Something You Should Know - How to Win An Argument & Simple Strategies to Be a Better Writer

Episode Date: December 5, 2019

This is the time of year when people give to people less fortunate – and that is great. However, if you are going to give, there are things that most homeless shelters and other organizations need more than others. This episode begins by explaining what most donation centers would really like you to get them for Christmas. http://www.purewow.com/home/best-items-to-donate-to-charity-drives If you think the way to win an argument is to give people a lot of evidence to prove you are right, you must listen to this because it will fundamentally change the way you argue EVERYTHING. Professor Niro Sivanathan of the London Business School is an expert on something called the “dilution effect” that says that more evidence is not better. In fact more evidence oftens weakens your argument. Listen as he explains how to strengthen any argument and more importantly how to NOT dilute your arguments by putting “everything on the table.” You can see his TED talk on this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=hkFCu6K8Ghw  Do you pay much attention to the age recommendations on toy boxes when you buy Christmas gifts? Listen as I explain why you should, what they mean and how to use them wisely. www.ToyTips.com  Are you a good writer? Would you like to be a better one? It’s not that hard to do according to Mary-Kate Mackey, author of the book Write Better Now: The Reluctant Writer’s Guide to Confident Communication and Self-Assured Style (https://amzn.to/34DBnPP). Listen as she offers some simple ways to improve the quality of your writing so people really understand what you are trying to say when you write letters, reviews, blog posts, texts, emails or anything else. This Week’s Sponsors -Flo Technologies. For 20% off your Flo device go to http://go.thoughtleaders.io/1516520191202 and use the promo code: SYSK20 -Finance Pal. Go to www.financepal.com/something to start your free trial today -Fetch Rewards. Download the Fetch Rewards app and use promo code SYSK to receive 4000 points when you scan your first receipt.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a listener to Something You Should Know, I can only assume that you are someone who likes to learn about new and interesting things and bring more knowledge to work for you in your everyday life. I mean, that's kind of what Something You Should Know was all about. And so I want to invite you to listen to another podcast called TED Talks Daily. Now, you know about TED Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done TED Talks. Well, you see, TED Talks Daily is a podcast that brings you a new TED Talk every weekday in less than 15 minutes. Join host Elise Hu.

She goes beyond the headlines so you can hear about the big ideas shaping our future. Learn about things like sustainable fashion, embracing your entrepreneurial spirit, the future of robotics, and so much more. Like I said, if you like this podcast, Something You Should Know, I'm pretty sure you're going to like TED Talks Daily. And you get TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts. Today on Something You Should Know, if you're giving this holiday to help the less fortunate, We'll talk to you next time on The Dilution Effect. which says, In the world of influence, the strength of any argument that you make is only as strong as its weakest link. So the weak arguments dilute away from the strong arguments in my overall judgment. Then, what do those age recommendations on toy boxes really mean?

And how to easily improve your skills as a writer, no matter what you have to write? Good writing is when the idea is communicated swiftly, clearly, and without a doubt about what you're saying. Make it tight. Make it to the point. Answer the question, what's the point here? All this today on Something You Should Know. People who listen to Something You Should Know are curious about the world, looking to hear new ideas and perspectives. So I want to tell you about a podcast

that is full of new ideas and perspectives, and one I've started listening to called Intelligence Squared. It's the podcast where great minds meet. Listen in for some great talks on science, tech, politics, creativity, wellness, and a lot more. A couple of recent examples, Mustafa Suleiman, the CEO of Microsoft AI, discussing the future of technology. That's pretty cool. And writer, podcaster, and filmmaker John Ronson discussing the rise of conspiracies and culture wars.

Intelligence Squared is the kind of podcast that gets you thinking a little more openly about the important conversations going on today. Being curious, you're probably just the type of person Intelligence Squared is meant for. Check out Intelligence Squared wherever you get your podcasts. Something you should know. Fascinating intel. The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life. Today, Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers. Welcome to Something You Should Know. I am officially in the holiday spirit. We got our tree really early this year. We got it on November 30th.

I've never, ever gotten a tree in November before, but it has helped us all get into the holiday spirit. And I always like to do something for people less fortunate than me this time of year. And if you're planning to perhaps donate things for the holiday season, I think that's terrific. But before you decide what to donate, here are some items that almost every homeless shelter needs. Diapers for big kids. Charity drives are flooded with size one diapers and newborn diapers, but they're often short on the ones for bigger children. So if you're going to donate diapers to a homeless shelter, go with size 4 and above.

