

How to blog insightful - Alex3917
http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2010/03/how-to-blog-insightful-.html

======
daveungerer
OK, normally I wouldn't nitpick on grammar, but I don't think it's nitpicking
when it's central to what's being said, and in fact the opening sentence:

 _This is a guide on how to blog insightful. Not insightfully. Because
insightful isn't a writing style, it's a type of idea._

Insightfully is an adverb, insightful an adjective. You can blog insightfully.
You can write insightful blog posts. But how do you blog insightful? To me,
that makes the opening sentence of the post a confused jumble of words, which
made me skim over what might otherwise have been a good read. Can someone
please enlighten me as to what he's trying to express?

And just to drive the point home, let's modify it slightly. See if the
following makes sense: This is a guide on how to wait patient. Not patiently.
Because patient isn't a waiting style, it's a type of...

I went back and read the first few paragraphs properly. It seems that what
he's trying to say is "how to increase the insight of your readers, instead of
merely displaying your own insight". Maybe not a snappy opening line, but at
least it can be understood. Please don't open your blog posts by re-defining
common words. It detracts from your writing, which may otherwise be excellent.

~~~
Alex3917
[http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/12rdq/saddam_die...](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/12rdq/saddam_died_beautiful/c12sbn)

I was using that construction. That is, it's an adjective with 'ideas' as the
implied noun, because I want to emphasize that it's the structure of the ideas
underlying the writing that determine whether or not that writing is
insightful.

edit: See also 'think different'.

~~~
daveungerer
Let's run with your Saddam example. When you say "He died beautiful", you mean
that he was beautiful at the time of dying, but the dying is purely incidental
to him being beautiful.

You could also say "He died insightful", which would mean that he was an
insightful man at the time of dying, but the dying is once again incidental to
him being insightful.

Now, logic breaks down when you say "He blogged insightful", but I'll analyse
it anyway. Here you're saying that he was an insightful person, who happened
to be blogging. But you're not relating his insight to the blogging at all, so
it makes no sense to tell us that he was an insightful man at the time he
happened to be blogging.

English isn't my first language, but I'm pretty sure the above is correct.

------
lotharbot
Writers can create value by _separating a model from intellectual or emotional
baggage_ that may be tied to it. Or writers can destroy value by unnecessarily
attaching baggage to an idea. (I found this article's unnecessary mentions of
tired partisan issues like Fox News and Intelligent Design particularly
grating and distracting.)

There are many good insights that people reject just because they come from
the "wrong" political party, religion, or a person whose vocabulary is too
stuffy or too crude. There are many bad models people accept because they come
from the "right" party or religion or charismatic pitchman. HN readers might
be inclined to take sides on an unrelated topic because of an author's
position on vi/emacs. The point is, regardless of how valid the side argument
is, the baggage it brings with it can distract from the core argument, or
trigger unjustified agreement or disagreement.

Writers can create value by being careful not to involve such distractions
when they're not directly relevant. Writers can also create value by removing
such distractions from someone else's argument.

------
jasonwilk
is this hacker news or hater news? I think i'm in the wrong place.

