Paul Graham Persuade XOR to describe (Persuade xor Discover)

We have finished translating Paul Graham’s book “Hackers and Artists,” now we’ll focus on his essay .
Original - Persuade xor Discover (2009)
Thanks for the translation finik.

When meeting with unfamiliar people usually try to look very friendly. People smile and say: “Glad to meet you!” - regardless of whether the truth is glad or not. There is nothing dishonest about this. Everyone knows that this little social lie should not be taken literally, just like “Can't you pass the salt?” Is just a grammatical question.

I completely sincerely smile and say: “Glad to meet you,” - meeting new people. But there is a custom to flatter in writing, which is not so harmless. The reason for flattery in the letter is that most essays are written to convince the reader. And any politician will tell you that to convince the audience it is not enough to provide bare facts, you still need to sweeten the pill.

For example, speaking of a reduction in government funding for the program, the politician will not simply say: "The program is closed." This will sound rude, insulting. On the contrary, he will devote most of his speech to the noble efforts of the people who worked on the program.
The danger of this custom is that we begin to think so. “Glad to meet you” is just an introduction to the conversation. But the sweet pill added by politicians dissolves in speech. From social lies, we turn to deception.


Here is an example from an essay that I wrote about labor unions.

Those who think that the labor movement was created by the heroic efforts of the organizers are faced with the question: why do labor unions play such a minor role today? The best they can do when answering this question is to describe people of a bygone era. Our ancestors were heroes. Workers at the beginning of the 20th century possessed the spiritual courage that was lost today.

And here is the same passage, rewritten to flatter them instead of hurt.

At the dawn of emergence, labor union leaders made heroic efforts to improve working conditions for workers. But, although labor unions do not have such a role today, it is not because their leaders are less courageous. Today, an employer would not have gotten dry if he had hired thugs to beat up union leaders; but if he did, the working leaders would accept the challenge with dignity. Therefore, I think that the diminished influence of trade unions is not the result of shredding their leadership. Of course, the leaders of the early era of trade unions were heroes, but one should not think that since the influence of trade unions decreased, their leaders were to blame. The reason must be external. [1]

It says the same thing. The success of trade unions in the early stages was determined not by the personal qualities of leaders, but by external factors; otherwise, modern union leaders are worse. The second option looks more like a defense of modern union leaders than an understatement of the merits of the old. This makes the second note more persuasive for unionists because it matches their views.

I believe in everything that I wrote in the second version. The early union leaders made heroic efforts. And the modern ones would probably do the same if it were required. I doubt that there was a certain “heroic generation”. [2]

If I believe in everything written in the second version, why didn’t I dwell on it? Why hurt people unnecessarily?
Because I’m more likely to hurt people than I will indulge them. If you write on controversial topics, you have to take any point of view. The degree of courage of past and present leaders is secondary; the main thing is that they are the same. But, if you want to please people who are mistaken, you cannot just tell them the truth. You should always have a safety cushion to protect human error from the blows of reality.

This is what most authors do. They write in such a way as to convince, if not out of habit or out of politeness. But I do not seek to convince; I am writing to understand. I appeal to an abstract, completely impartial reader.

Nowadays, the task usually is to convince a real reader, one who is not too partial. Actually worse than addicted; since readers turn to essays that try to please someone, essays that are unpleasant to one side of the dispute are seen as an attempt to please the other side. For many readers who are positive about unions, the first passage sounds like a radio broadcast of reactionary radio, whose owner is trying to stir up his followers. But in fact this is not so. That which contradicts one's beliefs is difficult to separate from attacks on them; and although the results look similar, the reasons that gave rise to them are different.

Is it really that bad to add a few words to make people feel better? Maybe not. Maybe I'm too short.I write code, I also write essays, line by line, constantly checking what can be thrown out without damage. But I have reasonable grounds for this. You cannot understand an idea until you express it in a few words. [3]

The danger of the second passage is not only that it is longer. And that you start to lie to yourself. True and false begin to mix due to the fact that you have added some reading errors.

I think the task of the essay is to find the truth, make a discovery. At least this is my task. But discovery means that which is at variance with conventional wisdom. So, to write in order to convince and describe as is - diametrically opposite tasks.The more your conclusions disagree with the readers' beliefs, the more efforts you will have to make to expand sales of your articles. When sales grow, this burden grows, until finally you reach a point where 100% of your energy will go to overcome it and you will not be able to grow further.

It is difficult to overcome someone’s misconceptions and not think about how to convey your ideas to other people. It bothers me that if I convince, I will unconsciously avoid ideas that I think are difficult to sell. When I notice something surprising, unexpected, at first it is very disturbing. This is nothing more than a feeling of inconvenience. I do not want to think about it.

Notes

[1] When I wrote these lines, I had a strange feeling that I was back in high school. To get a good grade, you must write the prudish shit that is expected of you, but it should look like your conviction. This was decided by a certain technique. It was habitually disgusting to slip back into this unpleasant situation.

[2] Exercise for the reader: Rephrase this idea to please those readers who are offended by the first option.

[3] Let's think about it. There is one way that I indulge readers, because it does not change the number of words: I write from another person. This flattering difference looks so natural to ordinary readers that they probably don’t even notice when I switch half a word, although you would have noticed it if it had been done as here.

Thanks to Jessica Livingston and Robert Morris for reading the draft.
This essay was written after talking about why people don't like Michael Arrington. Now I think that thinking like that is a mistake, most people treat him well, just like I did when I first met him, but he just writes controversial things.

PS
Who is ready to help with the translation of the latest (April 2016) article - How to Make Pittsburgh a Startup Hub ?