There’s so much in here that I see every week and more! What women can reach for, what language is deeply encoded in the LLMs, the stance of social media writing.
I’m about to get into the linguistic imperialism of language, this has definitely given me the inspiration and courage to dive into this topic. It’s one I’ve had on my mind for a while but felt something best left to when I’m feeling braver.
I truly admire how you respond to the comments that stop me from doing the work I’m most passionate about. I’m slowly making my way there… you’re giving me a much needed push 🙏🏽
Happy Birthday Anuradha! You’re speaking with the clarity of a woman in her late 40s who has finally had it with the assimilating forces that convinced her it’s their way or failure. I have witnessed your evolving thought processes and scholarship and rejoice in your ability to cut through distortion and never cowtow to popularity contests and external validation. The maturity in the development of your ideas and in your craft is admirable and breathtaking. It’s a privilege to see your emergence and to know I had any influence at all. Fuck the academy and institutional legitimacy. You are legit and have the freedom to write whatever and however you want. Your supports will continue to hang off each of your precise words, me included.
I appreciate your perspective in general and this article in particular, especially the line "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.". As someone who has a strong interest in how we represent others in writing, I have come to see that how we use language and how we think are foundational to how well we represent the views of others.
I look forward to reading more from you. Keep up the good work!
I never am required to go back and re-read, slowly and carefully, any sentence or paragraph with what you write Anuradha. And I never get bored and stop reading what you write. I am still working two jobs and don't have a lot of extra time to read and write, so I am generally quick to drop something that does not hold my interest or that does not seem to have enough value using my time.
Because my background in writing is business, where clarity and brevity are required, I absolutely treasure other writers that do this well. It does not matter if I am reading a book on economic complexity, or a novel... those that don't do well reducing, condensing, simplifying... they lose my attention and interest quickly.
I say keep doing what you are doing!
One piece of advice I can offer. My early career background was tech (primarily IT). The reason that I rose so quickly into executive management, I think, had much to do with my INTEREST to communicate effectively. My superpower grew to where I could converse with the technical engineers about complex technical issues, and then go to the board room to explain, in business terms, what they needed to know to make informed decisions. I am still like this today. I think it is a teaching gene... where my own need to be heard and well-thought of for what I know is supplanted by a bigger need to see others get it. But what I have found over the years... my deep knowledge of highly technical things, although a superpower, can be a liability in causing me to not read the room well enough... and losing the attention of my audience.
I think your audience is wired to handle a level of technical depth, but a wider audience is not. Unfortunately, the wider audience, as you point out, owns a common malady of insecurity, and when topics are communicated over their heads, they attack the speaker as a way to make themselves feel better about themselves. Note that those are generally people with a college degree that believe they are entitled to be considered above average in intelligence and knowledge, but since high learning is responsible for actually reducing student critical thinking capability, they are often the most challenged to comprehend more detailed and technical writing.
My advice hinges on what audience you want to target. If the larger population, then yes, your writing will need to find emotive connections and skim the surface of technical complexity.
My hope is that you target writing for people like me that crave the in-depth long-form format... but still condensed into succinct text that does not waste my time.
I always appreciate reading your feedback. In my job, I've had to code switch, as they say, between salesy vision/narrative stuff and technical detail depending on the audience, and I gotta say it's good practice. I've seen too many technical people who will struggle to adapt during this revolutionary period because they've never had to develop social skills and have gotten by on credentials and programming languages. No previous need to develop soft skills, but now they can't hide. I say women with both are well poised to take advantage of this moment. I think I've now understood from all the feedback that my audience should be more tightly aligned than it is now. There's no reason to collect subscribers who won't engage or read deeply, and I'm honestly always humbled that anyone would drop something from a more credentialed person to read what a random woman out there in the professional world has to say. I can't condescend to people who won't rise to the occasion. I'm guilty of the same thing I write about - depth at the expense of accessibility. A lot of people claim accessibility is morally required, meaning we must erode standards for those who want to do less work -- that's what the comments on the reading piece revealed. But that's just offensive to me as a thinker. They shouldn't expect the writer to dumb themselves down in the name of morality, but that, of course, is related to the larger erosion of standards that the PMC pushes.
