Quote: (02-04-2017 01:02 AM)Phoenix Wrote:
I have a question related to writing. How much qualifying phrases should you use when writing something informational or instructional?
I have a bad habit of writing sentences like:
"I think it is usually best to X in situation Y".
The raw advice is "Do X." But I don't feel comfortable writing that without reminding people it's my opinion, and that it's not always going to hold for every given situation.
It just looks mealy-mouthed though. Should I just preface the whole book with "this is one man's advice, and all advice is typical instead of universal", and then write directly thereafter? Has anyone got examples of good direct writing?
Cheers
Drop the "I think" and similar softening phrases, because that's really what makes it sound weaker. "Generally, you should...", "With rare exceptions, if A then B", etc are much stronger while still acknowledging that a rule or guideline isn't universally applicable.
Whether you should discuss exceptions at all is another question and that depends on, for lack of a better term, what "level" your writing is meant to be. Is it an overview or meant to be comprehensive? How many exceptions are there, how common are they, and how important are they? How likely is your reader to even be able to reliably determine the difference between the general situation and the exception?
Suppose I'm writing a guide on choosing a pistol and ammo for self defense. My experience and research suggests there's little difference between 9mm, 38 Special, 40 S&W, and 45 ACP in terms of wounding potential when using premium hollowpoints. That's because as long as the hollowpoint expands, they all perform similarly. Thus, as long as a pistol is chambered in a proper service cartridge and good ammo is used, it doesn't matter which you choose. Pick the one that's most reliable in whatever gun you like best.
However, there is a key exception: in winter, in cold environments, hollowpoints may plug up with heavy clothing and fail to open. If that happens, you're a lot better off with a 45 ACP than a 9mm because it leaves a much larger wound channel. Or you need to use some kind of non-HP expanding ammo, like Federal EFMJ or Cor-bon Powr'ball.
I can throw that significant (and lone) exception in without having to get into a long discussion, and it is important. It's a simple situation to recognize as well. Cold weather and thick coats on people? Carry a larger caliber pistol if you have one, or buy the expensive-as-fuck fancy non-HP defensive ammo if you don't. Easy.
On the other hand, if I'm writing an instructional text for new EMTs, I'm not even going to mention all the various possible ailments their patients might have that will produce the same or very similar symptoms as the common stuff they're going to see 95%+ of the time. It's outside the scope of the text, it's probably just going to confuse them with too much information, and it's not their job to play doctor. EMTs are supposed to follow a script. If you observe A, B, and C, you do X, Y, and Z. Period.
A good way of thinking about the "level" of writing is by considering how science is taught. The chemistry department was very guilty of this method when I was in college. It went like this:
1st semester: Here's a basic conceptual model most people can easily understand that works for the task at hand.
2nd semester: Yeah, we lied a bit. That model is actually completely wrong, it was discredited before you were born, and things are really more like this second model. Use this one for now, because it's better suited to the more-complex stuff we're doing this semester.
3rd semester: Okay guys, we lied again. That model worked okay for last semester but it left some important stuff out. You really need to know ________ to understand the concepts we're working on this year.
And so on. It was the same in geology and physics. And it was perfectly fine because the coarser models and simpler concepts did work well enough for simple work. Why use a really fine-grained, complex, realistic model when you don't need to? It just slows everything down. In the real world where time is money, scientists and engineers aren't trying to use perfect models. They use the fast one that's just good enough to yield the information they need for the task at hand.
Writing is the same way. Write to your intended audience. Don't overload people with too much information and too many possibilities if they don't have the background knowledge already. If they need to know all the details, they're going to have to learn the basics alone first, and work up through various levels of knowledge. Nobody can absorb all the complexities of a topic at once and it just muddies the water if you try to show them all the little problems with the general rules up front.
To get back to the original question about softening phrases... If you don't want to speak as an authority about a particular point but draw solely on your own experience or point of view, that's when qualifiers like "In my experience" or "In my opinion" work well. That sort of thing should only be a small part of any informative/instructional writing--after all, if you're not at least somewhat an authority on the topic, should you be instructing or informing people?--and then only if you're taking a conversational tone. However, if you have experience you know most people don't have, pointing that experience out strengthens your statement instead of softening it.
"I think" and its variations should be reserved for clear speculation; they're not to be used while presenting information. "I feel" just sounds weak all the time in my opinion. "I feel" is wishy washy and should only be used when you're honestly not sure about something and want to make your uncertainty plain. Neither fits well with most informative/instructional unless it's very informal, like on Instructables or a blog or similar.