- we tend to think of essays as persuasive pieces of writing, where we start with a position and then defend it. - early universities were primarily law schools, where much of the curriculum was centered around arguing effectively. - modern thesis defense was similar, as is the standard high school writing assignment. - you choose a thesis in advance and then write a bunch of supporting arguments. - writing with this lens can limit your perspective, but the real problem is that you can’t change the question once you’ve started. - even if your position changes, you’re still working on a pre-defined problem. - reminds me of [[{1.2a1a2a2} a brand is a promise of consistency and dependability|brands]] [[foreclosing on prerogative to change]]. - [[{5.2b1} the tyranny of the right answer|{4.2} the tyranny of the right answer]] - [[graham, paul - 2004 - the age of the essay]]: ![[graham, paul - 2004 - the age of the essay#^0aad53|clean]] - your writing should get people to agree with you because you’re *correct*, not because of how you wrote. >[!note] >i want to connect this to [[{3.4} we're living in a doppelganger culture where we act as other to people's beliefs]] / mirror world / people *arguing* online, but not necessarily being correct. if writing is thinking and good writing has the right answers… what’s the difference between “bad” and “malicious” thinking? feel like there’s a connection i’m missing. > >also [[writing is turning your networked thought into a cohesive narrative|writing is turning your networked thought into a linear narrative]].