将思想转化为文字

Paul Graham 2022-02-01

将思想转化为文字

2022年2月

写关于某件事的文章,即使是你很了解的事情,通常表明你并不像你想象的那样了解它。将思想转化为文字是一个严峻的考验。你选择的第一句话通常是错误的;你必须一遍又一遍地重写句子,使它们完全正确。而且你的思想不仅会不精确,还会不完整。最终出现在文章中的一半思想是你在写作过程中想到的。事实上,这就是我写作的原因。

一旦你发表了什么东西,惯例就是你写的是你在写作之前所想的。这些是你的想法,现在你已经表达了它们。但你知道这不是真的。你知道把你的思想转化为文字改变了它们。不仅仅是那些你发表了的思想。大概还有其他思想被证明太破碎而无法修复,那些你反而丢弃了。

使写作如此严格的不仅仅是要将你的思想承诺给特定的词语。真正的考验是阅读你所写的内容。你必须假装是一个中立的读者,只知道你写的内容,不知道你脑中的内容。当他阅读你所写的内容时,看起来是否正确?看起来是否完整?如果你努力,你可以像完全陌生的人一样阅读你的写作,当你这样做时,消息通常是坏的。在我能够让文章通过陌生人之前需要很多次循环。但陌生人是理性的,所以如果你问他需要什么,你总是可以做到。如果他不满意是因为你没有提到x或者没有充分限定某个句子,那么你提到x或添加更多限定条件。现在满意了吗?这可能会让你失去一些好句子,但你必须对此表示认命。你只能让它们尽可能好,同时仍然满足陌生人的要求。

我认为,这一点不会那么有争议。我认为这与任何试图写关于任何重要事情的人的经历相符。可能存在一些人的思想如此完美地形成,它们直接流入文字。但我从未认识过能够做到这一点的人,如果我遇到有人说他们能够做到,这似乎是他们的局限性的证据,而不是他们的能力。事实上,这是电影中的套路:那个声称有做某件困难事情的计划的人,当进一步被质疑时,他拍拍脑袋说”一切都在这里”。看电影的人都知道这意味着什么。最好的情况是计划是模糊和不完整的。很可能有一些未发现的缺陷使其完全无效。最好的情况是计划的计划。

在精确定义的领域中,可以在你的头脑中形成完整的想法。例如,人们可以在脑中下棋。数学家可以在脑中做一些数学运算,尽管他们在写下证明之前似乎对一定长度的证明没有把握。但这似乎只有在你能用形式语言表达的想法中才有可能。[1] 可以说,这样的人正在将思想转化为头脑中的文字。我可以在某种程度上在脑中写文章。有时我会在走路或躺在床上时想出一个段落,最终版本几乎没有变化。但实际上我在这样做时是在写作。我正在做写作的心理部分;只是我的手指在我这样做时没有移动。[2]

你可以在不写关于某件事情的情况下对它了解很多。你能否了解得如此之多,以至于你不会从试图解释你所知道的中学到更多?我不这么认为。我至少写了两件我了解的事情——Lisp黑客技术和创业公司——在这两种情况下,我从写作中学到了很多东西。在这两种情况下,都有一些我直到必须解释它们时才意识到的事情。而且我不认为我的经验是异常的。大量的知识是无意识的,专家无意识知识的比例如果不比初学者更高的话,至少也是一样的。

我不是说写作是探索所有想法的最好方式。如果你有关于建筑的想法,大概最好的探索方式是建造实际的建筑物。我是说,无论你从以其他方式探索想法中学到多少,你仍然会从写作中学习新东西。

将思想转化为文字当然不意味着写作,当然。你也可以用旧的方式,通过谈话来做到。但根据我的经验,写作是更严格的考验。你必须承诺一个单一的、最佳的词语序列。当你没有语气来承载意义时,更少的东西可以不说不。而且你可以以一种在对话中似乎过度的方式来集中注意力。我经常在一篇文章上花费2周时间,并重读草稿50次。如果你在对话中这样做,这似乎是某种精神障碍的证据。当然,如果你是懒惰的,写作和谈话都同样无用。但如果你想推动自己把事情做对,写作是更陡峭的山。[3]

我花了这么长时间建立这个相当明显的观点的原因是,它引导出另一个许多人会发现令人震惊的观点。如果你的想法总是变得更精确、更完整,那么没有写过关于某个主题的人不会有完全形成的想法。而从不写作的人对任何重要的事情都没有完全形成的想法。

对他们来说,感觉他们确实有,特别是如果他们没有批判性地审视自己思考的习惯。想法可以感觉完整。只有当你试图将它们转化为文字时,你才发现它们不是。所以如果你从不使你的思想经受那个测试,你不仅永远不会拥有完全形成的思想,而且永远不会意识到这一点。

将思想转化为文字当然不能保证它们是正确的。远非如此。但虽然这不是充分条件,但它是一个必要条件。

注释

[1] 机械和电路是形式语言。

[2] 我在帕洛阿尔托街上走时想到了这句话。

[3] 与某人谈话有两种意义:一种是严格的意义,即对话是语言的;一种是更一般的意义,它可以采取任何形式,包括写作。在极限情况下(例如塞内卡的信件),后一种意义上的对话变成了文章写作。

在你写作时,与他人谈话(在任一意义上)可能非常有用。但言语对话永远不会比你在谈论你正在写作的事情时更严格。

感谢

感谢特雷弗·布莱克威尔、帕特里克·克里森和罗伯特·莫里斯阅读草稿。

Putting Ideas into Words

February 2022

Writing about something, even something you know well, usually shows you that you didn’t know it as well as you thought. Putting ideas into words is a severe test. The first words you choose are usually wrong; you have to rewrite sentences over and over to get them exactly right. And your ideas won’t just be imprecise, but incomplete too. Half the ideas that end up in an essay will be ones you thought of while you were writing it. Indeed, that’s why I write them.