Every shelter needs clothes in extra large adult sizes, because people come in all shapes and sizes, and they all need something to wear. 100% juice drinks and shelf-stable milk will never go to waste at a homeless shelter. Toilet paper. Now, this may not be the most fun and festive gift you could give this holiday season, but homeless shelters are always, always in need of toilet paper. Gift cards or just plain cash works. Call your donation center to see where they stand, but several have reported a preference for store gift cards or cash as opposed to physical items. That way they can shop for the specific things they need. And international calling cards always come in handy.

If you load a couple of cards with a few hours of talk time, you might give somebody the gift of a Christmas Eve phone call back home, which could mean a lot. And that is something you should know. You are about to change the way you argue, pitch, sway, or make your point. I think this is so interesting because it goes against what most of us have learned and what most of us do. And that is, if you have a case to make, if you want someone to get on board with what you have to say, you lay out all your arguments. You get everything on the table. Because the more arguments that you have to show that you're correct, the better. Right? Wrong.

Turns out there's something called the dilution effect that refutes that idea. And here to explain it is Nero Sevenathan. He is an associate professor at the London Business School and a real expert on the dilution effect. In fact, he has an interesting TED talk about this. Hi, Professor. Welcome. Great to be here, Mike. So rather than talk about the dilution effect in the abstract, let's start with a specific example that clearly explains how it works. So let's, for instance, imagine I ask you to evaluate the intelligence or let's say the GPA of a student.

For one, I give you an example, which is that Tim, and let's say Tim spends 31 hours studying outside of class in an average week. Now let's take another student named Tom, who also spends 31 hours studying outside of class in an average week. But Tom also has one brother, two sisters, he visits his grandparents once every couple months, he once went on a blind date, and he shoots pool once every two months. Now when people are asked to make the judgment on the scholastic aptitude or the intelligence

of these two individuals, on average people rate Tim to have a higher intelligence or a higher GPA than Tom. Now if you delve into the data you'll notice both of them spend 31 hours outside of class studying. However with Tom you're also given this additional information of him having a brother and two sisters, grandparents, etc. The argument dilution effect is this idea that this non-relevant information to your judgment on Tom or Tim's intelligence, such as he once went on a blind date or he shoots pool every two months, dilutes, if you will, the overall value of Tom spending 31 hours studying outside of class. The idea here is that the task that you had to do was to judge Tim or Tom's intelligence.

And the information I gave you, one was diagnostic, which is the number of hours he studies, but the other pieces of information were non-diagnostic. And if you will, the non-diagnostic information dilutes the overall value or the use of the diagnostic information in the prognostication that you make. So in other words, here are two guys, Tim and Tom, both spend 31 hours a week studying outside of school. And you're more likely to say Tim is smarter than Tom because that's all you know about him. All you know is he spends 31 hours a week studying outside of school. Tom does exactly the same thing, but now you know all these other things about him,

about his brother and his sister and his grandmother and all that. And those facts dilute the fact that he spends 31 hours a week studying, and so you think he's not as smart. I could give you another example. Let's imagine I ask you to evaluate the speed of a computer. In one instance, you're told, you know, this computer has a fast processor. In another instance, you're told it has a fast processor, but was made in the USA, can be brought online, you've seen commercials on TV, etc. And similar to the previous one, on average, people rate the computer that whereby you were just simply told it has a fast processor to have a higher processing speed than one whereby you were given

information about how fast it is, but also other non-relevant information. And the idea here is that the more information you give, and specifically the non-diagnostic information, it dilutes the overall value of the diagnostic information. And so the lesson here in translating the results of that into how we communicate is what? Oftentimes, whenever we make an argument or we want to make a point, we usually list several reasons or several arguments, if you will, to try and back up that point. What the argument dilution effect highlights is that when you're listing several reasons to try and back up your argument, that weak reasons or put another way, weak arguments in your reasoning dilute away from your strong arguments. So for instance, who is your favorite baseball team

