Someone had mentioned "signal-to-noise," and I think that's an apt analogy.
Long-winded talks or posts aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves. In fact, I've found that I'm terrible at elevator pitches and 5-minute presentations, because I feel as though I can't fully explain an idea or present what I'd regard as necessary context.
I actually fare much better with 30 minute to an hour and a half talks. But I still have to make them interesting, organized, and relevant.
I agree that there are places and situations where brevity is important. But I think how long or short something is can vary based on the topic and the forum being used.
We have had plenty of long, involved, and interesting (to me at least) discussions in the philosophy sub-forum in the past. This does seem less likely in 2012 than in 2008 for instance. It is just an impression of mine.
Exactly. To answer ygolo, no one is saying you have to turn War And Peace into a Cliffs Notes version. But who would have made it through War and Peace if it was a long wall of text on a scroll with no paragraphs or chapters? In addition, acceptable length is determined by depth. If you have a long post that takes a long time to elucidate, fine. But the argument here is about people who write forever to basically say "I don't like that".
I believe the distinction between signal and nose is largely subjective. War and Peace, for instance, I found to be incredibly boring.
But the point about paragraphs, I agree with.
My hypothesis is that it has to do with the mechanics of reading online versus in a book. Laptops and computer screens in general are much wider than pages of books. To accommodate for this, there needs to be more space between paragraphs, otherwise the eyes end up rereading the same things. This can be frustrating even if the reader doesn't notice it happening.
I think in some cases you bring up "touchy" issues and because you are treating them seriously it brings up fears in other people. It's not that people don't like or don't wish to engage with you about what you're talking about, it is that it can be painful to integrate thoughts and feelings into ourselves that deal with basic emotions that we have. Often people use abstract topics as a way of dealing with issues of identity. For example some of the conservatives on this site strike me as very good people who wish to create a genuine dialogue with liberals in order to create an integrated view of politics. However the problem is that the way people fundamentally feel about politics is not about policy notes and so forth, it is about -relationships-. How do you relate to this person/group? What does this person group symbolize? What does this person/group symbolize about YOURSELF? If their worldview is correct, how does that make you FEEL? etc. This happens not just with politics, but also ideas about class, race, sex, religion, etc etc.
No talk about religion or politics in polite company? that sort of thing?
I would love if people could just be honest without having to put their relationships at risk.
Why does it have to be like--"You don't believe the Earth is flat? Begone." Why can't it be, "You don't believe the Earth is flat? Why?"