Paul Tudor Jones to Staff: Learn to Write or I'll Rip Up Your Memo(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Paul Tudor Jones to Staff: Learn to Write or I'll Rip Up Your Memo
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/billionaire-paul-tudor-jones-to-staff-learn-to-write-or-i-ll-rip-up-your-memo
23 comments
So pitches should follow coding practices?
No pitch is longer than one screen.
Line width is 80 characters.
Sentences should be about one thing and one thing only.
Names should clearly describe what the thing they name do.
You could do a lot worse...
I hope the same applies to your proposals and agreements.
A one page, fully specified, document would be preferable.
A one page, fully specified, document would be preferable.
[deleted]
I cannot endorse this idea enough.
Paul Tudor (I don't know why anybody calls him Mr Jones. Anybody who has ever dealt with his firm calls him Paul Tudor) knows what everybody else in finance knows: you're dealing with people who have money, and when you have money, there are many, many, people trying to solicit your interest. This is not about the blog writing style, your deep intellect, your pitch. It's about "I get 10 really smart people 10x per hour trying to communicate with me (including my own employees). My bandwith is limited. You have 10 seconds. Get my attention".
This issue is less about tech, than about the basics of trying to get through to the wealthy/privileged in what is the biggest, most brutally competitive communication arena. Literally everybody wants Paul Tudor's attention. He's a financial genius, but he's just a man with a limited attention span and dozens of solicitations per hour. Make sure your 10 seconds count.
I was a fixed income strategist for many years. Realizing that there were 30 PDFs from my competitors hitting the target's inbox every hour, my successful strategy was to do what none of them were doing: sit back, really think about what was the essence of my piece that was different from the first principal component of everybody's obvious chatter, summarize that in a single line, and put that into the subject.
Paul Tudor (I don't know why anybody calls him Mr Jones. Anybody who has ever dealt with his firm calls him Paul Tudor) knows what everybody else in finance knows: you're dealing with people who have money, and when you have money, there are many, many, people trying to solicit your interest. This is not about the blog writing style, your deep intellect, your pitch. It's about "I get 10 really smart people 10x per hour trying to communicate with me (including my own employees). My bandwith is limited. You have 10 seconds. Get my attention".
This issue is less about tech, than about the basics of trying to get through to the wealthy/privileged in what is the biggest, most brutally competitive communication arena. Literally everybody wants Paul Tudor's attention. He's a financial genius, but he's just a man with a limited attention span and dozens of solicitations per hour. Make sure your 10 seconds count.
I was a fixed income strategist for many years. Realizing that there were 30 PDFs from my competitors hitting the target's inbox every hour, my successful strategy was to do what none of them were doing: sit back, really think about what was the essence of my piece that was different from the first principal component of everybody's obvious chatter, summarize that in a single line, and put that into the subject.
100%. People don't have time to dig into things and then get to the thesis. Several short bullet points followed up with whatever supporting data. Anyone in Paul Tudor's position is going to have an excellent BS detector; they don't need a million and one supporting exhibits that need to be sifted through before getting to the point.
> My successful strategy was to sit back, really think about what was the essence of my piece, summarize that in a single line, and put that into the subject.
Any chance you remember exemplar subject lines? This technique also applies to blog post titles which eventually appear in micro-blog tweets, HN story headlines, and presentation titles.
Any chance you remember exemplar subject lines? This technique also applies to blog post titles which eventually appear in micro-blog tweets, HN story headlines, and presentation titles.
Impossible task because the subject in my domain (finance) changes so soften. Is it New Gingrich shutting down the government today? Is it Bank of America losing its shirt in Detroit? Or is it Greece failing to pay its debt? Or is is it Glencore overleveraged on commodities? Maybe it's China devaluing!
The only common denominator, in my experience, is not to try your best to be the first. The first is usually a computer, and that trend is only growing.
What you want to do, and this is a time honored principle, is to really think about what you want to say, before you say it, and make sure you know the unique aspects of what you're saying. Paul Tudor, like most AAA people, is hammered every second with the main-line thinking. His attention is only piqued with things that are oblique to the mainstream view. (notice that I use the word "oblique", not necessarily "orthogonal", because there are many unsubtle people who take the idea too far ie: "I want attention so will go wild with my thinking". You must never underestimate the extent to which high end people have seen it all before and have defences against charlatans). Your best bet is to be really honest with yourself, about what you're saying that's different but not crazy, make sure you can back up your claims, at least intellectually (the market often does not have time for proof), and make that the key point of your piece, upfront in the subject line/headline.
