
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
When a claim is shown to be incorrect, defenders may say that the author was just being “sloppy” and actually meant something else entirely. I argue that this move is not harmless, charitable, or healthy. At best, this attempt at charity reduces an author's incentive to express themselves clearly – they can clarify later![1] – while burdening the reader with finding the “right” interpretation of the author's words. At worst, this move is a dishonest defensive tactic which shields the author with the unfalsifiable question of what the author “really” meant.
⚠️ Preemptive clarification
The context for this essay is serious, high-stakes communication: papers, technical blog posts, and tweet threads. In that context, communication is a partnership. A reader has a responsibility to engage in good faith, and an author cannot possibly defend against all misinterpretations. Misunderstanding is a natural part of this process.
This essay focuses not on [...]
---
Outline:
(01:40) A case study of the sloppy language move
(03:12) Why the sloppiness move is harmful
(03:36) 1. Unclear claims damage understanding
(05:07) 2. Secret indirection erodes the meaning of language
(05:24) 3. Authors owe readers clarity
(07:30) But which interpretations are plausible?
(08:38) 4. The move can shield dishonesty
(09:06) Conclusion: Defending intellectual standards
The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
Source:
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
When a claim is shown to be incorrect, defenders may say that the author was just being “sloppy” and actually meant something else entirely. I argue that this move is not harmless, charitable, or healthy. At best, this attempt at charity reduces an author's incentive to express themselves clearly – they can clarify later![1] – while burdening the reader with finding the “right” interpretation of the author's words. At worst, this move is a dishonest defensive tactic which shields the author with the unfalsifiable question of what the author “really” meant.
⚠️ Preemptive clarification
The context for this essay is serious, high-stakes communication: papers, technical blog posts, and tweet threads. In that context, communication is a partnership. A reader has a responsibility to engage in good faith, and an author cannot possibly defend against all misinterpretations. Misunderstanding is a natural part of this process.
This essay focuses not on [...]
---
Outline:
(01:40) A case study of the sloppy language move
(03:12) Why the sloppiness move is harmful
(03:36) 1. Unclear claims damage understanding
(05:07) 2. Secret indirection erodes the meaning of language
(05:24) 3. Authors owe readers clarity
(07:30) But which interpretations are plausible?
(08:38) 4. The move can shield dishonesty
(09:06) Conclusion: Defending intellectual standards
The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
Source:
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
26,469 Listeners
2,395 Listeners
7,953 Listeners
4,142 Listeners
89 Listeners
1,472 Listeners
9,207 Listeners
88 Listeners
417 Listeners
5,448 Listeners
15,321 Listeners
482 Listeners
121 Listeners
75 Listeners
461 Listeners