<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>hyperpallium</author><text>Sustaining interest is also important. If you look at stories and stand up sets, there&amp;#x27;s an alternation between tension and release. In an argument, a challenging statement creates tension; resolving it is release. Meanwhile, with each such scene or joke, background is implicitly built up for a larger payoff later on.&lt;p&gt;Another aspect of this is explicitly addressing counter-arguments that arise in the reader&amp;#x27;s mind. If left dangling too long, the doubt is annoying for the reader. One problem is you don&amp;#x27;t know which specific counter-argument each specific reader is thinking of.  So you corral them. You implicitly provoke this counter-argument, so when you address it, it&amp;#x27;s satisfying for the reader. By deliberately leaving open this specific counter-argument, and subtly suggesting it, you only have to deal with that specific one, at that point, for all readers. You lead them to objections, then resolve them.&lt;p&gt;Finally, if you finish a &amp;quot;scene&amp;quot; with another question, it propels the reader into the next stage of the argument.&lt;p&gt;BTW if you&amp;#x27;re not writing, but talking to one person, a crucial part of leading them to your conclusion is to &lt;i&gt;find out where they are&lt;/i&gt;.  Like giving directions to someone who&amp;#x27;s lost, they won&amp;#x27;t make sense if you don&amp;#x27;t know where they are. For an argument, it&amp;#x27;s their current view, what issues concern them, what perspective they have, and perhaps what misunderstandings they have. To convince, you should listen more than talk.&lt;p&gt;NB. All this is a lot of work, and mostly I can&amp;#x27;t be bothered.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tunesmith</author><text>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&amp;#x27;s inherently graph-based (graphical data structure). Because some conclusions are often lemmas supporting further conclusions, arguments can go several levels deep.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;p&gt;Because your goal isn&amp;#x27;t just to impart information; it&amp;#x27;s also to be convincing and to hope that your counterparts get invested in the conclusion.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;t thought it through.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, starting with a bunch of premises devoid of context can just feel unrooted.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;I wonder if this sort of thing is related to any algorithmic concepts, like most efficient ways to walk a DAG.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly (2006)</title><url>http://www.downes.ca/post/38526</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jarmitage</author><text>I conceptualise arguments in the same way. I think the requirement of serialising arguments and evidence is bogus for the age we live in and would much rather just give the whole graph to an audience to play with, and then elaborate and discuss as needed. Or heaven forbid the reader could have write access!</text><parent_chain><item><author>tunesmith</author><text>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&amp;#x27;s inherently graph-based (graphical data structure). Because some conclusions are often lemmas supporting further conclusions, arguments can go several levels deep.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;p&gt;Because your goal isn&amp;#x27;t just to impart information; it&amp;#x27;s also to be convincing and to hope that your counterparts get invested in the conclusion.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;#x27;t thought it through.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, starting with a bunch of premises devoid of context can just feel unrooted.&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;p&gt;I wonder if this sort of thing is related to any algorithmic concepts, like most efficient ways to walk a DAG.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly (2006)</title><url>http://www.downes.ca/post/38526</url></story>