Then, be prepared to defend your standpoint, with credible arguments. No sloppiness allowed. Your 10 seconds turned into 5 minutes! Don't screw them up by not knowing your facts.
The only common denominator, in my experience, is not to try your best to be the first. The first is usually a computer, and that trend is only growing.
What you want to do, and this is a time honored principle, is to really think about what you want to say, before you say it, and make sure you know the unique aspects of what you're saying. Paul Tudor, like most AAA people, is hammered every second with the main-line thinking. His attention is only piqued with things that are oblique to the mainstream view. (notice that I use the word "oblique", not necessarily "orthogonal", because there are many unsubtle people who take the idea too far ie: "I want attention so will go wild with my thinking". You must never underestimate the extent to which high end people have seen it all before and have defences against charlatans). Your best bet is to be really honest with yourself, about what you're saying that's different but not crazy, make sure you can back up your claims, at least intellectually (the market often does not have time for proof), and make that the key point of your piece, upfront in the subject line/headline.
Then, be prepared to defend your standpoint, with credible arguments. No sloppiness allowed. Your 10 seconds turned into 5 minutes! Don't screw them up by not knowing your facts.
> notice that I use the word "oblique", not necessarily "orthogonal", because there are many unsubtle people who take the idea too far ie: "I want attention so will go wild with my thinking" ... Your best bet is to be really honest with yourself, about what you're saying that's different but not crazy ...
That reminds me of a recent article (which I can't find again) that talked about the "optimal distance" between prevailing fashion and a new trend, based on studies of trend-setters.
That reminds me of a recent article (which I can't find again) that talked about the "optimal distance" between prevailing fashion and a new trend, based on studies of trend-setters.
For the startup world:
Approximately 80% of the pitches I get are between garbled and incoherent. Even higher in the unsolicited ones.
Consider that your recipient is reading on a small screen and utilize pyramid structure. And don't bury the lede. Many pitches ask for money without saying anything at all about what they are about.
Approximately 80% of the pitches I get are between garbled and incoherent. Even higher in the unsolicited ones.
Consider that your recipient is reading on a small screen and utilize pyramid structure. And don't bury the lede. Many pitches ask for money without saying anything at all about what they are about.
Would you recommend something like "How to pitch a VC" by Dave McClure. Or something else?
I feel like there's no magic in a pitch. That you just have to tell the VC what problem you're solving. And just expect your VC to get it. Maybe the same pitch can have 2 totally different reactions in different people, because one of them have felt that pain or is identified with it.
Bottom line, my take is: make it simple, be clear and open. There's no need to "sell" or "charm" with it.
I feel like there's no magic in a pitch. That you just have to tell the VC what problem you're solving. And just expect your VC to get it. Maybe the same pitch can have 2 totally different reactions in different people, because one of them have felt that pain or is identified with it.
Bottom line, my take is: make it simple, be clear and open. There's no need to "sell" or "charm" with it.
I would recommend William Zinsser, _On Writing Well_.
Persuasion tactics have almost no place, except at the end when you say, "So, are you in?"
Before that, the hurdle that (as @joshu says) 80% of pitches fail to clear is explaining clearly what the company will do.
Persuasion tactics have almost no place, except at the end when you say, "So, are you in?"
Before that, the hurdle that (as @joshu says) 80% of pitches fail to clear is explaining clearly what the company will do.
Sure. Just tell me what the fucking thing is, even. Half the time people want to meet to coffee to discuss it without telling me. Sorry, but probably not. If there is a link I will at least click it.
Analogous to 'write concise and clean code' ?
[deleted]
Right. Most pitches are by losers. Learning to write won't make their ideas less stupid, and it won't make their execution any less pathetic. You will get a very clear picture of what they are trying to do though?
Wow all the comments here seem negative. The guy is just saying that people should be clearer with their writing and getting to the point right away to avoid confusion.
If they're writing about a topic that's more complex, sure, the writing will need to be more complex. But there's nothing wrong with communicating simply if the subject allows it.
If they're writing about a topic that's more complex, sure, the writing will need to be more complex. But there's nothing wrong with communicating simply if the subject allows it.
Whether your topic is simple or complex, you still need to lead with your point. A complex analysis might have many sub-points that you prove-up in subsequent paragraphs, but your ultimate conclusion still needs to come at the beginning, and each supporting paragraph still needs to lead with the sub-point you're proving.
