This really depends on the context. An email trying to communicate something that is very specific to the time and context? --> don’t spend too much time making it perfect.
If this is something many people will read, something that is going to contribute to your thinking and others’ thinking, part of a larger project, part of an intellectual project… then editing may be extremely important because …
There is so much writing out there, much too much to read
Only the small nib that makes an improvement over previous work in some area actually contributes to the discussion and knowledge base
Your only hope of being in the latter category is to be extremely clear. Otherwise ~0 chance.
OK, so maybe the individual piece you are working on has ~0 chance of being in the latter category anyways, so why edit it?
If the chance is close to zero it is still not zero; and something with an 0.2% chance is twice as valuable as something with an 0.1% chance
By improving it you may return to it later, build it into your later work, and ultimately consolidate it into something that makes the ‘superstar’ category
(See the discussion of ‘Superstars’ and Power/Pareto distributions in Economics)
I think this response is fully accounted for by adjusting editing time based on the importance of the work, as stated in the post.
If it’s only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it’s probably not something you should write at all. Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft.
I think this response is fully accounted for by adjusting editing time based on the importance of the work, as stated in the post.
Yes, I did read this, but it’s just maybe a matter of different emphasis. I tend to think that more stuff people are working on is important enough to merit careful writing.
If it’s only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it’s probably not something you should write at all. Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft.
I agree that you shouldn’t work on things that aren’t important, of course, and I think maybe people are ‘writing about too much stuff and writing too much’.
But I might disagree with
If it’s only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it’s probably not something you should write at all.
I assume most EAs normal daily work is important. And I think that in the case that it is important, 5 drafts to make it ‘better than existing work’ may indeed be worth doing.
Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft.
I agree with ‘do something important’, but I think there are many, perhaps most, important areas in which at least enough has been written that ‘just a first draft’ will not make an important, unique contribution. Highlighting contribution because it may be unique, but if it is not well-communicated and rigorous it may not actually add anything.
This really depends on the context. An email trying to communicate something that is very specific to the time and context? --> don’t spend too much time making it perfect.
If this is something many people will read, something that is going to contribute to your thinking and others’ thinking, part of a larger project, part of an intellectual project… then editing may be extremely important because …
There is so much writing out there, much too much to read
Only the small nib that makes an improvement over previous work in some area actually contributes to the discussion and knowledge base
Your only hope of being in the latter category is to be extremely clear. Otherwise ~0 chance.
OK, so maybe the individual piece you are working on has ~0 chance of being in the latter category anyways, so why edit it?
If the chance is close to zero it is still not zero; and something with an 0.2% chance is twice as valuable as something with an 0.1% chance
By improving it you may return to it later, build it into your later work, and ultimately consolidate it into something that makes the ‘superstar’ category
(See the discussion of ‘Superstars’ and Power/Pareto distributions in Economics)
I think this response is fully accounted for by adjusting editing time based on the importance of the work, as stated in the post.
If it’s only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it’s probably not something you should write at all. Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft.
Yes, I did read this, but it’s just maybe a matter of different emphasis. I tend to think that more stuff people are working on is important enough to merit careful writing.
I agree that you shouldn’t work on things that aren’t important, of course, and I think maybe people are ‘writing about too much stuff and writing too much’.
But I might disagree with
I assume most EAs normal daily work is important. And I think that in the case that it is important, 5 drafts to make it ‘better than existing work’ may indeed be worth doing.
I agree with ‘do something important’, but I think there are many, perhaps most, important areas in which at least enough has been written that ‘just a first draft’ will not make an important, unique contribution. Highlighting contribution because it may be unique, but if it is not well-communicated and rigorous it may not actually add anything.