.;''-. The lessons I was taught about the things of my thoughts
.' | `._ is that if I write until I quit then my thinking becomes quiet.
/` ; `'. I write.
,'\| `| | I write to think.
| -'_ \ `'.__,J I write quite a lot.
| `"-.___ ,' I write almost as much as I've thought.
'-, / I write until I quit.
} __.--'L I write to get the thing out of my head.
; _,- _.-"`\ ___ Which let's my thinking go on to my next thought when I step out of bed.
`7-;" ' _,,--._ ,-'`__ `.
|/ ,'- .7'.-"--.7 | _.-' Because there's only so much room up there.
; ,' .' .' -. \/ .' In that little cramped space inside of my hair.
\ | .' / | \_)- '/ _.-'``
_,.--../ .' \_) '`_ \'` Sometimes the thing I think about has taught me a lot about thought.
'`f-'``'.`\;;' ''` '-` | And sometimes the thought I have about the thing taught me nothing at all.
\`.__. ;;;, ) /
/ /<_;;;;' `-._ _,-' But I am grateful for the lesson it bought.
| '- /;;;;;, `t'` \ I don't think I could think without writing my thoughts down.
`'-'`_.|,';;;, '._/| Which gives me a new thought:
_.-' \ |;;;;; `-._/ Do I think to write?
/ `;\ |;;;, `" Or do I write to think?
.' `'`\;;, /
' ;;;'|
.--. ;.:`\ _.--,
| `'./;' _ '_.' |
\_ ` `) /
Thanks so much for sharing this, I really appreciate it! If/when I write a follow up to this piece, I'll need to include this story and read Thompson's book. That fragment you shared reminds me of what consultant/author/teacher Roger Martin wrote at Medium:
> The most important advice I ever received on writing was from a fellow named Bernie Avishai, a great writer/editor and friend, to whom I was complaining about how much editing my writing took. He observed that the reason that I was complaining about editing was that I probably believed that I thought in order to write. My response was “Duh, of course, I think in order to write.” Bernie explained that instead, one writes to think. The human mind can only think so much without seeing a written manifestation of its thinking. You need to write down your thinking, however primitive, in order to be able to look at it and say: “That is not quite right.” Then you will be able to figure out how to make it better. And then by looking at the resulting improvement, you will be capable of saying: “That is still not quite right.” And so on, until it is a much more sophisticated view of your thinking.
The lesson for me is that editing is a feature of the writing process, not a bug. Now, I don’t begrudge editing. I realize that it is just part of the process of helping me think. I love the process of editing! Nothing that anyone sees from me on Medium has been edited less than a dozen times. Each time, it is a slightly better expression of what is in my head.
As Neil Strauss puts it, "the true art of writing is in the revising." First draft you start with a clay (the first draft) and in the second pass, you revise, sculpting the clay, attempting to edit through an ideal reader's eyes.
I agree. Especially when you don't really know how something is going to work. So many times when I'm working on a hard problem, coding out half a solution makes the rest of it naturally fall out (or show that I was completely wrong) without having to consciously think about it.
> Nothing that anyone sees from me on Medium has been edited less than a dozen times.
Same for me on all my comments. I listen to my comments on TTS, edit, repeat ... At times I've spent 30 minutes on a single reply. It's very enjoyable to hear the end result.
They are both right. From their personal points of view.
Some people do X best, others do Y.
The difference between propositional and syllogistic logic is important to keep in mind when making broad arguments like that about 'how stuff works'. Especially when 'stuff' refers to brains of people with individual differences.
wholeheartedly agree, just it's not "getting better at representing what I thought". Instead, it's a tool of thought process, which is dynamic. These to interwoven in a dynamic relation and it's hard to separate them.
