How Long Does It Take You to Write a Paragraph?

[Guest |||]

The word vomit method works for everyone.... writing is an art form

 

Not terribly interested in the debate, but enjoyed this paradoxical set of thoughts across two different posts.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Loric got 21 down-votes for what seemed like a thoughtful and respectful answer to the topic at hand. For all the flack he catches for being a troll, it seems like the worser trolls are the swarms of anti-Loric minions.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[bar_scene_gambler]

Loric got 21 down-votes for what seemed like a thoughtful and respectful answer to the topic at hand. For all the flack he catches for being a troll, it seems like the worser trolls are the swarms of anti-Loric minions.

I think most of the downvotes were garnered by his outstanding sense of self-importance and demands that Table ought to "man up". Also, he continues to stubbornly attempt to level all academic disciplines down to the same basic components, despite Table carefully explaining why his process might not work with philosophical writing. It's just a repeat of what happened when we tried to talk about the importance of the writing sample, except now he's being belligerent about arguments against the validity of his writing process.

Edited January 4, 2014 by bar_scene_gambler

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I think most of the downvotes were garnered by his outstanding sense of self-importance and demands that Table ought to "man up". 

Really? Sure, he started to bite back after two pages of harassment, but his first few posts were helpful and I saw no reason to get any downvotes. Look at this one. It received 7 downvotes and was the first response to the OP's question. Fuzzylogician can sneeze and get 35 likes. No disrespect to her (she's extremely helpful), but it seems like any time Fuzzy even types, people max out their daily likes, and the opposite for Loric. Oh yea, here's the first post (before the name calling) that received 7 dislikes: 

_______________________________________________________

 

Quality comes from revision, not the jotting down of basic ideas and structure. You're trying to do two distinct steps at the same and doing neither effectively. 

Write first, revise later. 

There is no wrong way to write, but there are certainly ineffective ways. 

Qualifications: Published author who can write a book in roughly 90 days. 

 

_______________________________________________

 

And he got 4 dislikes for posting a link to a relevant forum. If you're gonna downvote him for no apparent reason, at least do it on a post that can kinda be interpreted a certain way. 

Edited January 4, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[MattDest]

Really? Sure, he started to bite back after two pages of harassment, but his first few posts were helpful and I saw no reason to get any downvotes. Look at this one. It received 7 downvotes and was the first response to the OP's question. Fuzzylogician can sneeze and get 35 likes. No disrespect to her (she's extremely helpful), but it seems like any time Fuzzy even types, people max out their daily likes, and the opposite for Loric. Oh yea, here's the first post (before the name calling) that received 7 dislikes: 

_______________________________________________________

 

Quality comes from revision, not the jotting down of basic ideas and structure. You're trying to do two distinct steps at the same and doing neither effectively. 

Write first, revise later. 

There is no wrong way to write, but there are certainly ineffective ways. 

Qualifications: Published author who can write a book in roughly 90 days. 

 

_______________________________________________

 

And he got 4 dislikes for posting a link to a relevant forum. If you're gonna downvote him for no apparent reason, at least do it on a post that can kinda be interpreted a certain way. 

 

Chomsky, you haven't been around this forum for very long. Loric is just wearing on all of us. He/she is an obvious troll, and these dubious qualifications ('a published author who can write a book in 90 days'... sure!) are just adding fuel to the fire. Take a look at his/her post history - that really tells the whole story. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

Really? Sure, he started to bite back after two pages of harassment, but his first few posts were helpful and I saw no reason to get any downvotes. Look at this one. It received 7 downvotes and was the first response to the OP's question. Fuzzylogician can sneeze and get 35 likes. No disrespect to her (she's extremely helpful), but it seems like any time Fuzzy even types, people max out their daily likes, and the opposite for Loric. Oh yea, here's the first post (before the name calling) that received 7 dislikes: 

_______________________________________________________

 

Quality comes from revision, not the jotting down of basic ideas and structure. You're trying to do two distinct steps at the same and doing neither effectively. 

Write first, revise later. 

There is no wrong way to write, but there are certainly ineffective ways. 

Qualifications: Published author who can write a book in roughly 90 days. 

 

_______________________________________________

 

And he got 4 dislikes for posting a link to a relevant forum. If you're gonna downvote him for no apparent reason, at least do it on a post that can kinda be interpreted a certain way. 

There are a lot of pointless downvotes being thrown around here, but you're right, Loric did garner 7 downvotes for a fairly neutral post. However, he did not garner 21 downvotes (or even a majority of downvotes for that matter) for a respectful and thoughtful answer, like you've claimed. The majority of his downvotes have come from, like I said, irritation at his leveling down of all disciplines, his ego, and from his general hostility towards others. There's no need to be sensationalist.