Say you're writing a memo to your boss explaining why you need to double the size of your engineering team. That point has to come first. Now, maybe the reason you need to double the size of your engineering team is that management wants to add new product lines, and customers are demanding more customized solutions. Okay, so each of those points are the leads in their own paragraphs.
Where a lot of people have problems is that their writing is a chronological recounting of their thinking about the issue. So it starts somewhere in the middle where they encountered some part of the overall issue, then backs up to where they recognize the larger issue, and then buries the solution at the end.
The structure you were taught in high-school: topic sentence, supporting sentences, conclusion, is simple and appropriate for business communications. There are some writers who can clearly convey complicated thoughts using a more narrative structure, but you'll rarely go astray sticking to that basic style.
Say you're writing a memo to your boss explaining why you need to double the size of your engineering team. That point has to come first. Now, maybe the reason you need to double the size of your engineering team is that management wants to add new product lines, and customers are demanding more customized solutions. Okay, so each of those points are the leads in their own paragraphs.
Where a lot of people have problems is that their writing is a chronological recounting of their thinking about the issue. So it starts somewhere in the middle where they encountered some part of the overall issue, then backs up to where they recognize the larger issue, and then buries the solution at the end.
The structure you were taught in high-school: topic sentence, supporting sentences, conclusion, is simple and appropriate for business communications. There are some writers who can clearly convey complicated thoughts using a more narrative structure, but you'll rarely go astray sticking to that basic style.
Yes, lead with the point. I can't tell you how many emails I get that are written like a movie or TV script. (Better not spoil it for the reader; we'll just barely foreshadow the point and there's more coming up after this commercial break...)
Even worse is wading through one of these tomes, only to read two or three possible courses of action with none recommended above the other(s).
Even worse is wading through one of these tomes, only to read two or three possible courses of action with none recommended above the other(s).
tl;dr
Complex or simple, lead with point. Because reasons.
Intro, support, conclusion -- do it.
Complex or simple, lead with point. Because reasons.
Intro, support, conclusion -- do it.
In my experience, the higher you go in an org, the more terse and direct the written communications is. At the IC & supervisor levels, folks tend to write books in email, often because they feel obligated to provide a complete justification for their decisions (or ideas). As you go up the decision-making ladder, the need to explain oneself shrinks (at least, this is the perception. Strong leaders will do it regardless.)
The other issue is that for folks low on the food chain, they often don't feel comfortable requesting face-to-face meetings with execs, and "manage up" by providing absolutely as much detail as possible to their direct management in hopes he/she will do it on their behalf. Again, an organizational deficiency, but a common one, and one that's easy to understand.
Concision & clarity of communication are critical tools in any employee's toolbox. As an aside, this is one reason it's pretty easy to find articles and blog posts endorsing the success many liberal arts majors have in the tech world.
The other issue is that for folks low on the food chain, they often don't feel comfortable requesting face-to-face meetings with execs, and "manage up" by providing absolutely as much detail as possible to their direct management in hopes he/she will do it on their behalf. Again, an organizational deficiency, but a common one, and one that's easy to understand.
Concision & clarity of communication are critical tools in any employee's toolbox. As an aside, this is one reason it's pretty easy to find articles and blog posts endorsing the success many liberal arts majors have in the tech world.
This concept is will known in the military as BLUF - bottom line up front. Not an abstract or introduction, putting the key recommendation or outcome at the beginning. It falls in and out of fashion but as with newspapers it helps you work out what you want to read further.
Known on the internet as TL;DR
Tl;dr is an antipattern, and it's easy to see why.
Lead with a strong point. Pique youre reader's interest. Then, and only then, will they lap up your wall of text. Tl;dr is a gag, a joke, mockery of bad writing style. If you find yourself using it in a serious way, as a crutch, stop, rewrite, don't go down that path.
Lead with a strong point. Pique youre reader's interest. Then, and only then, will they lap up your wall of text. Tl;dr is a gag, a joke, mockery of bad writing style. If you find yourself using it in a serious way, as a crutch, stop, rewrite, don't go down that path.
TL;DR doesn't always appear at the beginning which is what cmdkeen was talking about.
It's even possible to write simply about complex topics. Nobel Prize announcements are especially good at this, see e.g. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/201.... Obviously nobody's going to walk away from a summary with a full understanding of a deep subject, but some of the key ideas have been conveyed.