Vast majority of the gray goo in our heads is dumb as f*ck and can't hold a coherent thought more complicated than "I am hungry" together other than by accident. That's why writing is a superpower for thinking. It freezes concepts down and you are able to return and rethink them from more than one angle. Of course, mathematics is a thinking superpower on another level, and programming yet another level of superpowers of thinking. Which is why it would be important to teach basics of programming to everyone. Not so that all become software developers, but to tech them to think. Like writing and math is not teached because all should become authors or mathematicians.
It's similar to what I've read from "The Information" by James Gleick. (It's a very intriguing book, esp. for people with CS background.)
> The written word—the persistent word—was a prerequisite for conscious thought as we understand it. It was the trigger for a wholesale, irreversible change in the human psyche—psyche being the word favored by Socrates/Plato as they struggled to understand.
> [...]
> Spoken words also transport information, but not with the self-consciousness that writing brings. Literate people take for granted their own awareness of words, along with the array of word-related machinery: classification, reference, definition. Before literacy, there is nothing obvious about such techniques. "Try to explain to me what a tree is," Luria says, and a peasant replies, "Why should I? Everyone knows what a tree is, they don't need me telling them."
I think Feynman would have loved excalidraw. I find it very difficult to sort my thinking in a text editor, even though I find the mechanical process of writing is much better there.
I'd say there's still quite some room left here for authoring tools, but excalidraw + vim is the best I have atm.
Thank you for mentioning excalidraw. That's pretty tempting at $6/mo if paid yearly -- yeah, I know I can use it for free. To be able to produce a quick sketch on any computer, anywhere, and quickly share it is pretty nifty. I'm kind of astounded by what people do in browsers nowadays. Even more surprised that those things are so often no longer clunky in the slightest.
And vim? Yeah. Wouldn't want to live without it, though I'm not going to argue it's better than any other capable editor. It's okay to like something just because, right?
I would say: Writing is a test. It tests if you understand the subject well enough, and the "other person" well enough, to communicate it to that other person. Most likely you don't so then you need to think and/or learn more so that you can redraft it so it works. Write something technical and it reveals how little you know!
---
It is a trope but it works: Write your problem to the most senior developer in an email/slack but don't press send. Then there is a probably 50% chance you will solve it, or reduce the scope of the problem to {more focuesed question} that you can ask about.
Agreed! Start the solution by starting to write that email. Anticipate the recipient's questions and objections, and disarm them by answering the points raised. Repeat this process as long as is necessary. Watch the solution magically take shape right before your eyes.
I agree with this. It's not infrequently that I feel I have a clear idea of something, only to try writing it out and discover that I don't.
Most of us here have heard the story about Feynman, when he decided that if he couldn't explain a concept clearly enough for undergrads, it meant that he didn't really understand it himself.
> Write your problem to the most senior developer in an email/slack but don't press send...
Reminds me of the scene in Galaxy Quest (1999), when the Thermian engineer asks "Tech Sergeant Chen" about a technical problem and he leads the alien into realizing the answer himself.
> It tests if you understand the subject well enough, and the "other person" well enough, to communicate it to that other person
Interestingly, writing code not different in that regard. Too many developers think that it's enough to understand the subject. But the hardest part is often communicating the subject to other people through code.
The concept of writing to think more clearly might be starting to become trite, particularly if you are a hardcore techie. However I can't overstate how useful this has been for my career and for me personally.
If you haven't written much give it a try. Take some idea that is very clearly formed in your head and put it in paper. I guarantee you'd be surprise how many holes are in your thinking once you try to lie it down.
I would argue otherwise. If you are a hardcore techie, you should soon realize that a man without paper, is like a Turing machine with finite or no tape.
I never understood the statement sometimes made of rushing in and just outputting stuff without thinking and writing -- goes contrary to our engineering, informatics and scientific training I would like to argue. I do understand of course the need for experimentation/having the tires hit the road.
P.S. I find I need to write more and these comments and post helps remind me that, so I grasp the opportunity to thank all the commenters for that.
It’s not so much in contradiction with a scientific background/training: you’ll still need to go through prototypes, drafts, rough ideas expressed before you can share/observe/analyse them.