Of course his reputation in the forum plays a role in how he is interpreted. That shouldn't surprise anyone. If someone is constantly belligerent and hostile, who has a history of spreading misinformation, they're going to be downvoted right of the bat. Whether or not this is just doesn't matter much to me, considering that it's just meaningless upvotes and downvotes. Loric has a poor reputation, and his downvotes are indicative of that. Likewise, Fuzzylogician has a good reputation, and her upvotes are representative of that. The system works the way its supposed to, and it's not as if Loric's posts go unnoticed because of the downvotes. There's no need to be up in arms over it. 

Edited January 4, 2014 by bar_scene_gambler

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Chomsky, you haven't been around this forum for very long. Loric is just wearing on all of us. He/she is an obvious troll, and these dubious qualifications ('a published author who can write a book in 90 days'... sure!) are just adding fuel to the fire. Take a look at his/her post history - that really tells the whole story. 

I've been here for two years. Longer than Loric. I know about Loric. He'll throw little jabs into posts (surprisingly not as often as people think... usually after 21 unwarranted dislikes) but he also usually gives more helpful advice than anyone else. The purpose of these forums is to get feedback and answers. If you added up all the advice given in this thread, more of it probably come from Loric than anyone else. Isn't the purpose of the like/dislike button to say which posts are helpful and which aren't? Then dislike all the posts where Loric is an asshole--not every single post he's ever made. And when 95% of the post is extremely helpful and 5% is unhelpful (via a slight jab), I would say that post warrants at least a few likes. He has so many dislikes, he probably just throws in that little jab to irritate people like you. I think he stopped caring about his reputation at -200. 

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

There are a lot of pointless downvotes being thrown around here, but you're right, Loric did garner 7 downvotes for a fairly neutral post. However, he did not garner 21 downvotes (or even a majority of downvotes for that matter) for a respectful and thoughtful answer, like you've claimed. The majority of his downvotes have come from, like I said, irritation at his leveling down of all disciplines, his ego, and from his general hostility towards others. There's no need to be sensationalist.

Of course his reputation in the forum plays a role in how he is interpreted. That shouldn't surprise anyone. If someone is constantly belligerent and hostile, who has a history of spreading misinformation, they're going to be downvoted right of the bat. Whether or not this is just doesn't matter much to me, considering that it's just meaningless upvotes and downvotes. Loric has a poor reputation, and his downvotes are indicative of that. Likewise, Fuzzylogician has a good reputation, and her upvotes are representative of that. The system works the way its supposed to, and it's not as if Loric's posts go unnoticed because of the downvotes. There's no need to be up in arms over it. 

Well, since 7 of his 21 downvotes came from, like you said, a neutral post, which happened to be the first response to the OP, I would say the unwarranted downvotes played a role in him turning into an asshole. Obviously he notices when his thoughtful and helpful posts get -10 points every time (he mentioned something to someone at the beginning of this thread). If everything you ever said got downvoted for no reason, I'm sure you'd turn pretty defensive pretty quickly. And like I just said to MattDest, he probably finds it funny that he gathers -10 points for every thoughtful post, that he probably just throws in the jabs to irritate his minions. I just find the playing favorites game to be a little immature. But that's just my opinion. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

I've been here for two years. Longer than Loric. I know about Loric. He'll throw little jabs into posts (surprisingly not as often as people think... usually after 21 unwarranted dislikes) but he also usually gives more helpful advice than anyone else. The purpose of these forums is to get feedback and answers. If you added up all the advice given in this thread, more of it probably come from Loric than anyone else. Isn't the purpose of the like/dislike button to say which posts are helpful and which aren't? Then dislike all the posts where Loric is an asshole--not every single post he's ever made. And when 95% of the post is extremely helpful and 5% is unhelpful (via a slight jab), I would say that post warrants at least a few likes. He has so many dislikes, he probably just throws in that little jab to irritate people like you. I think he stopped caring about his reputation at -200. 

Fair enough. That's probably the just thing to do. I don't downvote him unless he's being a belligerent ass. But there's a reason why he's -236 or whatever it is now, and I doubt very much that even the majority of those are due to him being misunderstood. We're growing tired of his attitude and his ego, so don't be surprised if the downvotes keep rolling in from others out of sheer distaste. Maybe it's herd-mentality, maybe it's just sheer frustration, who knows? The point is that not all of his posts are quality, and I'd go so far as to say that, regarding the posts he's made in the philosophy forum, the majority of them aren't quality. I can't speak to his comments elsewhere, but from what I've seen, he largely deserves the downvotes he's received. 