If it's an academic paper, by all means, be complex.
But if its an article meant for the general public, it's your job as a writer to make it more palatable.
But if its an article meant for the general public, it's your job as a writer to make it more palatable.
In college I helped a lot of people write papers, and almost always they were trying to "sound academic", and the sentences were so complex they didn't even parse. So I'd ask, "What does this mean?", and whatever they said, I'd reply, "Write that down!" Basically they were trying too hard. It reminds me of the common advice to edit your work by reading it out loud.
If you are a great writer your prose might be better than speech, but I think for most of us, writing for non-literary goals, writing should approach common but correct speech. Good writing has the illusion (but not the reality) of being conversational.
If you are a great writer your prose might be better than speech, but I think for most of us, writing for non-literary goals, writing should approach common but correct speech. Good writing has the illusion (but not the reality) of being conversational.
To be fair, I think schools encourage this sort of behavior. I've had countless "$x number of words/pages, minimum" writing assignments. Eventually, you start to be convinced that every teacher wants it that way.
> I've had countless "$x number of words/pages, minimum" writing assignments.
My better professors had, rather than just minimums, either ranges or maximums.
My better professors had, rather than just minimums, either ranges or maximums.
IME, that is uncommon. Most have had minimum. YMMV of course
The more you write, the better you get. Your first ten thousand pages are going to be shit anyway, so better get them out of your system before you start publishing. For the sake of your editor, if not for the sake of your readers.
One of my favorite professors assigned papers with maximums. The maximum was a hard stop. If your paper was longer, she tore off the overage and graded the paper as it was.
I quickly learned to be concise.
I quickly learned to be concise.
Read your writing out loud to yourself, carefully observing the punctuation. You won't become Hemingway, but you will find the most obvious flaws in your writing.
+1 to this --- and I should add, it needs to be actually out loud. No, reading it in your head doesn't work.
If you have an office rubber duck, reading your report to the duck is a really good way to get feedback.
If you have an office rubber duck, reading your report to the duck is a really good way to get feedback.
The only problem with this technique is that people start dropping in commas everywhere they'd take a breath. It's a pretty good approach, otherwise.
I have that habit, though not because I read my stuff out loud and use pauses as an indicator for comma placement. It just reads better to me, with having "semi-separators" that I don't quite feel justify a separate sentence, but help with the flow of what's being said.
Looks like I did it twice just now.
Looks like I did it twice just now.
Excess commas seems to be an especially US problem. Here in Norway one of my sons had Norwegian teacher of English who studied in America. We often had to point out that half the commas she wanted in his writing were unnecessary.
I like to paste things into this as well...
http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
Have you ever tried Hemingway's own works with that? It is... instructive[1].
[1] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=10416
[1] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=10416
[deleted]
Read your writing out aloud. Carefully observing the meter of the verse.
You won't become Hemingway. But you will seem quite odd to nearby work mates.
You won't become Hemingway. But you will seem quite odd to nearby work mates.
> "Jones says writing as a newspaper journalist does can help someone become a better problem-solver..."
Eh, I think he's mistaken. Journalists aren't good at writing because they took a course, they're good at writing because they write. A lot. You want better memos, hold memo-writing practice sessions every week and give constant feedback. Ripping a memo up and saying "take a course" is ignorant.
A writing course mostly is writing a lot and getting feedback.
People learn from combined practice and feedback. Most people have 1000s of hours of practice, but precious little feedback. Writing courses, or working closely with an editor, is the best way to get the feedback needed to improve.
[deleted]
Partly, there are a lot of foundationals you could teach someone that would make a good improvement upfront though. Paragraph structure, how to formulate an argument, how to use quotes or data to support your thesis and the most important... REREAD WHAT YOU WROTE. Too many people hit send after vomiting on a page and thinking that is that.
Its the same as coding. People are good at writing code because they write a lot, however a person who is at the top of their game still might be benefited by taking a computer science course or two.
Actually the subs rewrite most of the journalists copy and fix all the grammar and spelling
I suspect confirmation bias here. Most journalists don't write well at all.
A good book related to the topic of clear writing is "The Pyramid Principle". http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramid-Principle-Writing-Thinking...
This book was recommended by a fellow HN'er a few years back in a different thread. I bought a copy and read it and was suitably impressed. I'm still working on integrating the ideas from the book, but I think it's worth reading.
