I previously collected some Readings and notes on how to write/communicate well. I’ll copy the whole thing below (as it stands atm, and without the footnotes or comments; see the doc for the complete version).
Preamble
How to use this doc
I strongly suggest reading everything in bold
Other than that, you can skim or skip around as much as you want
Feel very free to add comments/suggestions, including regarding which resources/tips seem particularly useful to you, which seem not useful, and what other things it might be worth adding
What this doc focuses on
How to communicate more clearly, engagingly, concisely, memorably, etc.
Especially but not only in writing
Especially but not only for researchers
Maybe also how to achieve those goals more efficiently (e.g., become a faster writer or get faster at preparing presentations)
Some things this doc doesn’t focus on are listed in the following footnote.
Purpose & epistemic status
There are probably literally thousands of existing resources (and collections of resources) covering the topics covered here, and I’ve engaged with a very small fraction of them. So in some ways it feels silly to make my own one.
But I don’t know of a resource or collection that covers everything I’d want covered. And writing/communication is an important skill, I think I’m pretty good at it, and I very often give feedback on people’s writing. So I thought this doc might be useful for me, for people I give feedback to, and for other people. Also, this doc will itself link to all relevant things that I know of, think are potentially useful, and remembered to add.
Hauke Hillebrandt says: “[This is a] Great book to improve your writing. Very good especially for students”
The Scientist’s Guide to Writing
Someone who I think is good at clearly, concisely, and seemingly quickly writing research ideas said: that reading this and The Sense of Style helped them
This was also the basis for a presentation which I found useful and often refer people to the slides from (WritingTips_UE [don’t share further].pptx), but which I didn’t ask for permission to share
You should usually include an actual tl;dr/summary/key takeaways section right near the start—even in most cases where you feel it’s unimportant or inappropriate
(At least when writing for e.g. EAs. Sometimes when writing for mass audiences, you’ll better engage people by deliberately not making it clear what you’re writing about or what you’ll ultimately claim.)
Usually don’t just have a section with that sort of name but where you actually just say “This post will cover x, y, and z”
I don’t just want to know you say something about x, y, z; I want to know the core of what you actually say!
There’s a good chance you—whoever you are—think “The key takeaways are too complex to be explained briefly before someone has actually read my introduction, how I explain the terms, etc.” You’re probably wrong.
I kept thinking this for ~8 months, till finally the many many times I was advised to add summaries got to me and I started really trying to do that, at which point I realised it really was typically possible.
Have you actually spent 5 minutes, by the clock, really trying to summarise the key takeaways in a way that will make sense to a reader who hasn’t read the whole thing?
(There are some exceptions, e.g. for extremely short posts)
(Though people do sometimes use examples even when they’re not worth the extra words they cost; hopefully a reviewer can point out if you’ve done that)
Often try to be really clear about what you’re not claiming, what’s not in-scope, what debates you don’t settle, etc.
E.g., if you’re just writing that one particular type of AI existential risk seems extremely unlikely, there’s a decent chance some readers will take away the message that all AI existential risk is extremely unlikely and/or will think that you think that (while perhaps also thinking you’re wrong and stupid for thinking that)
So consider explicitly saying near the start and near the end that you’re not talking about x, y, z
You should often/usually ask someone to review your work
I don’t always do this, because:
I write a lot
Some things I write aren’t especially important and are taking me away from my main work such that I should just get it out the door fast or not bother writing it at all
Relatively clear writing is probably one of my strong points
But I do often ask at least one person to review something before I post it, and I do this for most/all things I’ve written that I think are relatively important
Many of your sentences should probably be split into multiple sentences; at the least, some of them should probably be broken up with a semicolon
Much of what you’ve said can probably be cut, moved into footnotes, or moved into an appendix
Generally try to keep the order in which the same items are mentioned consistent
As per Teaching Graduate Students How to Write Clearly: “Add structure through consistent constructions. First example: When you state in the abstract that you will discuss topics A, B, and C, retain this order throughout the entire paper. Second example: When you start a paragraph with the statement “Our first hypothesis was confirmed…”, the reader expects a future paragraph to start with “Our second hypothesis was [not] confirmed…” In general, academic writing is clear when it delivers information in accordance with what the readers expect. Do not set up false expectations.”
Save the longest part of the sentence/phrase for the end
E.g., “ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night”
E.g., “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Why? Because you don’t want to hold a big heavy phrase in memory while you are reading the rest of the sentence.
This advice is given in The Sense of Style
And my description is adapted from someone’s notes on the book (though unfortunately that notes post itself doesn’t seem very clear or useful)
[something about (sub)sections and/or signposting]
[something about introducing and motivating your work, indicating its purpose or target audience, and/or indicating directions for further work]
I previously collected some Readings and notes on how to write/communicate well. I’ll copy the whole thing below (as it stands atm, and without the footnotes or comments; see the doc for the complete version).
Preamble
How to use this doc
I strongly suggest reading everything in bold
Other than that, you can skim or skip around as much as you want
Feel very free to add comments/suggestions, including regarding which resources/tips seem particularly useful to you, which seem not useful, and what other things it might be worth adding
What this doc focuses on
How to communicate more clearly, engagingly, concisely, memorably, etc.
Especially but not only in writing
Especially but not only for researchers
Maybe also how to achieve those goals more efficiently (e.g., become a faster writer or get faster at preparing presentations)
Some things this doc doesn’t focus on are listed in the following footnote.
Purpose & epistemic status
There are probably literally thousands of existing resources (and collections of resources) covering the topics covered here, and I’ve engaged with a very small fraction of them. So in some ways it feels silly to make my own one.