or basketball team? Well, I'll go with the Dodgers. So let's assume you have decided to try and influence me that Dodgers are the very best baseball team in the Major League Baseball. And let's assume you've sort of come up with four arguments for why the Dodgers are the very best team. And let's assume two of these arguments are very strong, and they're worth, let's say, 90 points out of 100. And let's assume your other two arguments are still strong, but not as strong as the first two, and only worth 60 points out of 100. A common thought process you and other communicators might make is to think, look, I've got four great arguments. Granted, two of them are very strong, but the other two are still strong. Let me put it all on the table as a way to convince Nero that Dodgers are the very

best baseball team in the major league. The calculus that you make is that the strength of that argument is 300 points, 90 plus 90 plus 60 plus 60. Turns out, however, receivers of information don't engage in an additive function. They engage in an averaging function. So when you say the Dodgers are the best team because of reasons one, two, three, four, I say, great, I added up to 300, divide by four, and the strength of that argument is 75 points, not 300. Now, if you wanted to be more persuasive or more influential, you'd be far better off to say, Nero, Dodgers are the very best team because of reason one, reason two, stop. Now I hear 90 plus 90.

I add it up to 180, divide by two. The strength of that argument is now 90 points, not 75. I guess the direct translation, if you will, is that in the world of influence, sort of the strength of any argument that you make is only as strong as its weakest link. So the weak arguments, if you will, dilute away from the two strong arguments in my overall judgment. Which is counter to how people think, which you use the phrase, you know, get it all on the table. Here are all the reasons why you should agree with me, when in fact what you should be doing is finding the very

best of those arguments keep the weaker ones off the table and that makes a stronger case indeed right and we've all been in instances where you'll sit through and i commonly see this where someone will give a powerpoint presentation and invariably they'll get to their fifth slide or their tenth slide, and it'll say, here are the 15 benefits to launching this product, or here are the 20 benefits to enter this new market. And the idea and the calculus, which is kind of a wrong forecasting error that they're making, is let me put it all on the table to try and influence the individual. A very clear takeaway

from this work and this research is that's great that you've come up with 15 arguments. Step back, figure out which are your two or three very strong arguments, put those on the table, leave the others to the sidelines. They could be offline conversations. They could even be part of your appendices, but they should never, ever be the central element of your discourse. And the idea really that if I were to sort of kind of drive home is in the world of influence, quality trumps quantity. You cannot make up for a quality of an argument by simply increasing the quantity of your arguments. What if, just, I don't know how you would ever test this, but what if you had those 15 reasons and they were all strong, they were all fairly equally strong,

are you still better off pruning some of them off the list because that's too many? Or if you have 15 or 150 really strong arguments, do you give them all? The problem that practically speaking is that oftentimes you think that all 15 of those are very strong arguments, but in fact, they're not. Oftentimes, the reason why you think 15 are great or 20 are great is you're not being disciplined enough to sort of step back and think, you know, is reason 12, 13 really as strong as reasons one and two? Oftentimes they're not. And I guess the thing to keep in mind is what is, if you will, the difference or the change or the delta between your very strong argument and your weaker arguments. If your top two arguments are sort of 90 and 85, my advice would be is to throw them both in there because even as you average it, it's still fairly high.

The difference arises where your first one is 90 and the next one is 70. My suggestion there would be to – in that instance, you're still better off to go with your strong argument rather than listing all of them. I think one of the common traps we fall victim to is you want to sort of signal to others you've thought of all possible avenues or all possible arguments. I think even in those instances, what you could, for instance, say is, look, there are multitude or a plethora of reasons for why we should do X. But as I see it, here are the two reasons why we need to do X. I think you were able to sort of highlight that you've thought through them, but stick the central discourse of your conversation to your strong arguments. We're talking about one of the really interesting strategies of making a better argument,

and it has to do with something called the dilution effect. My guest is Nero Sivanathan. He is an associate professor at the London Business School. Hi, I'm Jennifer, a co-founder of the Go Kid Go Network. At Go Kid Go, putting kids first is at the heart of every show that we produce. That's why we're so excited to introduce a brand new show to our network called The Search for the Silver Lightning, a fantasy adventure series about a spirited young girl named Isla who time travels to the mythical land of Camelot. During her journey, Isla meets new friends, including King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, and learns valuable life lessons with every quest, sword fight, and dragon ride.