Basically, the book teaches you to organize your thoughts (and writing) in a hierarchical, logical structure, and to present the most important idea first, and then branch out below that with sub-points and supporting material.
If you're interested in clear writing, I think this book is worth the money and time.
This book was recommended by a fellow HN'er a few years back in a different thread. I bought a copy and read it and was suitably impressed. I'm still working on integrating the ideas from the book, but I think it's worth reading.
Basically, the book teaches you to organize your thoughts (and writing) in a hierarchical, logical structure, and to present the most important idea first, and then branch out below that with sub-points and supporting material.
If you're interested in clear writing, I think this book is worth the money and time.
Are there good classes one can take online which teach someone how to get through writing anxiety? Or how to write despite the fact that you cannot really ever know how your audience will interpret what you are saying?
IMO, it's not writing that you're necessarily struggling with, but editing afterwards. Good writing is a process that includes time to think about that writing. The answer is to write a lot. After you go through a certain volume of text, you get a better feel for it. Andy Weir wrote "the Martian" and he was an amateur; he set daily writing goals (word counts) and stuck to them.
Reducing amount of written text is not something reporters/writers do easily, because to them every word is sacred, because they wrote it and removing words would always amount to loss of detail. Good editors manage to reduce that text and still sharpen the message. Thus, being your own editor can be tough.
In the news world, writing is done lightning fast by reporters who are good at hunting information down but not assembling it into a narrative. The process therefore includes a layer of editing done by someone else who can focus on it. This is why journalism has a bad name with viral articles written by general assignment reporters who have no expertise in the field (an emerging PR, for example) that they're writing about. They're expending minimum effort for the greatest return, and that's their job. Compare those to print articles that have had attention, and you'll see stark differences.
My advice is: I suggest you follow copy-editors to see how they do things; many of them have blogs, some offer courses, but more than anything they give you impression that language changes and you shouldn't be frozen when writing. In fact, what they believe in is that grammar is a living, changing thing. When you see how copy editors transform text, it becomes eye opening.
John McIntyre writes a blog titled "You don't Say" about copy editing for the Baltimore Sun (which he's done for 29 years now). Most of his evening shifts start with him grumbling about snipping text (ex: from 28 column inches to 20), which means he has to reduce some articles by 30%. His reductions are somehow always gains to the reader, but he sure can reduce a reporter to tears.
Some simple examples of his editing: "In a prone position" changed to "prone". Or, "... to anticipate the problem in advance" replaced with "anticipated." ; "End result" replaced with "result." ; "Added bonus" changed to "bonus". "New initiative" reduced to "initiative". And these are just small snippets having to do with filler - larger fact-checking and narrative edits are a much longer story.
Reducing amount of written text is not something reporters/writers do easily, because to them every word is sacred, because they wrote it and removing words would always amount to loss of detail. Good editors manage to reduce that text and still sharpen the message. Thus, being your own editor can be tough.
In the news world, writing is done lightning fast by reporters who are good at hunting information down but not assembling it into a narrative. The process therefore includes a layer of editing done by someone else who can focus on it. This is why journalism has a bad name with viral articles written by general assignment reporters who have no expertise in the field (an emerging PR, for example) that they're writing about. They're expending minimum effort for the greatest return, and that's their job. Compare those to print articles that have had attention, and you'll see stark differences.
My advice is: I suggest you follow copy-editors to see how they do things; many of them have blogs, some offer courses, but more than anything they give you impression that language changes and you shouldn't be frozen when writing. In fact, what they believe in is that grammar is a living, changing thing. When you see how copy editors transform text, it becomes eye opening.
John McIntyre writes a blog titled "You don't Say" about copy editing for the Baltimore Sun (which he's done for 29 years now). Most of his evening shifts start with him grumbling about snipping text (ex: from 28 column inches to 20), which means he has to reduce some articles by 30%. His reductions are somehow always gains to the reader, but he sure can reduce a reporter to tears.
Some simple examples of his editing: "In a prone position" changed to "prone". Or, "... to anticipate the problem in advance" replaced with "anticipated." ; "End result" replaced with "result." ; "Added bonus" changed to "bonus". "New initiative" reduced to "initiative". And these are just small snippets having to do with filler - larger fact-checking and narrative edits are a much longer story.
I would hope The Martian would get a do-over by a professional editor. As it is, its translations will forever be better than the English original.