But I don’t know of a resource or collection that covers everything I’d want covered. And writing/communication is an important skill, I think I’m pretty good at it, and I very often give feedback on people’s writing. So I thought this doc might be useful for me, for people I give feedback to, and for other people. Also, this doc will itself link to all relevant things that I know of, think are potentially useful, and remembered to add.
Readings and notes
Books on writing
On Writing Well
Aaron Gertler says: “On Writing Well is much better than The Sense of Style if you just want writing advice.”
I haven’t read this myself
The Sense of Style, by Pinker, 2019
I found this useful
I ranked this 22nd of of ~50 “EA-relevant” books I’ve read based on its perceived usefulness to me specifically
See that link for a few more thoughts on the book
“They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing
I haven’t read this myself
Hauke Hillebrandt says: “[This is a] Great book to improve your writing. Very good especially for students”
The Scientist’s Guide to Writing
Someone who I think is good at clearly, concisely, and seemingly quickly writing research ideas said: that reading this and The Sense of Style helped them
I haven’t read this myself
Other resources—misc
Reasoning Transparency
See also How To Write Quickly While Maintaining Epistemic Rigor
Teaching Graduate Students How to Write Clearly
This was also the basis for a presentation which I found useful and often refer people to the slides from (WritingTips_UE [don’t share further].pptx), but which I didn’t ask for permission to share
EA Creatives and Communicators Slack
Writing in the Sciences
Hauke Hillebrandt says: “[This is a] Great course to improve your writing. Found this more useful than Pinker[’s The Sense of Style]”
3 suggestions about jargon in EA
Notes—misc
Tips/suggestions I often find myself giving:
You should usually include an actual tl;dr/summary/key takeaways section right near the start—even in most cases where you feel it’s unimportant or inappropriate
(At least when writing for e.g. EAs. Sometimes when writing for mass audiences, you’ll better engage people by deliberately not making it clear what you’re writing about or what you’ll ultimately claim.)
See Reasoning Transparency
Usually don’t skip this section
Usually don’t just have a section with that sort of name but where you actually just say “This post will cover x, y, and z”
I don’t just want to know you say something about x, y, z; I want to know the core of what you actually say!
There’s a good chance you—whoever you are—think “The key takeaways are too complex to be explained briefly before someone has actually read my introduction, how I explain the terms, etc.” You’re probably wrong.
I kept thinking this for ~8 months, till finally the many many times I was advised to add summaries got to me and I started really trying to do that, at which point I realised it really was typically possible.
Have you actually spent 5 minutes, by the clock, really trying to summarise the key takeaways in a way that will make sense to a reader who hasn’t read the whole thing?
(There are some exceptions, e.g. for extremely short posts)
Beware the curse of knowledge
You’re probably using jargon a bit too often, should more often provide a brief explanation, and/or should more often provide a hyperlink
One reason this is probably happening is the curse of knowledge
(Which is a bit of jargon I hyperlinked above because most readers probably aren’t familiar with it)
You’re probably also often using jargon a bit incorrectly, when simpler language or different jargon would be more appropriate
See also 3 suggestions about jargon in EA
You’re probably saying things like “this”, “they”, and “he” too often
You know what you’re referring to, but your reader may have forgotten, or there may be multiple candidates such that it’s ambiguous
This is partly due to the curse of knowledge
You should probably more often use examples
You’re probably being less clear than you think, and examples can help
In any case, providing concrete examples is an effective way to elucidate abstract concepts
Apparently research backs this up
It also just seems obviously true
See point 2 in Teaching Graduate Students How to Write Clearly
(Though people do sometimes use examples even when they’re not worth the extra words they cost; hopefully a reviewer can point out if you’ve done that)
Often try to be really clear about what you’re not claiming, what’s not in-scope, what debates you don’t settle, etc.
E.g., if you’re just writing that one particular type of AI existential risk seems extremely unlikely, there’s a decent chance some readers will take away the message that all AI existential risk is extremely unlikely and/or will think that you think that (while perhaps also thinking you’re wrong and stupid for thinking that)
So consider explicitly saying near the start and near the end that you’re not talking about x, y, z
You should often/usually ask someone to review your work
I don’t always do this, because:
I write a lot
Some things I write aren’t especially important and are taking me away from my main work such that I should just get it out the door fast or not bother writing it at all
Relatively clear writing is probably one of my strong points
But I do often ask at least one person to review something before I post it, and I do this for most/all things I’ve written that I think are relatively important
Many of your sentences should probably be split into multiple sentences; at the least, some of them should probably be broken up with a semicolon
Much of what you’ve said can probably be cut, moved into footnotes, or moved into an appendix
Generally try to keep the order in which the same items are mentioned consistent
As per Teaching Graduate Students How to Write Clearly: “Add structure through consistent constructions. First example: When you state in the abstract that you will discuss topics A, B, and C, retain this order throughout the entire paper. Second example: When you start a paragraph with the statement “Our first hypothesis was confirmed…”, the reader expects a future paragraph to start with “Our second hypothesis was [not] confirmed…” In general, academic writing is clear when it delivers information in accordance with what the readers expect. Do not set up false expectations.”
Save the longest part of the sentence/phrase for the end
E.g., “ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night”
E.g., “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Why? Because you don’t want to hold a big heavy phrase in memory while you are reading the rest of the sentence.
This advice is given in The Sense of Style
And my description is adapted from someone’s notes on the book (though unfortunately that notes post itself doesn’t seem very clear or useful)
[something about (sub)sections and/or signposting]
[something about introducing and motivating your work, indicating its purpose or target audience, and/or indicating directions for further work]