Positive and uplifting stories remind us all about the importance of kindness, friendship, honesty, and positivity. Join me and an all-star cast of actors, including Liam Neeson, Emily Blunt, Kristen Bell, Chris Hemsworth, among many others, in welcoming the Search for the Silver Lining podcast to the Go Kid Go Network by listening today. Look for the Search for the Silver Lining on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. Since I host a podcast, it's pretty common for me to be asked to recommend a podcast. And I tell people, if you like something you should know, you're going to like The Jordan Harbinger Show. Every episode is a conversation with a fascinating guest. Of course, a lot of podcasts are conversations with guests, but Jordan does it better than most. Recently, he had a fascinating conversation with a British woman who was recruited and radicalized by ISIS

and went to prison for three years. She now works to raise awareness on this issue. It's a great conversation. And he spoke with Dr. Sarah Hill about how taking birth control not only prevents pregnancy, it can influence a woman's partner preferences, career choices, and overall behavior due to the hormonal changes it causes. Apple named The Jordan Harbinger Show one of the best podcasts a few years back, and in a nutshell, the show is aimed at making you a better, more informed critical thinker. Check out The Jordan Harbinger Show. There's so much for you in this podcast.

The Jordan Harbinger Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. So, Nero, you're talking about making a strong argument, but isn't a strong argument subjective? I mean, what's important to you, What would convince you? What would make a strong argument for you might not make a strong argument for somebody else? Right, exactly. And I think this is where I mentioned earlier that there will invariably be some diversity in the audience, especially if you're speaking to a group of individuals. However, even in those instances, Mike, oftentimes strong arguments tend to be, on average, influential to the majority. This is so counterintuitive for me,

because I've always thought that the more arguments, the better. And even if some aren't as great as others, that more is better, because I've always thought that people add them up. You know, argument one, two, three, and four, they add them up and they go, hey, there's a lot of great arguments. What you're saying is they don't add them up, they average them out, and that those weak arguments really dilute the strong ones. And what's interesting that was in your TED talk is that people that know this, people that are already aware that this is how it works, can use it to manipulate people. And

you give the example of pharmaceutical ads that we often see on television. So talk about that. It just so happened that I was in the US on a conference and came across a pharmaceutical ad. These are what are commonly referred to as direct-to-consumer ads. And there are only two countries, now perhaps three, that allow pharmaceutical companies to directly market to consumers. It's the U.S. and New Zealand. And this is a fairly large industry. I think there's about $5.2 billion or so that was spent in 2015 just on direct-to-consumer marketing. If you've ever seen these ads, they all have the same architecture. So usually you'll see a happy couple or someone prancing and dancing through their garden because they got a full night's sleep with the aid of a sleep drug. But because of FDA regulations that were passed in 1997, there was a call on a fair balance between the benefits and the risks associated with that

drug. So typically what you'll hear is that the last 30 seconds of that one-minute ad, you'll hear a voiceover that says, side effects include heart attack, stroke, headache, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and will end with something like itchy feet. Guess what itchy feet does to people's risk assessment of heart attack and stroke? It dilutes it. Imagine, for instance, an alternate drug commercial that says this drug cures your sleep problems, side effects are heart attack and stroke. Stop. It sounds much more severe because all you know is that it can cause heart attack and stroke, and those are pretty serious side effects. And that's all you know. So my guess is that when you add itchy feet, that somehow that dilutes that and makes it sound not so ominous. So it turns out this FDA regulation over the last 20 plus years has actually made it easier

for pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs, if you will. Specifically, patients rate the drug to have overall less severity and side effects when they list more side effects rather than less, all as a result of the argument dilution effect. So we have a set of studies that tested whether it be a print medium, audio, etc., the more side effects that you list, both strong side effects as well as weak side effects, it paradoxically dilutes consumers and potential patients' overall ratings of the severity of that drug, all as a result of the dilution effect. Isn't that fascinating that the human brain does that? Because you would think, if a drug could cause a heart attack and stroke, okay, that's pretty serious.

And then you throw in itchy feet at the end, and all of a sudden it doesn't seem so bad. It still could cause heart attack and stroke. That's right. And, in fact, one of the first studies that we did was we took an actual real commercial. It was a drug called Cymbalta. And for one group, we showed them 78 seconds of the ad, so the full audio. And for the other set of participants, we showed them just a 75-second version of that audio. So if you think about it, just three seconds of it was spliced out.