"If you dare to discuss patterns of group behavior in particular, LLMs try to hedge your claims to the point of absurdity because the knowledge production class and the tech class have the same interests. "
What are those interests? Not wanting to acknowledge that some poppies are taller than others? Downplaying if not an outright refusal to acknowledge knowledge and skill differences among the PMC, even within or irrespective of demographic groups, as a ploy to "protect" "everyone's" interests? Or perhaps to glue the interests of the smart and skillful to those of the dumb and ham-handed? Trying to impose rules that have little to nothing to do with the job at hand, and then judging people based on compliance over value-adding performance?
I've never seen the Peter Principle applied to a group (of any size), but there's no reason why it can't.
Very related, one bizarre thing about workplaces, if you think about it long enough, is the concept of "discipline". That is, a system of rules, procedures, and punishments to elicit desired responses, many of which go beyond the actual work being paid for.
I don't "discipline" my plumber if they are late or do a poor job or cuss like a sailor while at my house. I simply may or may not do business with them in the future. I don't give my plumber a PIP as a prelude to not doing business with them. I don't "discipline" or write up the grocery store, and they don't "discipline" me. Both are arm's-length transactions chosen freely. But this kind of relationship isn't the one present in the workplace. Prevailing laws drive some, but certainly not all of this behavior.
Now, once you start getting into commercial relationships that involve adhesion contracts and other non-negotiable terms of service, the concept of "discipline" starts to creep in there.
And here we are, back at the concept of authority that inherently resists accountability--authority that can do something to you for some kind of relational foul, but you can't do something in return, at least not as easily, if the authority makes some kind of foul.
Yuri Bezmenov (the Substack anon, not the Soviet dissident), has covered the performative aspect of LinkedIn extensively.
I've backed off on my LinkedIn postings because half the time I feel like I need to take a hot shower with lye soap afterwards because those postings don't meet my standards of candor and intellectual rigor. It's not AI slop, it's just "natural stupidity" slop.
That's true, it's hard to tell apart actual lack of depth in the human from the lack of depth in the writing that may or may not be from LLMs. We were kinda writing that way before.
I was trying to restack a quotable excerpt, and despite many attempts and reloads the system kept grabbing text from roughly a paragraph before what I was seeking to restack. I've had this issue with your posts on several previous occasions. At any rate, good post and I'll look forward to your book.
There’s so much in here that I see every week and more! What women can reach for, what language is deeply encoded in the LLMs, the stance of social media writing.
I’m about to get into the linguistic imperialism of language, this has definitely given me the inspiration and courage to dive into this topic. It’s one I’ve had on my mind for a while but felt something best left to when I’m feeling braver.
I’m so glad to know that. Please do, more women in particular are needed on this topic.
I truly admire how you respond to the comments that stop me from doing the work I’m most passionate about. I’m slowly making my way there… you’re giving me a much needed push 🙏🏽
Happy Birthday Anuradha! You’re speaking with the clarity of a woman in her late 40s who has finally had it with the assimilating forces that convinced her it’s their way or failure. I have witnessed your evolving thought processes and scholarship and rejoice in your ability to cut through distortion and never cowtow to popularity contests and external validation. The maturity in the development of your ideas and in your craft is admirable and breathtaking. It’s a privilege to see your emergence and to know I had any influence at all. Fuck the academy and institutional legitimacy. You are legit and have the freedom to write whatever and however you want. Your supports will continue to hang off each of your precise words, me included.
Love your work, your mind and your conviction.
Enjoy this final year in your 30s!
I appreciate your perspective in general and this article in particular, especially the line "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.". As someone who has a strong interest in how we represent others in writing, I have come to see that how we use language and how we think are foundational to how well we represent the views of others.
I look forward to reading more from you. Keep up the good work!
I never am required to go back and re-read, slowly and carefully, any sentence or paragraph with what you write Anuradha. And I never get bored and stop reading what you write. I am still working two jobs and don't have a lot of extra time to read and write, so I am generally quick to drop something that does not hold my interest or that does not seem to have enough value using my time.
Because my background in writing is business, where clarity and brevity are required, I absolutely treasure other writers that do this well. It does not matter if I am reading a book on economic complexity, or a novel... those that don't do well reducing, condensing, simplifying... they lose my attention and interest quickly.
I say keep doing what you are doing!
One piece of advice I can offer. My early career background was tech (primarily IT). The reason that I rose so quickly into executive management, I think, had much to do with my INTEREST to communicate effectively. My superpower grew to where I could converse with the technical engineers about complex technical issues, and then go to the board room to explain, in business terms, what they needed to know to make informed decisions. I am still like this today. I think it is a teaching gene... where my own need to be heard and well-thought of for what I know is supplanted by a bigger need to see others get it. But what I have found over the years... my deep knowledge of highly technical things, although a superpower, can be a liability in causing me to not read the room well enough... and losing the attention of my audience.
