Paul Graham. Persuade XOR to describe (Persuade xor Discover)

We have finished translating Paul Graham’s book Hackers and Artists, now we’ll concentrate on his essay .
Original - Persuade xor Discover (2009)
Thanks for the translation finik.

When meeting with unfamiliar people usually try to look very friendly. People smile and say: “Glad to meet you!” - regardless of whether they are really happy or not. There is nothing dishonest about it. Everyone knows that this little social lie should not be understood literally, just like “You can’t pass on salt?” Is just a grammatically question.
')
I absolutely sincerely smile and say: “I am glad to meet you,” - meeting new people. But there is a custom to flatter in writing, which is not so harmless. The reason flattery in writing is that most essays are written to convince the reader. And any politician will tell you that in order to convince listeners it is not enough to provide bare facts, one must also sweeten the pill.

For example, speaking of cuts in government funding for a program, a politician will not simply say: “The program is closed.” It will sound rude, offensive. On the contrary, he will devote most of his speech to the noble efforts of the people who worked on the program.
The danger of this custom is that we begin to think so. "Glad to meet" is just an introduction to the conversation. But the sweet pill added by politicians dissolves into speech. From social lies, we turn to deception.


Here is an example from an essay that I wrote about labor unions.

Those who think that the labor movement was created by the heroic efforts of the organizers are faced with the question: why do labor unions play such an insignificant role today? The best thing they can do when answering this question is to describe people of a bygone era. Our ancestors were heroes. The workers of the early 20th century had the spiritual courage that is lost today.

But the same passage, rewritten to flatter them instead of hurting.

At the dawn of their existence, labor union leaders made heroic efforts to improve the working conditions of the workers. But, although labor unions do not have such a role today, it is not because their leaders are less courageous. Today, the employer would not have come off the hook if he had hired thugs to beat up union leaders; but if he did, the workers leaders would accept the challenge worthily. Therefore, I think that reducing the influence of trade unions is not the result of the shrinking of their leadership. Of course, the leaders of the early epoch of the trade unions were heroes, but one should not think that since the influence of the trade unions diminished, their leaders were to blame. The reason must be external. [one]

The same is written here. The success of the trade unions at the early stages was not determined by the personal qualities of the leaders, but by external factors; otherwise, modern union leaders are worse. The second option looks more like the defense of modern trade union leaders than the minimization of the merits of old ones. This makes the second note more convincing for trade union supporters, because it fits their views.

I believe in everything that I wrote in the second version. The early union leaders made heroic efforts. And moderns would probably do the same if it were required. I doubt that there was a kind of "heroic generation." [2]

If I believe in everything written in the second version, why did not I stop on it? Why hurt people unnecessarily?
Because I would rather hurt people than indulge them. If you are writing on controversial topics, you have to stand on any point of view. The degree of courage of the leaders of the past and present is secondary; the main thing is that they are the same. But, if you want to please people who are wrong, you can't just tell them the truth. You should always put a safety cushion to protect human delusions from the blows of reality.

Most authors do this. They write so as to convince, if not out of habit or out of politeness. But I do not seek to convince; I am writing to understand. I appeal to an abstract, completely impartial reader.

Nowadays, the usual task is to convince the real reader, one who is not too biased. In fact, worse than biased; since readers turn to an essay that tries to please someone, an essay that is unpleasant to one side of the argument is seen as an attempt to please the other side. For many readers, positively related to trade unions, the first passage sounds like a radio program broadcast by reactionary radio, whose owner is trying to stir up his followers. But in fact it is not. That which is contrary to one's convictions is difficult to separate from attacks on them; and although the results look similar, the reasons that gave rise to them are different.

Is it really that bad to add a few words to make people feel better? Maybe not. Maybe I am too brief. I write code, I also write an essay, line by line, constantly checking what can be thrown out without harm. But I have reasonable grounds for this. You can not understand the idea until you express it in a few words. [3]

The danger of the second passage is not only that it is longer. And the fact that you start lying to yourself. True and false begin to mix due to the fact that you have added a little reader misconceptions.

I think that the task of the essay is to find the truth, to make a discovery. At least that's my task. But discovery means something that is at odds with the conventional wisdom. Hence, writing to convince and describe as it is is diametrically opposed tasks. The more your conclusions disagree with the beliefs of readers, the more effort you have to make to expand the sales of your articles. As sales grow, so does the burden, until finally you reach a point where 100% of your energy will go to overcome it and you cannot grow further.

It is difficult to overcome someone's delusions and not to think about how to convey your ideas to other people. It bothers me that if I convince, I unconsciously will avoid ideas that I think are difficult to sell. When I notice something surprising, unexpected, at first it is very disturbing. This is nothing more than a feeling of discomfort. I do not want to think about it.

Notes

[1] When I wrote these lines, I had a strange feeling that I was in high school again. To get a good grade, you have to write the sanctimonious shit that is expected of you, but it should look like your conviction. It was decided by a certain technique. It was habitually disgusting to slide back into this unpleasant situation.

[2] Exercise for the reader: rephrase this idea to please readers who are offended by the first option.

[3] Let's think about it. There is one way that I indulge readers, because it does not change the word count: I am writing from another person. This flattering distinction looks so natural to ordinary readers that they probably don’t even notice when I switch to the half-word, although you would notice it if it were done like this.

Acknowledgments Jessica Livingston (Jessica Livingston) and Robert Morris (Robert Morris), who read the draft.
This essay was written after talking about why people dislike Michael Arrington. Now I think that to think so is a mistake, most people treat him well, just like I did when I first met him, but he just writes controversial things.

PS
Who is ready to help with the translation of the most recent (April 2016) article - How to Make Pittsburgh a Startup Hub ?