And the three seconds that were spliced out were the minor side effects. I think it was nausea, dry mouth, and constipation. And you would think it's three seconds, so it's less than 10% of the commercial that's been taken out. And we showed them both of those commercials. And lo and behold, what you find is that the individuals who heard the full ad rate the overall severity of the side effects of that drug to be significantly less than the group that heard the three-second shortened version of that ad. And you would think this is – and oftentimes, as you know, these side effects are sort of peppered throughout in blazingly fast speed that most people would either forget about all the side effects or ignore it. Despite the fact that it was only just a few seconds that were taken out, it still had an impact both in people's evaluations of the drug, not just simply

how severe it was, but also, you know, the likelihood that they will purchase it and how effective, in fact, that drug is in treating depression. So what's the lesson in all of this? It almost seems like the lesson is shut up, make your point and be quiet rather than just go on and on and on because you're just going to dilute your whole argument. That's right. Yeah, I think a very, very simple takeaway, if you will, I have so much great data. Let me just give it all as a way to convince them. I think the lesson here is to

actually step back and think, oh, great, I've got wonderful data here. What are sort of the most convincing pieces of that data? Or what are the most convincing arguments that I could put forth that will change their opinion or change their hearts and minds. So I think it's not just simply just less because there's lots of advice, you know, keep your arguments to three or various other sort of old wives tales. But the idea here isn't necessarily simply the number, but rather the strength of your argument. If all you have is three, but two of those are worth 90 points and the third one is 10, the clear advice is get rid of that 10, stick to those two 90 pointed arguments. Well, it's interesting that in school, you're taught more or less the opposite of this, that you're really taught to build your case to you know write that 25 page paper that makes your case and

explains everything and that all flies in the face of what you're saying exactly so and I think one of the the overarching themes that come out is that invariably were cognitive misers We tend to be very lazy when making judgments. And so oftentimes we're just not willing to put in the mental energy to evaluate it in the way that we've perhaps been told, you know, dump all the data and give all the arguments as a way to convince the other side. Why do you suppose it is, and I think everybody's done this, where even though you know you've pretty much said what you need to say, you keep talking. You just keep talking. We sometimes fall victim to this is

people don't like silence. So you'll sort of start an argument, you'll get to some point, and then instead of sort of cutting it off, when you're met with a bit of silence, what do you do? You start trying to fill up that space with, oh, and let me tell you this and that and this other thing, et cetera. And sadly, it's a forecasting error you're making because you think you're adding to the strength of your argument when in fact, you're actually sort of detracting from the strength of that argument. Well, I think you've made your point. You've given your best argument. So we should probably stop talking about this. Nero Sivanathan has been my guest.

He's an associate professor at the London Business School and an expert on the dilution effect. And you can see his TED Talk about this. There's a link to his TED Talk in the show notes. Thank you, Professor. No, thank you. It was a pleasure. Hey, everyone. Join me, Megan Rinks.

And me, Melissa Demonts, for Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong? Each week, we deliver four fun-filled shows. In Don't Blame Me, we tackle our listeners' dilemmas with hilariously honest advice. Then we have But Am I Wrong?, which is for the listeners that didn't take our advice. Plus, we share our hot takes on current events. Then tune in to see you next Tuesday for our Lister poll results from But Am I Wrong? And finally, wrap up your week with Fisting Friday, where we catch up and talk all things pop culture. Listen to Don't Blame Me, But Am I Wrong on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and

Friday. Do you love Disney? Then you are going to love our hit podcast, Disney Countdown. I'm Megan, the Magical Millennial. And I'm the Dapper Danielle. On every episode of our fun and family-friendly show, we count down our top 10 lists of all things Disney. There is nothing we don't cover. We are famous for rabbit holes, Disney-themed games, and fun facts you didn't know you needed,

but you definitely need in your life. So if you're looking for a healthy dose of Disney magic, check out Disney Countdown wherever you get your podcasts. People write more today than ever. Reports, blog posts, emails, not to mention all the texting we do. No matter what your job is, you probably have to write. And of course, everyone has their own style of writing. But no matter what the style, all writing is supposed to communicate. And there are some best practices and strategies that can help improve your writing and ensure that your reader reads what you think you wrote.