I think your audience is wired to handle a level of technical depth, but a wider audience is not. Unfortunately, the wider audience, as you point out, owns a common malady of insecurity, and when topics are communicated over their heads, they attack the speaker as a way to make themselves feel better about themselves. Note that those are generally people with a college degree that believe they are entitled to be considered above average in intelligence and knowledge, but since high learning is responsible for actually reducing student critical thinking capability, they are often the most challenged to comprehend more detailed and technical writing.
My advice hinges on what audience you want to target. If the larger population, then yes, your writing will need to find emotive connections and skim the surface of technical complexity.
My hope is that you target writing for people like me that crave the in-depth long-form format... but still condensed into succinct text that does not waste my time.
You do that well.
I always appreciate reading your feedback. In my job, I've had to code switch, as they say, between salesy vision/narrative stuff and technical detail depending on the audience, and I gotta say it's good practice. I've seen too many technical people who will struggle to adapt during this revolutionary period because they've never had to develop social skills and have gotten by on credentials and programming languages. No previous need to develop soft skills, but now they can't hide. I say women with both are well poised to take advantage of this moment. I think I've now understood from all the feedback that my audience should be more tightly aligned than it is now. There's no reason to collect subscribers who won't engage or read deeply, and I'm honestly always humbled that anyone would drop something from a more credentialed person to read what a random woman out there in the professional world has to say. I can't condescend to people who won't rise to the occasion. I'm guilty of the same thing I write about - depth at the expense of accessibility. A lot of people claim accessibility is morally required, meaning we must erode standards for those who want to do less work -- that's what the comments on the reading piece revealed. But that's just offensive to me as a thinker. They shouldn't expect the writer to dumb themselves down in the name of morality, but that, of course, is related to the larger erosion of standards that the PMC pushes.
"If you dare to discuss patterns of group behavior in particular, LLMs try to hedge your claims to the point of absurdity because the knowledge production class and the tech class have the same interests. "
What are those interests? Not wanting to acknowledge that some poppies are taller than others? Downplaying if not an outright refusal to acknowledge knowledge and skill differences among the PMC, even within or irrespective of demographic groups, as a ploy to "protect" "everyone's" interests? Or perhaps to glue the interests of the smart and skillful to those of the dumb and ham-handed? Trying to impose rules that have little to nothing to do with the job at hand, and then judging people based on compliance over value-adding performance?
I've never seen the Peter Principle applied to a group (of any size), but there's no reason why it can't.
Very related, one bizarre thing about workplaces, if you think about it long enough, is the concept of "discipline". That is, a system of rules, procedures, and punishments to elicit desired responses, many of which go beyond the actual work being paid for.
I don't "discipline" my plumber if they are late or do a poor job or cuss like a sailor while at my house. I simply may or may not do business with them in the future. I don't give my plumber a PIP as a prelude to not doing business with them. I don't "discipline" or write up the grocery store, and they don't "discipline" me. Both are arm's-length transactions chosen freely. But this kind of relationship isn't the one present in the workplace. Prevailing laws drive some, but certainly not all of this behavior.
Now, once you start getting into commercial relationships that involve adhesion contracts and other non-negotiable terms of service, the concept of "discipline" starts to creep in there.
And here we are, back at the concept of authority that inherently resists accountability--authority that can do something to you for some kind of relational foul, but you can't do something in return, at least not as easily, if the authority makes some kind of foul.
Yuri Bezmenov (the Substack anon, not the Soviet dissident), has covered the performative aspect of LinkedIn extensively.
I've backed off on my LinkedIn postings because half the time I feel like I need to take a hot shower with lye soap afterwards because those postings don't meet my standards of candor and intellectual rigor. It's not AI slop, it's just "natural stupidity" slop.
That's true, it's hard to tell apart actual lack of depth in the human from the lack of depth in the writing that may or may not be from LLMs. We were kinda writing that way before.
I was trying to restack a quotable excerpt, and despite many attempts and reloads the system kept grabbing text from roughly a paragraph before what I was seeking to restack. I've had this issue with your posts on several previous occasions. At any rate, good post and I'll look forward to your book.
This keeps happening to me on other peoples posts too, very annoying. But I appreciate the thought and that you put forth the effort :)