思考与写作downes.ca编辑精选
如何快速而专业地写文章与随笔（2006）
How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly (2006)
2016 — 2017，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Stephen Downes 于 2006 年写的写作方法文章，把文章分为论证、解释、定义、描述四类，并讲解如何据此快速而专业地组织写作。它多次登上 Hacker News 首页，引发关于写作结构与技巧的长期讨论。
为什么经久不衰：它把写作拆解成可操作的分类与结构，让不擅长写作的人也有章可循，因此多年来反复被推荐。
HN 评论精选
把一切写作都视为论证，是组织文章和思路的有效框架
文章把文章分为论证、解释、定义、描述四类。我个人发现，几乎把所有写作都当作“论证”的变体很有用——也许我同时在描述、定义或解释什么，但底层总有一个说服的核心。比如定义一件事，本身就要论证这个概念为何有趣有用，否则很容易沦为抽象空谈。这未必普适，但确实帮我理清了写作和思路。
tikhonj查看英文原文
The article provides four categories of essays: argument, explanation, definition, description. Personally, I've found it useful to think of almost everything I write as a variation on "argument". Perhaps I'm also describing, defining or explaining something, but there's always a core substrate of persuading. A integral part of defining something well, for example, is to simultaneously argue for why the defined idea is interesting and useful; without that, it's all too easy to descend into abstract nonsense. My approach isn't universally applicable—it leads to a particular writing style—but it certainly helped me in organizing my writing and organizing my thoughts. Whenever I write I'm always making a point even if I wouldn't classically think of it as a "persuasive" essay.
呈现论证的关键是找到无争议的切入点，再引出反直觉的结论
我常思考如何呈现论证。论证本质上是图结构：结论在上、前提在下，结论又常作为支撑更高层结论的中间环节。难点在于如何向他人呈现——如果结论反直觉，先抛出结论会招致抵触；只列前提又显得无根。我的做法是找到离结论最近、又无争议的前提，从那里讲起，再引出令人意外的结论。
tunesmith查看英文原文
I think about presenting arguments a lot. Arguments are best represented in DAG form; mostly a tree structure, although some premises might support multiple conclusions so it's inherently graph-based (graphical data structure). Because some conclusions are often lemmas supporting further conclusions, arguments can go several levels deep. I like envisioning them with the conclusion on the top and the premises on the bottom, although people often visualize them flipped in another direction. But the trick comes in presenting the argument to someone else, verbally, in a presentation, or through writing. What is the best way to do it? Because your goal isn't just to impart information; it's also to be convincing and to hope that your counterparts get invested in the conclusion. I find that if the conclusion is counterintuitive, then starting with the conclusion can create resistance. People love to interrupt and argue against something they disagree with even if they haven't thought it through. On the other hand, starting with a bunch of premises devoid of context can just feel unrooted. I guess I generally try to analyze the argument to find the highest (closest to conclusion) points that are not controversial, start with those, and then try to talk about the surprising conclusion that they imply. It can be a real workout, though, trying to anticipate responses, being open to feedback while still working towards your conclusion. I wonder if this sort of thing is related to any algorithmic concepts, like most efficient ways to walk a DAG.
把文章拆成问题清单并用短冲刺逐个回答，是稳定产出的实用方法
我写过多年每周科技专栏，最好的方法是把要写的内容列成一系列问题（比如“这项技术为什么对小企业重要？”），然后用不超过 5 分钟的冲刺逐个回答问题，期间不管语法拼写。答完所有问题后，删掉问题、调整行文、补充论据，最后做语法检查。靠这个方法我写出了 200 多篇 800-1000 字的文章，即使毫无写作欲望也能周周交稿。
joewee查看英文原文
I had to write a weekly technology column for a number of years. The best method I found was to prepare a outline of the content you are going to write as a series of questions. For my column I used 5 questions in a logical progression. Example question might be "Why is this technology important to small businesses?" Once I defined the questions, I wrote in sprints without correcting grammar or spelling to answer each of the questions. Sprints were a few minutes, not more than 5. When I answered all of the questions I would go back and remove the questions and edit for flow and add references and supporting facts. Last would be a grammar check, but I relied on my editor to review that given that I was often writing on deadline. I produced more than 200 articles of 800-1000 words. Week over week even when I had writers block or no desire to write at all.
反方观点：文章本身冗长混乱，其“快速写作”的建议站不住脚
这篇文章本身就是它自己论点的反例：写得冗长、组织混乱、自说自话，几乎没有扎实的建议。好的文章应有明确的观点和目的，并有能力地执行——包括把握主题边界、理解读者的认知水平，并认识到写作是对读者的服务而非作者的自我表达。真正的好文章往往来自长期思考后的沉淀，而非一蹴而就。
dredmorbius查看英文原文
This essay is a counterexample to its own argument. It's poorly written, verbose, poorly organised, self-serving, and offers little in the way of solid advice. An expert essay should have a point and purpose, and execute it with competence. This means a few things, but among others, it means having a grasp of your subject, an understanding of others' understanding or lack of it, a firm grasp of the boundaries of your subject, if those are salient, and the capacity to communicate clearly and with interest. Recognising that all writing is a favour to the reader and not the author is also key. I'm contrasting this essay and its glib advice to Neal Stephenson's "Why I am a Poor Correspondent", in which Stephenson excuses his infrequent presence in email, online discussions and social media, and on interviews and conference panels: he requires long blocks of time, and days of them on end, to be able to produce his primary product, long and complex novels. I've occasionally spilled out long essays in a single continuous pour with little further major revision necessary (though numerous fixes, corrections, and tweaks are virtually always needed). The experience is an exception, and almost always happens only on material I've been thinking over for a long time -- weeks, months, years. I'm sitting on at least a half-dozen essays and reviews right now that I've been kicking around for most of the year, so nine months, simply because I've not had the time and space to organise my thoughts and secure uninterrupted keyboard time in front of a system at which I can call up and incorporate references, and do the topics in mind proper justice. It's frustrating, but as with David Byrne, when I've nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Or at least that's my goal. There's a difference between firehosing words onto a page or into an edit-buffer, and actually writing a coherent, cogent, intelligent piece. This piece fails at that, and fails (other than by contradiction) to show how.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选