[MattDest]

I've been here for two years. Longer than Loric. I know about Loric. He'll throw little jabs into posts (surprisingly not as often as people think... usually after 21 unwarranted dislikes) but he also usually gives more helpful advice than anyone else. The purpose of these forums is to get feedback and answers. If you added up all the advice given in this thread, more of it probably come from Loric than anyone else. Isn't the purpose of the like/dislike button to say which posts are helpful and which aren't? Then dislike all the posts where Loric is an asshole--not every single post he's ever made. And when 95% of the post is extremely helpful and 5% is unhelpful (via a slight jab), I would say that post warrants at least a few likes. He has so many dislikes, he probably just throws in that little jab to irritate people like you. I think he stopped caring about his reputation at -200. 

 

I'm talking about in the philosophy forums. He came in giving awful advice about philosophy applications, and when we called him on it, he spun out of control and started insulting posters, philosophy as a discipline, and a bunch of other nonsense. Personally, I downvote trolls who boast needlessly about their qualifications (which are most likely made-up) and make sexist/denigrating remarks about posters and disciplines ("man up", really?). As the cliche goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. We don't need to upvote the clock when it happens to be right. 

 

Anyway, I really don't feel like getting involved in this drama, but I thought I would give you a bit of perspective of why people feel the way they do about Loric in this forum. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

Wow.

Such Class Here.

 

[m-ttl]

I didn't say it doesn't work for me. I said it doesn't work for me for a particular kind of writing. A lot of my work is pretty technical and formal, and what works best for me there is to take my time while writing my first draft.

This is the case for a number of reasons. Big ones: Mistakes here do not stick out in the way mistakes in less technical writing stick out. I find the places I'm inclined to go very slowly on are places where I do really need to tread carefully. If I just slap something on the paper, I lose these instincts. That does not help me.

 

Do you really think mathematicians, etc. should be using the word vomit method for their papers? That would be bizarre. "Word vomit" works when you're primarily working in natural language, because your brain is very good at producing natural language quickly and without regard to detail. I don't see any reason to expect it to work when you're dealing with a lot of formalization and technical language that you're not yet completely fluent in. 

 

 

What I'm writing about often turns on the nuance, so not bringing it in would not work.

 

 

I really don't think art historians use philosophical theory in a way that's anywhere near as technical and detail-oriented as some of the work that gets done in philosophy. That's not a bad thing, but it's a reason to be cautious about applying your experiences here.

 

 

 

I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I really do not get why you are convinced that I must be wrong about this method not working for me when I'm doing technical writing that you (apparently) do not have experience with. Great, this method works for you. It also works for me for many types of writing, like I said.

It also does not work for me for another type of writing. It also has never worked for you for that type of writing, because you don't do it.

 

I've read some art historians who would certainly be better off as aesthetics philosophers... But no, I do not apply your writing wholly to mine. From what I can tell, the things needed to understand my subject are more intuitive to me. (Perhaps not easier, but just more intuitive)

 

But that aside, haven't your language professors explained that fluency comes about by immersing yourself in the language? Haven't you ever been asked to improvise to prove your fluency? Language acquisition isn't so different from what you're talking about here. 

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Wow.

Such Class Here.

 

I don't think I've ever seen you post something that wasn't a meme. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

I don't think I've ever seen you post something that wasn't a meme. 

 

You haven't been around here very long, have you?

[DerpTastic]

Isn't the purpose of the like/dislike button to say which posts are helpful and which aren't? Then dislike all the posts where Loric is an asshole--not every single post he's ever made.

 

I think there are many posts that are getting unfair likes/dislikes in this thread. I'll also throw in that I don't quite understand why MattDest's, Table's, and purpleperson's first posts on the first page warranted downvotes. 

 

Overall, I think people have gotten frustrated with each other, most likely from other threads, and it shows in how crazy everyone is getting with downvotes.

[Loric]

Dear lord.. get told for... how many pages..? I lost cont.. but...

 

THE WRITING SAMPLE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

 

Then someone comes along and sucks at writing and it's a bad thing to be like "Hey, you, write better."

[Table]

Really? Sure, he started to bite back after two pages of harassment, but his first few posts were helpful and I saw no reason to get any downvotes.

 

 

I was harassing him?