Creatively speaking (and writing is a creative endeavor, whatever the topic is), rushing in is like letting your mind breathe freely and empty it from what’s bothering it, so it can put it all out, and then allow it to focus/develop.
In writing the cost of pen/paper is marginal, so you can afford it extensively.
Any software design of any significance I've ever done has occurred while writing my half baked thoughts. I didn't even know they were half baked until I started to write it down and felt the struggle to plug all the holes. The design was truly in all those holes.
The rubber duck method works wonders for me, especially while writing. "When I show this to the head architect, he's going to rip into me here, here and.. here"
This is a big reason why asynchronous communication works better for me. I can't begin to count the number of problems I've solved in the process of writing an email asking for help. And many more times where the question I was intended to ask changed to a completely different, and more useful question. The process of collecting the information I have, ended up pointing to holes in my thought processes and led to the solution.
If I had gone straight to Slack I would have wasted other people's time, and cheated myself out of thinking through the problem myself.
I think the key here is that by putting it to paper (so to speak), you linearize and structure the problem and all it angles in a way that are conducive to methodically advancing your understanding.
My employees don't seem to understand why I prefer they email questions to me instead of calling. The clarity writing often brings aids the conversation. I frequently call once I have the email.
Kind of but writing has the added benefit of being easily inspectable after fact. Speaking out loud will identify some weak logical points, but writing will catch even more.
I don't take laptops into (real) meetings anymore, just my Moleskine and a pen. Has helped tremendously with thinking through problems and giving better feedback later on.
I find the process of hand-writing notes, rather than typing them, helps me to remember the details that I've noted down. I don't often refer back to my notes, but that's kinda because I hand wrote it, and so there's some kind of visceral mind-body connection that seems to help in remembering.
Okay! This is fascinating, I've long meant to dig into the relationship between writing and memory.
I do also think if you were to revisit a specific note, you might find something interesting along the way—a fascinating byproduct of writing physical things down is sorting through all of the texture before and after it. https://twitter.com/HerbertLui/status/1564087803029630976
A great antidote for illusion of explanatory depth? Writing
As others have mentioned in the thread, you only start to realize how little you know (or how much) about a particular subject once you start putting words to paper. It's a great way to "test yourself" and — as objectively as possible — identify gaps or holes in your knowledge.
I once worked for a guy who couldn't understand how anyone could possibly "write to think". He'd had a career as a high-level consultant who thought in big-picture/hand-wavy terms and never had to worry about implementation.
Even though I'm a big picture type of a guy but I LOVE writing in general and one of the driving forces behind this strong feeling of appreciation for writing is that it makes you think clearer and help too with expressing and understanding your emotions esp. when delving into touchy subjects.
As a developer, very often I'm locked into a problem (algorithms, trigonometry, "stuff you'd think you'd know by now, dumbass", etc.)
The only way for me to get out of it is doodling it down: write the keywords, link them, circle them around, draw the thing, depict it in 3D, flow chart it, boxes, structures, swimlanes, whatever.
Bought a Remarkable a couple of years ago, never looked back. I've written (doodled) 1000 virtual pages since then. Its permanent place is right in front of my keyword.
I also use it during Zoom calls to take notes and remember stuff. So much better than relying on my head alone.
Same here. Writing/sketching is thinking. By the time, I’m actually typing code, I know exactly what to expect. Having that clarity is quite empowering and ascertains control.
Same with my Boox. It has the added advantage of reducing desk clutter (no more drawer full of notes!) and letting me handwrite notes, which always seems to help me remember things better.
Hmm. I write daily, fiction and journaling, and spend a lot of time researching and thinking deeply about writing - and I have some reservations here.
I agree there is almost always some value in writing. However, for many people, when writing a really long work (a novel for instance) that you want to have some cohesiveness, it can pay to sit and have a think instead of writing. Similarly, doing research (for instance going to England if you're writing in that setting) can be valuable instead of writing.
The definition of the "writer's block" is to "have a think instead of writing."
