The Idea Injection Method version of this post:

  • I think many people are too busy/too lazy to read any document of 1000 words or more in length that uses words of more than two syllables.
  • Instead, we look for extremely simple, direct writing, embellished with striking formatting, to quickly grasp short, simple ideas.
  • This is just like being injected with a fast-acting drug to achieve instant results.
  • We dismiss complex, detailed writing as unnecessary/too difficult/worthless.
  • Critical thinking skills are becoming weaker.
  • We risk missing out on important learnings by depending on quick-acting injections of knowledge.
  • Take time to read and reflect on what you are reading. You may learn something valuable.

The “old school” version of this post:

Steve Gillmor (of Gillmor Gang, News Gang, various writing gigs, and blogging fame) is often criticized for writing lengthy posts, full of self-referential details and unusual metaphors that make the material somewhat difficult to scan and read. There are a number of people who have joked that Steve Gillmor’s mental processes are somewhat murky and that the stuff he writes is nonsensical. Other people allude to the possibility that Steve gets some prime real-estate to publish from (i.e. via Techcrunch), yet wastes it through a somewhat impenetrable writing style. There’s even a fake Steve Gillmor out there, supposedly, which provides a source of parody.

OK.

I am singling out Steve Gillmor as an example for the purposes of this post. I could substitute many other writers, good or bad, to whom we could level the same criticisms. However, Steve’s writing is out there in the blogosphere, so it’s easy enough to find an example, like Surviving The Net. In short, Steve used an analogy of our hunter-gathering days in his post to illustrate the potentially growing importance of URL shortening for rapid, efficient communication of data, particularly with services like Twitter.

Steve decided not to follow what I refer to as the Idea Injection Method of blogging, or communication for that matter. In other words, he did not focus on concise writing, simple words, and direct statements. He took some time to communicate his point in a way that he wanted to do.

If you check out the comments section for Surviving The Net, you’ll find that Steve was roasted alive by the vast majority of commentators for wasting their time by writing somewhat dense and difficult prose that didn’t scan easily. There were a few positive comments, but overall a lot of people voiced their displeasure with his post. I think a number of them may have resented the fact that Steve had a high traffic, widely read blogging platform from which to communicate and then he failed to make it simple or easy for the reader to understand.

In other words, he broke a few cardinal rules about blog writing.

Here’s the thing, though. I took some time to read his post. I read it several times, reread parts, and reflected on his writing. There’s no doubt that he could have written something very easy to read in half of the words and still have made the same point.

At the same time, I enjoyed the exercise of reading through the post and thinking my way through the argument. It engaged my brain and my critical thinking muscles a bit. I used my imagination and actually reflected on something as I read. By the end of the exercise, I felt that I’d learned something and had an interesting, if not enjoyable experience. I felt like I was rewarded for my work.

I’ve used Surviving the Net as an example because it seems all too rare these days, particularly in blogging, that we are encouraged to pause, think, and reflect about the words that we read. Don’t get me wrong: I know that a lot of people out there are busy and don’t have very many spare moments to use in attempting to analyze the words they read. I’m also not suggesting that Surviving the Net, as a piece of prose, is of the same quality and caliber of, say, literature or advanced technical papers that do require some time and thought to grasp the contents, especially when you aren’t used to doing that kind of analysis.

What I am suggesting, however, is that those of us who travel in social media and the blogosphere are becoming increasingly dependent upon this Idea Injection Method whereby information is quickly and easily understood and absorbed by the reader though the use of formatting, style, word selection, and organization of thoughts. One big reason for this, of course, is that we are continually increasing the breadth of information streams that we monitor on a regular basis: traditional mass media, E-Mails, E-Mail alerts, blogs, newsgroups, message boards, microblogging, instant messaging, search engine queries, etc. We don’t dare miss any new revelation or nugget of useful information, as people like Alexander van Elsas have written about. So, in addition to a ton of lifehacks and other productivity tools that we use to keep abreast of the world, we depend on summaries, excerpts, soundbites, pithy quotes and recommendations in order to make what we feel is the best use of our time each day.

I’m reminded of a recent blog comment exchange between myself and Corvida Raven concerning the relevance of Shakespeare. She didn’t find Shakespeare relevant to her situation, or her interests, and so she generally doesn’t spend any time thinking about or reading Shakespeare. Fair enough. To be honest, I don’t either. However, based on my own reading and the recommendations of friends I’ve come to believe that there’s some really cool thoughts and ideas in Shakespeare that don’t emerge after a casual read.

Let’s use a more contemporary example to further illustrate the point. The current Battlestar Galactica (BSG) series can work on several levels that aren’t immediately apparent to the casual watchers. Each episode deals with a series of situations that the characters must resolve. Some are life and death struggles; others are emotional conflicts or philosophical dilemmas. However, as you watch BSG over a period of time, you start to see some larger, more profound statements about things like: war; terrorism; human relationships; identity; and even the nature of what it means to be human. You don’t get these additional revelations from watching a single episode of the show while multi-tasking. You need to think about the material and reflect upon its meaning.

Clearly different message types and different venues can call for different communication styles. If you’re on a battlefield, you want to communicate in a way that your soldiers will easily understand - they don’t have time to try to figure out what you want. The same holds true for sports teams and many business situations. On the other hand, if you inject steroids into an athlete, you do build muscle and stamina, but often at the costs of other health problems, plus a dependency on the drugs to maintain the gains that have been achieved. Sometimes complex, thought provoking writing helps us expand our minds and grow that much more capable of processing complex information. My suggestion, therefore, is that we shouldn’t emphasize Idea Injection as a method of learning at the expense of other skills. Sometimes you need quick information bursts to meet short term needs. However, we ignore more complex communication opportunities at our own risks.

# # #

I’ve written this material using two different styles. Is one method better than the other? It could be, depending on your needs at the time that I wrote the article or your personal preferences. I personally think that the second version of the article is better, but I’m biased.

What do you think? I’d really like to know. Thanks in advance.

If you're new here, welcome! Please consider subscribing to my RSS feed to stay up to date with my latest posts and articles. Thanks for visiting!

Other posts that you might enjoy reading: