
The Writing Revolution - jseliger
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-writing-revolution/309090/?single_page=true
======
simonsarris
Wow. I completely agree with this.

I went to a private high school that prided itself in its English (writing)
classes[1]. I didn't know it then, and I wish I had found out sooner, but I
loved writing.

I started to realize this in college. I went into university as CS and picked
up a Philosophy dual major after one semester so I could write more.

During my final year, in every single interview I had I made the argument that
mere communication is massively underrated in engineering fields and that my
Philosophy degree (or rather my writing skills) made me a better communicator
than most other software engineers. I think I can safely attribute this to at
least a few job offers, as the argument seemed to take a lot of interviewers
by surprise.

After my college experience I certainly think the two majors (or any STEM
major plus a writing-heavy major) compliment each other. CS and PHIL as a
combination seems only natural from the get-go, especially with the
intersection of Logic. But I especially think PHIL compliments CS because in
my opinion the largest deficiency in every other CS and engineering grad I've
met is that they have a hard time communicating their ideas and debating
others effectively. Philosophy (all writing really) helps with that. A lot.

I think writing out anything, even just your own thoughts on a subject, makes
you a vastly more empathetic person, something most engineers I've met seem to
desperately need. It's mind-boggling the amount of extremely smart people I've
come across that nonetheless seemed to simply lack the concept of _not-them._

\-----------

[1] The article says "The program would not be unfamiliar to nuns who taught
in Catholic schools circa 1950." I had 12 years of Catholic school, though not
in the 1950's, I graduated HS in 2006, so I imagine some of the curriculum
theory stayed put.

[2] I've found myself considering the humanities majors I've met far, far more
socially capable than the engineer majors, almost to an embarrassing degree.
I've always been quite the introvert, supremely shy as a child, but was
totally unprepared for just how shy I would find others. My college (RPI) was
known for being an introverted place and I met so many great people who almost
literally never left their rooms. Great minds and personalities who were self-
sequestered from the world.

It felt tragic sometimes. I met and found a lot of people that wanted to meet
others but had a great fear of simply being in public spaces more and
exchanging pleasantries. Others still, and this was not an uncommon opinion,
would disparage the idea of small talk as useless. It's funny but, of all
places, once I came to college and met enough varied and amazing people I
became vastly, vastly less shy. It just wasn't worth it to be shy when there
were so many great people to meet and listen to.

~~~
mquander
_I think writing out anything, even just your own thoughts on a subject, makes
you a vastly more empathetic person..._

Why do you think that?

~~~
keiferski
Not the OP, but I do write a lot.

For me, it's because writing forces you to get out of your head. When you
write (presumably in language that people _other than you_ can easily
understand), you're forced to think about how others will read it. Ergo,
empathy.

This is expanded even further when you begin to consider your audience ("So
I'm writing for school children... how do I communicate this in a way that
they will understand?" and so on).

~~~
omellet
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think this is necessarily
true for all writing, though. Political writing, press releases, thing of a
nature where the point of the writing is to lead a person to a particular
conclusion. Manipulation, in other words. I don't think I'd consider that
process an empathetic one.

~~~
jamesrcole
Your comment has made me wonder: does learning how to manipulate better
require (or help you to) learn how to empathise better, strange as that may
sound? Are better manipulators also good empathisers? I'd never thought about
that possible connection before.

~~~
realitygrill
Yes. On a smartphone currently, so google Scott Aaronson's blog post on
sympathy vs empathy and sociopaths.

------
davidvaughan
It's complex. Writing disciplines thought, and thought disciplines writing.
The two must progress hand in hand.

Analytical writing is a method for achieving greater intellectual honesty. It
includes the habit of giving evidence for assertions, of clearing up
ambiguity, of putting causes before consequences, of replacing hand-waving
with concrete facts. And so on.

But it's not failsafe. "The Xorbians are foreign interlopers, so we must hunt
them down and kill them" is analytical writing. I think it would pass some of
the more basic tests described in the Atlantic article. But it doesn't
necessarily tell the truth, and this failing may be down to a want of ethics.

By contrast, "What do I think about the Xorbian issue? Live and let live" is
not analytical writing. But it may be truer and more valuable.

Judicial and deliberative rhetoric in Greece demanded a backbone of analysis.
But it wasn't by any means the whole of rhetoric.

Well, as stated, it's complex. One could write books...

------
corporalagumbo
I honestly have no idea how I would function as a self-analytical human being
without the ability to wrangle my thoughts into text. I think I have a decent
knack for it, but when I think back to high school I realise I was lucky to
scrape through with passable written English. Even now at university most
people I meet are severely limited writers, incompetent even. And I imagine
the situation must be even worse among the wider population. Maybe this is a
new way to think about literacy - not if you can read and write basic
sentences, but can you argue, can you convince - are you comfortable on the
page, can you dance with your words?

------
danmaz74
Let's just hope this will not swing the pendulum too much in the other
direction. If kids were only taught creative writing and no structure, it is
to be expected that a strong push on structure will give them an edge. But if
they had been taught only structure from the start, insisting a lot on that in
high school is bound to have smaller returns (or even negative ones, if they
are then very weak in creativity).

~~~
rrmm
The educational system is fond of taking things to extremes. Lockhart's Lament
(www.maa.org/devlin/lockhartslament.pdf) probably applies equally well here.

Kids need to know why humans write, and the joy that can be derived through
self-expression and communication. They also need to be taught the tools to
express ideas and arguments (as those tools become pertinent). Finally, they
need to be shown how the ability to communicate through writing can be useful
to them in achieving their own goals.

It's frustrating to see the educational system constantly bang from one
extreme to the other when I would hope it would be clear that a balance is
required.