It may look like you need to think, but you need to write down what you are thinking. Thinking of an outline? Write down the outline. Thinking of a timeline? Write down the timeline. Thinking of the background of a character? Write it down. What do you do after you go to England? Write your experience down.
Thanks for sharing, and I totally agree! I'd respond by defining writing in this case as merely putting words on the page. No backspacing (save to correct typos), almost as if we were writing by pen.
Writing is a very separate process from editing, and the two processes need to be kept very separate; the editing is where the cohesion is developed and tightened up. Naturally, research is also a separate process.
Susan Sontag said every writer is four people:
1) The nut, the obsédé
2) The moron
3) The stylist
4) The critic
In this case, the act of writing and putting thoughts together can represent the idiot/the moron/the nut at work (although upon reflecting, those words are unnecessarily mean and harsh). In other words, our chaotic energy gets a chance to play. More here: https://herbertlui.net/insights-from-the-idiot/
I am a weird mixture of a developer and an author too, and "write to think" still helps me tremendously at least in the programming part of my career. I use Notepad++ or Word instead of paper, but whenever I try to solve something more complicated, I write the ideas down first.
I keep hearing you need to write to think, but I just cannot. If an idea is not clear in my head I cannot write. I might be able to brain storm or do a mind map or dump words. But I cannot write.
I need to think through the idea in my head. I find I can create infinitely complex worlds in my head and go down various paths, words on a board/paper/tablet just help me direct that thought process. A lot of the time I do not even need that, I just need time to think through the idea in my head. Once I am clear then writing is a breeze.
Based on articles like this I have actually tried to write before the idea was clear in my head and lets just say I have never completed an article/document/anything any time I have done that.
I think that’s the point. The process of writing helps take an idea from vague to clear and concrete. The act of writing reveals weaknesses or gaps in your idea.
I often times think I ever a clear idea. But when I go to write it down its more like I have just the first two bullet points. The act of fleshing out this comment is a good example. :)
> If an idea is not clear in my head I cannot write.
Do you type on a computer or write with pen + paper?
I find that for me at least, "writing to think" has to be with pen/paper (a really good stylus + table combination can also work). It doesn't work when typing on a computer. When typing on a computer, I must have the thoughts ready as well.
I write to think because when I finish typing one thought often another thought naturally follows. The second thought often surprises me. Where'd that come from? It happens more often while writing vs just thinking.
This is a well known phenomenon in the study of the psychology of writing. Although we may start writing with an outline in mind, at certain points it feels more natural to go in a direction other than what we planned. This effect becomes more pronounced with greater expertise in writing. Study of the best writers shows that they rarely stick to a plan and are constantly rearranging as they revise a piece.
Maybe GPT-3 could be built into a writing IDE so it would suggest the next sentence that way a programming IDE suggests the next code completion. I'd worry that that would inhibit me from having an original thought, but on the other hand it might encourage me to reject the suggestion and come up with something more original.
Given than GPT-3 could create narratives, it would probably be too suggestive. Much more simple prediction models for writing (ie: not coding) are used in a few places. Google Docs has a pretty good one.
I'm familiar with sentence completion from GMail but I'm talking about thought completion. So for example in a programming IDE it's been true for awhile that it will suggest a name completion, but something new they are adding is suggesting the entire routine you are trying to write. I think CoPilot is even better at this.
> something new they are adding is suggesting the entire routine you are trying to write
But that’s only for simple cases where a person could easily predict the next few words, like business communications that stick to a cultural script, no?
(Writing is less formal than coding, so there can still be flaws, ambiguities and imprecisions resident in your revised writing, but once you turn things into code, it will turn out to be taken to another level of clarity and precision needed.)
I love the way you phrased this, I wrote a book entitled Creative Doing and it's really all about how doing and thinking are part of a loop! Everything is just a snapshot into the creative process and each person's larger body of work.
Can this all be summed up to "JUST DO IT", since were all saying the learning and revision comes after the work we should all just stop procrastinating and "JUST DO IT" already.