For news articles and business correspondence (memos, emails, letters), if I don't know what the article is about and the general conclusion of the article after reading paragraph one, the writer has failed horribly.
There's few things I hate more than 'news' articles not being written properly, something that's incredibly common these days on the Internet. I especially hate articles that start out with a couple of paragraphs of some stupid, boring, anecdotal story before even hinting at what they're about. Such things are evidence of terrible writing. I don't expect blog posts to adhere to this, but I see it so often on 'news' sites, it's horribly disgusting. Yes, there is a place for magazine stories but the news is hardly ever it. And certainly, business correspondence is the last place for that kind of literal gibberish.
There's few things I hate more than 'news' articles not being written properly, something that's incredibly common these days on the Internet. I especially hate articles that start out with a couple of paragraphs of some stupid, boring, anecdotal story before even hinting at what they're about. Such things are evidence of terrible writing. I don't expect blog posts to adhere to this, but I see it so often on 'news' sites, it's horribly disgusting. Yes, there is a place for magazine stories but the news is hardly ever it. And certainly, business correspondence is the last place for that kind of literal gibberish.
TL;DR
Get to the point in the first paragraph or I'll make you take an online newspaper writing course.
Get to the point in the first paragraph or I'll make you take an online newspaper writing course.
He must be reading better newspapers than I am, because in my experience newspapers never get to the point. They just restate the headline using more and more words until they have filled up the available space. It's like they've been written with the assumption that you're going to bail out after the first 500 words, and so the rest doesn't matter.
I know HN keeps saying that great coders are hard to find, but the hardest role I've filled at my startup was for our chief content creator. People who get writing AND marketing are exceptionally rare.
anyone have any advice for online courses that deal with this? find myself struggling with it as well..
He should learn how to read better. Seriously. Hire lieutenants that can read really well, and trust them to filter.
That aside, sucking up to journalists is a really good way to get their attention. PR win!
That aside, sucking up to journalists is a really good way to get their attention. PR win!
If you're technical, they'll tell you to make money you need to learn X framework/library/language.
Instead, if you can communicate well, you turn a WordPress theme into millions.
Instead, if you can communicate well, you turn a WordPress theme into millions.
Every time you write "tl;dr" you demonstrate that you don't know how to write. Your most important idea should come first by default.
The summary first style of writing is a hack to enable quick trust establishment. It doesn't work for all concepts and it's unlikely to be effective for communicating very complex and innovative subjects.
Also, some things just have to be shown visually to be trusted. A paragraph explaining an anti-gravity device isn't going to cut it. You need to show it working in person where there can be no doubt it's doing what you say it does.
Also, some things just have to be shown visually to be trusted. A paragraph explaining an anti-gravity device isn't going to cut it. You need to show it working in person where there can be no doubt it's doing what you say it does.
> The summary first style of writing is a hack to enable quick trust establishment. It doesn't work for all concepts and it's unlikely to be effective for communicating very complex and innovative subjects.
This is literally the point of an abstract in any and every respected scientific journal I've ever read.
This is literally the point of an abstract in any and every respected scientific journal I've ever read.
And key to how to efficiently read journals: Read the abstract. If still interested, read the conclusion. If still interested, read the whole thing.
There is no subject so complex and innovative that you can't start with a summary explaining what the point is and why readers should care.
It has nothing to do with "complex and innovative" it's the difference in perception inputs needed to grok something.
I can tell you very quickly about Virtual Reality and why you should care, but you won't understand it till you put a HMD on.
I can tell you very quickly about Virtual Reality and why you should care, but you won't understand it till you put a HMD on.
Absolutely. It is a requirement for a modern software engineer to be able to write well.
"Every time I get a memo from someone written magazine style, I literally tear it up"
So they either communicate on paper, which would be stpid, or he misuses "literally", which would be ironic.
So they either communicate on paper, which would be stpid, or he misuses "literally", which would be ironic.
Use of the word "literally" as hyperbole is understood clearly by every single reader of this thread, including you. You might as well get over it.
Well, we are going to need another word to replace "literally" than. Because in being funny we have literally abused literally to death. For a replacement could we maybe use "figuratively"? Or maybe the joke doesn't work in reverse?
"Literally" now literally means "figuratively".[1]
Although, to be fair, it's considered an "informal" usage. But still...
[1]: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_...
Although, to be fair, it's considered an "informal" usage. But still...
[1]: http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_...
Glad I don't work for this guy.
