arguments so they don't fall asleep. See Joel Spolsky's description of the Internet Pundit style of writing here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/backIssues-2010-03.html

If you want your writing to have value beyond the popularity game, and contribute to the state of the art somehow, I think careful reasoning is indispensable for that.

Print, Radio and Television are granted a monopoly of audience attention. (If you can pay the gatekeepers.)

Now the loudest voices face a real crowd, people who will return the volley.

Does this hold us to a higher standard? Is the end of one-way broadcast the real death of journalism as we know it? I hope so.

Unfortunately, people on the internet seem to do the opposite.

For a given domain, some people want to learn new things, while others just want to defend their current level of knowledge. Ultimately where a comment adds value depends on whether it is motivated by the former or the latter.

...and sometimes you have to call critics the pedantic nitwits that they are.

But they have time to search social media sites?

If someone wants to twist an argument around to attain the goal they desire, you can take anything out of context and spin it in another direction. Informal language is informal because of this - it never conveys a true objectivity that can not be mutated with the slight of hand - and that includes things that have been invented and things that have not been yet.

There are no real rules to communication, only guidelines that are often informally adjusted via precedent. Politics is often a very tricky tightrope to walk.

> Frankly, I don't think the world loses much if, when it comes to complex nuanced issues, we put down the Twitter client and put our thoughts in a medium (no pun intended with Medium) intended for expansive discussion. Does it slow you down? Sure. And that's a good thing.

I do. I think it makes people visually aware of how a collective sentiment can build over small iterations of many dialogues. Maybe that would make people more empathetic to people who have such seemingly inflammatory opinions, and also not feel so alone in having fairly quirky ideas.

The first step in this is to recognize the goal: it is not to prove some proposition true or false, but to show that some proposition is more plausible, given the evidence, than the alternatives. The alternatives should always number more than one, because single-alternative arguments are recipes for false dichotomies and oppositional dynamics, neither of which are useful.

Science--which is the discipline of publicly applying Bayesian reasoning to the results of systematic observation and controlled experiment--is not about proof or truth or falsity. It is about plausibility. This fundamentally changes the goal of any intellectual enterprise.

I liken philosopher's quest for "certainty" to alchemist's search for the secret of turning base metals into gold: despite the many interesting things they learned along the way, the goal itself was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge, which is evidence-based and therefore inherently uncertain. A certain proposition is one that is immune to any further evidence, conceivable or inconceivable (because what we can conceive has nothing to do with what is real). The name for such propositions is "faith", and to a Bayesian this is an epistemic error.

Once we've abandoned the impossible and wrong-headed goal of turning base metals into gold... err... of achieving certainty... we're in a position of acknowledging our priors (which are explicitly represented in Bayesian reasoning: you can't do it without them) and adducing our evidence. Differences of opinion may come down to differences in priors: "I find your evidence for Israel's war crimes unconvincing because I believe anti-Zionists dominate the international news media." Such revelations at least make it clear what we should be arguing with the person about. If we differ radically in our priors, arguing about the posterior plausibility of a particular proposition is probably useless.

If you do all this right (I'm still learning, always learning) it won't come across as hedging, but as reasoning. This is the joy of abandoning the alchemy of certainty.