Writing forces me to slow down my thinking, and simply by slowing my thoughts down, they become more clear and go deeper. I wonder if simply slowing my thinking down to writing speed (without actually doing the physical act of writing) would have the same effect.
Yes, slowing down helps a lot. You can slow yourself down by thinking an outline and then sticking to it, for example. It won't remove all of the tangents, but it's mostly sufficient for the smaller problems.
Typical example; packing for a vacation. You can pack by systematically going through phases of all your vacation days and collecting items you are going to need. If you have decent memory, you could also buffer the items that you need multiple times and collect them at once afterwards.
But it is much easier to write it all down. That way you can then fetch it a way that minimizes walked distance and be able to re-check what you bring. Sometimes it strikes you when you see it written; "swimming trunks - should I bring the diving goggles as well?".
I think that writing (making a prototype, sketching...) increases surface of the problem you are in contact with. This gives you more insight and "vectors" to attack it from.Like the gigantic list of things for that vacation makes you wonder: "do I really fit it into duffel bag or should I bring out the traveling case? After all, I might be bringing back some souvenirs...".
Brains work differently. Mine is very unique. If I slow mine down to write I get crippled and lose all thoughts. My brain functions by linking multiple thoughts together. I have one, a new one starts, then I make links between them.
I'm super creative though and cannot do technical work.
The article mentions different tools to think with (pen, paper, keyboards) and different methods of thinking (drawing/writing). Knowing when to pick what, or when to transition to using other tools/methods (usually CAD software or programming for me) often isn’t as obvious or as easy as I’d like.
For me, generally pen and paper for preliminary work (e.g., exploring the idea, journaling, taking notes), software and tools like Google Docs/Notion/Airtable for organization and fidelity (e.g., outlining, writing, editing, etc.). Another lens could be analog for chaotic creative work, digital for structured creative work.
Two item that always come with me in my day bag along with my laptop are a simple A5 notebook, and a pen.
In my case any design be it software, a drawing, or project or something else needs to start with a couple of rough diagrams and notes on paper. I have tried numerous times to do this electronically and it has failed every single time.
Not sure why, but there seems to be something about the fluidity of writing that allows you to get thoughts and expressions down quickly in a way that boxes and flowcharts just don't facilitate.
Most of the time I view these notes for a few days while I work or write proper documentation and after that they are left behind. I have several stacks of various notebooks lying around filled with stuff like this.
Same here, though I recently got a reMarkable 2 to replace my paper and love it more than I could have imagined. It’s a magical device for me (no affiliation).
Don't just go for the remarkable, it's mainly for designers with a need for sketches. For storing, searching, etc. of notes there are better alternatives without a subscription model, for example the Supernote.
I decided to return mine and the entire process took nearly 2 months.
If you buy one, assume you will never get it repaired or return it and that you’ll either keep it forever or buy a new one even if you’re under warranty.
My experience, would not recommend. I’ve heard better things about Supernote.
Personally, the transfer-ability of the notes themselves and the ability to use it to present over video conference. I can email notes directly to others, I can OCR them to text and send to myself to then transfer to whatever I need them in on my computer, and with remote sharing I can hook it up via USB to my computer, share my screen, and have the nicest digital whiteboard for meetings I’ve ever used.
For ‘thinking process’ specifically, I think it’s the ability to have unlimited notebooks in one device. Often while writing notes for one thing I’m inspired about something else, so I can quickly switch to that notebook and jot it down.
I also found writing useful to stop my head from circling around problems repetitively. Writing serves me not only to think, but to actually see the structure of that thinking process (a beginning and an end, argumentation), hence seeing the whole picture and how I am are not deliberately missing something.
This eventually frees me to focus in other things, feeling that I did as much as I could with the thinking at that moment. New ideas may come eventually, but for the moment that thinking "batch" is ok.
