
How the Aspiring Can Learn to Write Like Economists - mooreds
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2019/08/28/how_the_aspiring_can_learn_to_write_like_economists_103883.html
======
Mathnerd314
They left out the most important parts: lie convincingly with statistics,
speak with unwarranted confidence about your conclusions, and repeat the dogma
of leaders in the field with minimal scrutiny.

------
abdullahkhalids
> Punchlines: “Organize the paper in 'triangular' or 'newspaper' style, not in
> 'joke' or 'novel' style. Notice how newspapers start with the most important
> part, then fill in background later for the readers who kept going and want
> more details....put the punchline right up front.”

I have found this the most difficult to achieve in physics papers. Usually,
the paper starts with some boilerplate for that field (quantum computers can
do xyz), followed by a bunch of background papers that have some relevance to
what you have done. Only then are you allowed to broach what you have done -
this happens at minimum by the 3rd paragraph, but more common is the 5-6th
paragraph.

I would very much prefer to have the central thesis of the paper presented in
the first paragraph, followed by proper contextualization for those who are
not familiar with the subfield. But journal editors want citations, and that's
easier to achieve with the former than by the latter, by helping people from
other subfields to low-value cite your paper.

~~~
tokai
The use of meta-communication makes it easier in my experience. It feels very
cumbersome and artificial. But when laying out the central thesis, before the
contextualization, you describe the content and (sub)conclusions of the
different parts of the paper.

My favourite lecture always said there must be no surprises in a research
paper. You have to spoil the surprising bits from the get go, and it is better
to repeat yourself than surprising anyone.

edit: If I recalled correctly she said that everything of substance in a paper
should be touched upon at least four times. One in the abstract, another in
the the introductory parts of the paper, again where the actual substance is
(results, methods, conclusions, etc.), and finally in concluding remarks.

------
notahacker
As an econ major, I can't imagine why anyone would want to learn to write like
an economist. There are notable exceptions, but in general economists and
particularly modern economists are dreadfully dull writers with a reluctance
to properly contextualise their claims and a penchant for letting the algebra
do 90% of the work of the paper...

------
omarhaneef
The problem for popular writing is that you need to motivate the question in
the reader.

Suppose, for instance, that you discovered that a particular algorithm can
correctly classify a problem. Well, you sort of have to first tell people why
this was surprising.

For academic papers you can assume that people know (I show NP>P, folks!) but
for an article for people outside the field, inciting curiosity is key.

You can see this in all the pop science (in the best sense of the term) out
there: Gladwell, Freakonomics, Lewis etc

They write like it’s a detective novel starting with the mystery. I think the
earliest example of this style might be Gleick with Chaos but maybe someone
can show me an earlier example.

------
hndamien
Why is this desirable?