Once you publish something, the convention is that whatever you wrote was what you thought before you wrote it. These were your ideas, and now you’ve expressed them. But you know this isn’t true. You know that putting your ideas into words changed them. And not just the ideas you published. Presumably there were others that turned out to be too broken to fix, and those you discarded instead.

It’s not just having to commit your ideas to specific words that makes writing so exacting. The real test is reading what you’ve written. You have to pretend to be a neutral reader who knows nothing of what’s in your head, only what you wrote. When he reads what you wrote, does it seem correct? Does it seem complete? If you make an effort, you can read your writing as if you were a complete stranger, and when you do the news is usually bad. It takes me many cycles before I can get an essay past the stranger. But the stranger is rational, so you always can, if you ask him what he needs. If he’s not satisfied because you failed to mention x or didn’t qualify some sentence sufficiently, then you mention x or add more qualifications. Happy now? It may cost you some nice sentences, but you have to resign yourself to that. You just have to make them as good as you can and still satisfy the stranger.

This much, I assume, won’t be that controversial. I think it will accord with the experience of anyone who has tried to write about anything nontrivial. There may exist people whose thoughts are so perfectly formed that they just flow straight into words. But I’ve never known anyone who could do this, and if I met someone who said they could, it would seem evidence of their limitations rather than their ability. Indeed, this is a trope in movies: the guy who claims to have a plan for doing some difficult thing, and who when questioned further, taps his head and says “It’s all up here.” Everyone watching the movie knows what that means. At best the plan is vague and incomplete. Very likely there’s some undiscovered flaw that invalidates it completely. At best it’s a plan for a plan.

In precisely defined domains it’s possible to form complete ideas in your head. People can play chess in their heads, for example. And mathematicians can do some amount of math in their heads, though they don’t seem to feel sure of a proof over a certain length till they write it down. But this only seems possible with ideas you can express in a formal language. [1] Arguably what such people are doing is putting ideas into words in their heads. I can to some extent write essays in my head. I’ll sometimes think of a paragraph while walking or lying in bed that survives nearly unchanged in the final version. But really I’m writing when I do this. I’m doing the mental part of writing; my fingers just aren’t moving as I do it. [2]

You can know a great deal about something without writing about it. Can you ever know so much that you wouldn’t learn more from trying to explain what you know? I don’t think so. I’ve written about at least two subjects I know well — Lisp hacking and startups — and in both cases I learned a lot from writing about them. In both cases there were things I didn’t consciously realize till I had to explain them. And I don’t think my experience was anomalous. A great deal of knowledge is unconscious, and experts have if anything a higher proportion of unconscious knowledge than beginners.

I’m not saying that writing is the best way to explore all ideas. If you have ideas about architecture, presumably the best way to explore them is to build actual buildings. What I’m saying is that however much you learn from exploring ideas in other ways, you’ll still learn new things from writing about them.

Putting ideas into words doesn’t have to mean writing, of course. You can also do it the old way, by talking. But in my experience, writing is the stricter test. You have to commit to a single, optimal sequence of words. Less can go unsaid when you don’t have tone of voice to carry meaning. And you can focus in a way that would seem excessive in conversation. I’ll often spend 2 weeks on an essay and reread drafts 50 times. If you did that in conversation it would seem evidence of some kind of mental disorder. If you’re lazy, of course, writing and talking are equally useless. But if you want to push yourself to get things right, writing is the steeper hill. [3]

The reason I’ve spent so long establishing this rather obvious point is that it leads to another that many people will find shocking. If writing down your ideas always makes them more precise and more complete, then no one who hasn’t written about a topic has fully formed ideas about it. And someone who never writes has no fully formed ideas about anything nontrivial.

It feels to them as if they do, especially if they’re not in the habit of critically examining their own thinking. Ideas can feel complete. It’s only when you try to put them into words that you discover they’re not. So if you never subject your ideas to that test, you’ll not only never have fully formed ideas, but also never realize it.

Putting ideas into words is certainly no guarantee that they’ll be right. Far from it. But though it’s not a sufficient condition, it is a necessary one.

Notes

[1] Machinery and circuits are formal languages.

[2] I thought of this sentence as I was walking down the street in Palo Alto.

[3] There are two senses of talking to someone: a strict sense in which the conversation is verbal, and a more general sense in which it can take any form, including writing. In the limit case (e.g. Seneca’s letters), conversation in the latter sense becomes essay writing.

It can be very useful to talk (in either sense) with other people as you’re writing something. But a verbal conversation will never be more exacting than when you’re talking about something you’re writing.

Thanks

Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, and Robert Morris for reading drafts of this.