Being "efficient" at what you do at the cost of seeing the full picture, attention-deficit decision making, etc, is not a good thing.
A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers. They are snap decision makers because there's nobody to challenge those decisions, and often thinking a bit more and listening more, is a good thing.
As Herbert put it in Dune, "a mentat needs data".
I liked Bezos's requirement for a 6 page memo, and time to read it, before meetings. So many times meetings start and everyone wants to share an opinion, and people don't take time to listen.
Sure, inverted pyramid is nice. But so is understanding.
I really appreciate a good long-form article -- NYT and Salon or whatever - if it's somewhat focused. So much that passes for 'journalism' these days is reformatting quick summary feeds, and it loses meaning.
Being "efficient" at what you do at the cost of seeing the full picture, attention-deficit decision making, etc, is not a good thing.
A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers. They are snap decision makers because there's nobody to challenge those decisions, and often thinking a bit more and listening more, is a good thing.
As Herbert put it in Dune, "a mentat needs data".
I liked Bezos's requirement for a 6 page memo, and time to read it, before meetings. So many times meetings start and everyone wants to share an opinion, and people don't take time to listen.
Sure, inverted pyramid is nice. But so is understanding.
I really appreciate a good long-form article -- NYT and Salon or whatever - if it's somewhat focused. So much that passes for 'journalism' these days is reformatting quick summary feeds, and it loses meaning.
I think you took what he said the wrong way.
He's saying give me a memo like The Economist writes its articles. Clear. Precise. No fluff. Lots of facts pertinent to the topic at hand.
He's saying don't write like the New Yorker. Lots of backstory, lots of trivia, the overall point - if there even is one - is usually quite subtle and takes a while to pinpoint.
I'm subscribed to and read both. There was a NY article on Varoufakis ('The Greek Warrior'), easily a 45 minute read, and at some point the writer talked about how the girl in the song 'Common People' by Pulp is rumored to be Varoufakis' wife. I found that fascinating and am happy the author included that part. Sometimes though I'm not interested in a story, and I only want information relevant to what I'm looking into at this very moment.
He's saying give me a memo like The Economist writes its articles. Clear. Precise. No fluff. Lots of facts pertinent to the topic at hand.
He's saying don't write like the New Yorker. Lots of backstory, lots of trivia, the overall point - if there even is one - is usually quite subtle and takes a while to pinpoint.
I'm subscribed to and read both. There was a NY article on Varoufakis ('The Greek Warrior'), easily a 45 minute read, and at some point the writer talked about how the girl in the song 'Common People' by Pulp is rumored to be Varoufakis' wife. I found that fascinating and am happy the author included that part. Sometimes though I'm not interested in a story, and I only want information relevant to what I'm looking into at this very moment.
"Snap decision makers" .. in some circumstances, such as during deadline-approaching, clock-ticking, actual "print schedules", are quite appropriate for some forms of industry, methinks.
Perhaps there are different models for different schedules?
Perhaps there are different models for different schedules?
I was using that as somewhat of a euphimism for the leader that doesn't know anything, but likes being correct and pretending he does. He does this by saying "let's do that", or worse, "I am going to tear up your memo and humiliate you by requiring you to take a class because you're wasting my time", which is pretty deep on the ego scale to say that to someone. It might be better to just reply "I'm having a little hard time following this part about X, can you summarize this and what would you decide?" or something.
Taken to an extreme: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/08/tiger-oil-memos.html
"A lot of people with positions of power think they are snap decision makers."
Are you familiar with Paul Tudor?
Are you familiar with Paul Tudor?
no
Think that context is important for what he said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tudor_Jones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tudor_Jones
Oh, please don't write like journalists :
Something is definitely true
The thing that non-one thought was true is now definitely true. Or that's what researchers at somewhere say in a new report.
The report by the It's True Foundation ....
Something is definitely true
The thing that non-one thought was true is now definitely true. Or that's what researchers at somewhere say in a new report.
The report by the It's True Foundation ....
Yes, he should rip up that memo. Then lean back and take in all the wood paneling while he sips an Old Fashioned and scans the paper ticker tape for his investments while his secretary takes dictation in shorthand.
We've actually found that the ability to provide clear and concise answers strongly correlates with success, so this is a major factor when evaluating founders.
I'm also reminded of my favorite C. A. R. Hoare quote: "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
The same thing applies to business. Long, complex pitches are a sign of muddy thinking and hidden icebergs.