Writing and The Curse of Knowledge

For stuff that really doesn't have ANYTHING to do with Puppy
Post Reply
Message
Author
purple379
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat 04 Oct 2014, 22:23

Writing and The Curse of Knowledge

#1 Post by purple379 »

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the- ... ket-newtab

For Pinker, the root cause of so much bad writing is what he calls "the Curse of Knowledge", which he defines as "a difficulty in imagining what it is like for someone else not to know something that you know. The curse of knowledge is the single best explanation I know of why good people write bad prose."

User avatar
Flash
Official Dog Handler
Posts: 13071
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 16:04
Location: Arizona USA

#2 Post by Flash »

Pinker is right and I see it in many of the Subject lines people write in this forum. For instance, the original Subject line to this thread was the single word, "Writing." Purple knew what his post was about. Everyone else would have to click on it to find out.

musher0
Posts: 14629
Joined: Mon 05 Jan 2009, 00:54
Location: Gatineau (Qc), Canada

#3 Post by musher0 »

Hello all.

Very interesting subject.

Oops! Flash detected a recursion? ;)

In any case, I cannot entirely concur with this Pinker psychologist. Knowledge is NOT
a curse, it's a blessing. I don't know what the other person knows, because of a
different education and / or experience, but it's not a curse. On the contrary, this
difference is what makes sharing and exchanges between different people enriching
and fun. In trying to communicate your knowledge to others, you extend it, you make it
more general, more applicable to the rest of the world.

Yes, good people write bad prose because they tend to use "shop-talk", but it's not
the only reason.

Other reasons may be:
-- they don't know all the resources the language offers;
-- they lack a background in human communications. Any author is writing for someone
other than him/her/self. Any author must have the capacity to re-read his/her text from
the point of view of the reader or recipient of the message.

Two authors I know in this field of communications theory:
Marshall McLuhan
Abraham Moles.
I'm sure there are many others.

I can't remember who said (was it A. Moles?):
"if the recipient cannot understand your message, it's your (the originator's) fault."
You weren't clear enough, or detailed enough, or you didn't give enough examples
and so on.

Except in the case where there is physical or psychological "noise" interfering with the
transmission or the understanding of the message.

My 2¢. BFN.
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)

Post Reply