> But to tell you the story I have to imagine you reading these words, or more commonly almost imagine myself telling you these words. As I do the writing I imagine the telling, imagine you, recruit in that imagined picture of you all the same social understanding I need in face-to-face telling, but without you here to constantly remind me of who you are and what you know and care about.
> And yet at the same time, just as in my face-to-face telling I need to hold that picture of the Tower itself, my feelings, the heat of the day, the small stall where I bought the can of drink ... maybe conflating several visits (were the cables there on my first visit or just the scaffolding?), but whether real or imagined calling that experience into my mind as I also imagine the telling of it. The visit itself is third order - the imagination in my imagined conversation and I have to hold all three experiences in my mind at once: my hands staccato playing over the computer keys, you my reader, and Pisa in its glory.
This technique of imagining a specific person before you while you do your thinking is very powerful. I will often have conversations with people in my imagination, typically people with wisdom or expertise in certain subjects. I've found that this allows me to gain insights I wouldn't be able to get "on my own". Of course, it's the same "hardware", just emulating a different "operating system".
Napoleon Hill describes a similar method, he would have meetings in his imagination with a roundtable of all his heroes and role models, and consult them any time he needed to maken a difficult decision. In this way he trained his own thinking and character to be more and more like that of people he greatly respected.
Some people find writing daunting. An email, an eng doc, or whatever. However, editing pre-written text is a lot easier. If you don't know where to start, start _anywhere_. Because once something is there, editing it is a breeze.
Another Chinese-American came to the same conclusion seven years earlier:
So what is the purpose of writing? It turns out that there is one, and that it has nothing to do with communication. It’s that writing clarifies thinking. [1]
Sometimes I think my thoughts are just infinite particles with their Brownian motion on overdrive.
What’s fascinating to me is once my mind is “full” of thoughts, it will start to leak and those thoughts start to externalise automatically. I will pace around like mad, sometimes for hours; talk to myself while others looked askance at me; go on some overly long google binge; and if those are not appropriate, I’ll probably doodle things somewhere.
That leakiness is probably why I like writing, even though I am not good at it. It calms me a bit and reduces my thought velocity quite substantially.
Does anyone find the same is true of conversations?
Don't get me wrong, writing is a really important part of the thinking process, but equally I find it's useful to sit down and talk things over with someone else, the act of framing my thoughts to be said, let alone responding to questions or comments, are yet more lenses to peer into the mess in my head and pull out the odd nugget I consider further.
Additionally each of these highlights different thoughts and ideas, so I don't find I can just substitute one for the other.
That's not even touching on the value of more spirited debate =)...
I agree, I even know people who want to discuss something, but my role is not to respond too much, just nod or acknowledge things from time to time and primary to listen as their thought gets more clarified by the moment they said them aloud ... :-)
For most topics, it's fine advice to be willing to look stupid -- aka stay foolish. For some topics, that's potentially dangerous. Some subjects must be handled with care.
Write to think is a little slow... Unless you can type pretty fast, in which case it's good to clear your mind...
Talking to think is even better... Alone, with a Bluetooth headset, talk to yourself -- better if the app can skip silence --- you can now listen back and look back at your own thoughts from a detached 3rd person perspective.
I recently experimented with Google speech to text on goolge docs to chalk out some content that I went back and refined later, so that could be a happy compromise.
I find that it's exactly the slowing down that helps me think more clearly. Even talking to think slows down my thinking, but to a lesser degree, and it's not as clearly structured. Writing on the other hand really helps me to think more thoroughly. The right answer is probably that we all are different and have to figure out what works best for us.
That seems even slower and lacking the most important advantages of actually writing: you're articulating your thoughts via a slow medium which forces you to actually think through what you're putting down. Also writing by hand activates your motor cortex and that's beneficial when studying.
If you don't have time to write, you don't have time to think thoroughly.
Lol. Ok, tomorrow instead of writing software, I’ll speak the software, listen back, and re-speak any changes I want to make. Only when it’s perfect will I speech-to-text the actual code. This will definitely be faster.