 

And he got 4 dislikes for posting a link to a relevant forum. If you're gonna downvote him for no apparent reason, at least do it on a post that can kinda be interpreted a certain way. 

 

It was a link to a thread about having trouble reading research papers, posted in between of snide comments toward people who think they sometimes write best by writing slowly. No one was talking about reading. I downvoted him because I thought it was pretty clear that the intention was not to be helpful.

Your downvotes in this thread don't really demonstrate a commitment to only downvoting unhelpful posts.

 

He'll throw little jabs into posts (surprisingly not as often as people think... usually after 21 unwarranted dislikes) but he also usually gives more helpful advice than anyone else. The purpose of these forums is to get feedback and answers. If you added up all the advice given in this thread, more of it probably come from Loric than anyone else. Isn't the purpose of the like/dislike button to say which posts are helpful and which aren't? Then dislike all the posts where Loric is an asshole--not every single post he's ever made. And when 95% of the post is extremely helpful and 5% is unhelpful (via a slight jab), I would say that post warrants at least a few likes. He has so many dislikes, he probably just throws in that little jab to irritate people like you. I think he stopped caring about his reputation at -200. 

 

I don't care about the little jabs. What made his posts unhelpful was that he didn't listen to anything I said beyond that I didn't think his method was always best.

It's too bad that an interesting topic turned into this. 

[Cottagecheeseman]

It's too bad that an interesting topic turned into this.

 

Hey, but at least our trolls are interesting.

Sometimes...

Yo, seriously, this!!!!

[maxhgns]

FWIW, I work the same way that Loric suggested on the first page. I can churn out paragraphs in no time, and they're pretty decent. But they're unrecognizable (and immeasurably better) after nineteen or so sets of revision. It's a lot easier to generate quality content if you already have something to work with. When I start a new paper, my first goal is to get a draft written. I don't worry about how shitty it is, because I'll be fixing it later. What matters is having a skeleton to work with.

 

Like Loric, I think that's probably the most effective method of going about writing. I have colleagues several years ahead of me in the PhD program who've generated far less thesis material because they're busy agonizing over every sentence, making it perfect before moving on. The thing is that they're going to have to revise their output anyway (and revise it heavily!), so the agonizing just slows them down and demoralizes them. It doesn't really matter what you write, so long as you're writing a small chunk every day.

[dfindley]

before I started writing my book (metaphysics of being and nothingness) I was doing a lot of independent research. ideas came together. I liked a lot of pot and spent hours day dreaming, staring at archaic diagrams for hours on end, reading those exhausting 10 pages of whatever tome I had in front of me...

as my system as my system per se really became coherent enough to describe, I started writing. even as I was writing, it all f it want entirely coherent yet. I just kept at it with an emphasis on its systemic nature and making sure concepts and arguments flowed together without contradiction.

I wrote and rewrote for months. until finally I decided that it didn't suck SO bad that I wanted it printed.

now that I have the first edition completed, and I've been thinking about it and continuing independent research... I know my second edition will be what will impact history.

my goal know is to read as extensively as possible, making mental notes and dreaming through most of it. (it really takes me forever to get through just 20 pages of the critique of pure reason) .... after two years of reading and research,

I'll go back and start reading with a plan. .il have my chapters, then various topics, and their various points, drawn out under eachother(like a tree) and then after 6 months of that I'll just fill in the blanks and finish it out. I'll send it to a professional editor, too.

so it's mostly mental planning and structuring over long periods of time.

[dfindley]

hmmm actually maybe the most important part in writing is reading with a purpose -- and understanding various works respective from your own work. this is a sort of 'dialectical research' that gives your work grounds for growth and development.

the one thing that I resent about other students is that they're really only experts at sounding smart -- not that they actually have anything decent to contribute.

worry more about developing your core concepts than put writing itself. don't even bother trying to sound smart. as you read a lot, you should develop the capacity to 'sound smart' as you do late revisions.

[dfindley]

for example I'm are you can sound smart as gel comparing Plato with Lao Tzu but in he end.... ya you're comparing Plato with Lao Tzu. ... so.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

for example I'm are you can sound smart as gel comparing Plato with Lao Tzu but in he end.... ya you're comparing Plato with Lao Tzu. ... so.

 

Is your second edition going to be self-published as well?

[Loric]

Note: You only get to be elitist about publishing once you've actually written a book and published a book.

Let us know when you do.

[Ryura]

Note: You only get to be elitist about publishing once you've actually written a book and published a book.

Let us know when you do.

Thanks for clarifying when one may be elitist. Does this rule apply to reviewing a book's content as well?