And here to discuss how to do that is Mary Kate Mackey. She is a teacher, speaker, and writer and author of the book, Write Better Now, The Reluctant Writer's Guide to Confident Communication and Self-Assured Style. Hi, Mary Kate. Welcome to Something You Should Know. Thank you, Mike. So my overall sense is that in the last several years, writing, like so many other things, has gotten less formal in some ways. The rules don't apply like they used to. That style isn't so important. Would you agree? Ah, okay. Well, I think a lot of times it's simply that the people who are called upon to write now are not the same as before the Internet. Before the Internet, if you didn't go into a career that involved writing,

like being a lawyer or something, you didn't write. And now those same people have to do all kinds of writing, and they're not trained for it. I call those folks the reluctant writers. These are folks who, they have to do it. They have to get it out there. Because many people know when they're writing, they know it's not very good, but they don't know how to fix it. So in your definition, in broad strokes here, what is good writing? What's the definition of good writing?

Good writing is when the idea is communicated swiftly, clearly, and without a doubt about what you're saying. Well, then according to that definition, there's a lot of things I read and other people read that is not good writing. So what is it that most people do? There's something that people call literary throat clearing, where you start out writing something, but really you have to warm up to the task. And then instead of cutting the warming up, people just add it to the letter they're writing to the editor or to their boss or whatever. It's in the email.

Okay, go back. You can get rid of that. Make it tight. Make it to the point. Answer the question, what's the point here? And there's all kinds of good writing from very formal to incredibly informal. And I think when you're saying, oh, it looks like people are writing badly, I think it's because a lot of the informality is going into forms where it shouldn't be. And so, you know, when people put 100 exclamation points in some kind of a directive to employees in the company, that's probably not appropriate.

So when people, I've heard the advice that, you know, when it's time to write, what you should just do is sit down and write. And I think it was James Michener who said he was not a good writer, but he was a really good rewriter. And that's the key to good writing is just get your ideas down and then go fix it. Absolutely. There are people, I learned this from Don Fry from the Poynter Institute, but he called them plungers and planners. And James Michener was clearly a plunger. He had to write it in order to find out what he was writing and then go back

and edit it. And certainly the writing and the editing are two different steps. But there's also folks who do plan. They say, okay, I want to get this out. I want to see this. And then there's the people I call the mixers. You write a little bit, you plan a little bit, you write a little bit, you plan a little bit, but they're two different processes. And writing really is bringing something out of the etheric into the physical world. And editing is rounding it up once it's in here. So does every type of writing have its own approach? If you're writing, you know, an email to your boss is different than

if you're writing a letter to your grandmother, or do they all have something in common? Well, I think in terms of wanting clarity, they definitely have something in common. There's also a certain sense of what's the tone? Because you're never going to talk the same way to your friend in the bar as you do to your grandmother. There are different tones. And so we do this automatically when we talk. So it's just a matter of being aware of it when we write. So how do you work that into writing when, you know, it's easy to do it when you talk because it's the way you say it and it's your voice and everything else, but the words are just words on a paper. Words are words on the

paper, but if you become aware, for instance, if you're on the formal side of the tone scale, it could be very academic writing. And if you're called upon to do academic writing, you're not going to put 100 exclamation points in it. It wouldn't be the form. So you have to look at that. You have to say, okay, what makes this good? And formal writing is more impersonal. It's more serious.

It's more elaborate. It's very controlled. And then you go all the way over on that tone scale to very informal. And informal is conversational. It's very personal. Sometimes it's funny. It's very simple, simple sentences. Sometimes it's very unconventional. But that scale runs all along there. And by looking at the kind of writing you're called upon to do, you can decide where on the scale you're going to put your communication. In general, when you look at people's writing, are there some common mistakes you see people make that if they just did, you know, these five things, shorten the sentences or whatever they are, that that instantly would improve what they're doing?

Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, the first thing is, I think, most people can bang sentences together. I mean, you can just do it. My students in the journalism school, by the time I got them, they'd been through reporting, and they could bang sentences together. But it's the thought behind it that's sometimes muddy and not really clear. So one of the first things you can do with any piece of writing you're doing is, what's the point? Can you name the point? And the second thing you can do is you can jack up your verbs. You can go back to a piece of writing and look at all the verbs

because sometimes they're simply better verbs. People say, you know, write like you talk. Well, we talk with the to be verb. That's that little tiny is, was, were, have, has, all those. Now, that is a really ancient verb. I know that because a friend of mine's a linguist, and she says the verbs that are the most irregular are the oldest verbs. So this has to be one of the oldest verbs in English. And the fact is, a lot of times you can go back,