Yea, I get your joke, but if you're writing for example an article, this is an excellent approach for a messy first draft that you can refine and clean up later..
First time I heard of using writing to think was in this talk, "The craft of writing effectively"[1]. It's definitely been a motivation to try to write more.
This has been my experience. One of the reasons that I write so much[0], is that it helps me to focus my mind. Articulating my process helps me to formalize it, which turns it from a "This is just how I do stuff," to a real "process."
It also helps me to remember stuff. I have a memory like a sieve. However, if I write down a note, I seldom need to refer to that note again.
I’m moving my littlegreenviper.com account, so expect it to be messy for a day or so, as I sort out all the redirecting and SSL stuff. This is not my forte.
As much as I encourage people to stay out of internet comments...
("It's like bringing mentally-ill, bad faith people into your house and yelling at each other"; "They aren't your friends, and it doesn't make any friends; You really want to be the 10,001 buried comment? The internet brings every dumb thing to your door, which is not how real life is supposed to work.")
...trying to write that youtube comment in a pithy, understandable way, condense and clarifies my thoughts.
Never experienced this magical "written thoughts". The only way I can write is if I already have thought the idea through and wroting is for documentation, editing and reference. I've found the same in studying: taking notes has always been a waste of time for me. I wish I had this superpower to make writing moee useful but even 2 years of everyday journaling hasn't given me back the payoff that I expected given my efforts.
This is exactly how it is for me. I used to think, jease!, why does it does it take so long to write well. Finally I judt realized that writing is art and that it takes time to get good at it and it also takes time to formulate ideas into end producdts, in your mind and on paper.
Ive used "the most dangerous writing app" extensively to just blurt out what the idea is. It has a timer set and if you stop typing before the timer ends, it will just delete everything you wrote. You can set word limits too. Ilove this tool
This can't literally be true for anyone, right? By the time you've written down a thought, a dozen more have come and gone, never to be followed up. Writing can perhaps add rigor to thinking, but it's not like thinking in its essentials.
You've written many HN comments. Do you ever, after starting to write a comment, but before hitting submit, have a new thought that changes your mind a bit? Does that ever make you go back to edit what you've written, either before you submit, or shortly after?
Or get so close to the end of the point you're trying to make, and then BAM, you realise an alternate interpretation of the post you're replying to, which, upon further consideration is more likely the intended interpretation of the comment, than what your now almost-completely typed reply was addressing, rendering the reply pointless.
There's so much processing the brain does in the background, that it makes the foreground seem young and foolish.
Honestly friend, this is some exceptional writing (and thus thinking). I read the parent comment and wanted to say roughly the same thing, but you absolutely nailed it.
Sure! I'll even agree (trivially, I guess) that thinking is definitely a part of that process... but that doesn't seem to contradict my earlier comment. I really just mean the "thinking" metaphor for writing is very far from my experience of what ordinary thinking is like -- so much that it seems bizarre to me to conflate them.
I don't see it as a metaphor. Writing and thinking are different. They can affect each other. Writing doesn't usually (ever?) happen without thinking. Thinking can happen without writing but, for me at least, the act of writing promotes a type of thinking that makes it easier to understand, analyze and develop my model of the world.
what!?!? thinking thoughts to a point of clarity so that one has achieved a cohesion and clarity of meaning comes well before writing. writing allows for the recordation of thoughts, so that we may revisit older thoughts with newer thinking. writing allows 'editing thoughts' not 'thinking' in its primary order. if anything writing is second order (meta) thinking. if you havent been able to structure thoughts to some completion before you understand them, perhaps writing will help, but usually, it isnt untill that lightbulb mental moment wherein understanding and meaning are conclusive enough to establish thought.
Writing to think is what we all do here and on other social media.
It’s no different, and I think too few people realize that. In fact, writing for others to read is better, as it exposes your thinking to critical evaluation.
More people should write comments, tweets, posts, whatever. They’d be better off for it for these exact same reasons.