find that verb, take it out, and put in a better verb, a stronger verb, a more descriptive verb, and your writing is instantly improved. Where, you know, in journalism they talk about burying the lead. Do you think that's a problem in writing in general, that people just don't get to the point fast enough? Yes. It's that literary throat clearing I was talking about, where you're, you know, I'm thinking about this, and I'm writing what I'm thinking, and I've got it,

and now by the second or third paragraph, I got it. I know where I am. I know where I'm going from here on. I have an example from my own writing from a first draft. You know, it's really hard. Writers aren't going to give you their first draft to use. So I use my own. But anyway, I had buried the lead down third paragraph in. I had it down there. And then when I went back, I then rewrote it, moved the lead to the top, and you can see it. And once you can see that leads get buried, then you can go on the hunt for them. What are some other strategies that could instantly improve my writing? One of my favorites, I have not found out who invented this. If you want to find out whether you're in the passive voice or not, I mean, you know, we have verbs in the active, we have verbs

in the passive. And you go through and you look at your sentence and you look at it and you say, okay, would it make sense if I added the phrase by zombies? For instance, the hedge was clipped by zombies. And if it was, if you can add that and it makes sense, you're in the passive voice. Isn't that brilliant? Being in the passive voice is good? No, being in the passive voice is usually not good. You want to be in the active voice. You want to have things that move, verbs that go places and push the thinking along.

But sometimes you do want to be in the passive voice because, for instance, who cares who clipped the hedge? You know, the easy hedge service really is the only one who cares that it got clipped. So you can say the hedge was clipped five feet tall. Who cares? So sometimes the passage is very useful. But what would be better? What would be better about that hedge?

What would be a better way to say it? If the easy care people clipped that hedge, you would be a better way to say it? If the easy care people clip that hedge, you know, you could have that in there. You could put a sense of, you know, twice a year, easy care people come with their huge ladders, stand on them and clip the top of this hedge. Now that's very, you get the picture, you see where you're going. What about individual writing style? I mean, you can tell me all the rules to make me a technically better writer, but I could say to you, but yeah, but that's not how I write. That's not my style. I have a style of writing that makes me a better writer

or makes me a stylized writer or whatever. But how do you reconcile, well, yes, you're following the rules of good writing, but you're also being an individual writer. I think that's a real issue. Honestly, Mike, I do. But I think, basically, there are just different structures you can follow, and they're kind of like a recipe, and you go from step to step to step. This is how that structure starts.

Here's where it goes. Here's where it goes. Here's where it ends. But inside the structure, you have freedom to be very witty, very charming, very, you know, your own way of using verbs, way of using words. It's all in there. But you're still driving what I call the story arc. You're driving up, even though it's nonfiction and it may not be a story, you're driving up that arc. And the arc looks like a picture of a rainbow. And it's in the ground to the left, and then it rises up in the sky,

and right up at the top as it curves, it stops. Now that's your arc. And almost anything can be driven up that arc. You can structure stuff that will go up there, and then within it, you have the freedom to be who you want to be. You know what's interesting is when we talk, we don't struggle with it so much. We don't have a problem saying what we're trying to say. But it's very different, or can be very different, when you're writing, to really find the right words and to say... I wonder why that is, why talking is easy,

writing is hard. You know, when we talk, the words go right, you know, over our heads, we grab what we can, we get it. But when words are brought into the physical world, they have weight. They count. And they need to be sort of polished up as good as they can be in whatever it is. And being able to have a form can absolutely help your idea get across clearly. You could be James Joyce. I mean, go for it. But when the kind of communication I'm talking about with reluctant writers

really is a matter of we need something to convey the good idea. And that's usually a structure. Well, it's good advice. And I know for myself, I'm no expert, but I write a lot. I mean, I write all the intros and outros to this podcast. I write a lot of emails. I write a lot. And I know that when I write, if I stop and think,

okay, what am I trying to say? What's the point here? Which is a lot of what you're talking about, about being succinct and getting to the point right away, that it always helps. And so I appreciate your spending some time with us. Mary Kate Mackey has been my guest. She is a teacher, speaker, and writer, and author of a book called Write Better Now, The Reluctant Writer's Guide to Confident Communication and Self-Assured Style. And there is a link to that book in the show notes for this episode of the podcast.

Thank you, Mary-Kate. Well, thank you, Mike. As you shop for kids' gifts this holiday season, you'll notice that on every toy box is an age recommendation. Five plus or eight and older. You've seen them. So what do they actually mean? According to the president of ToyTips.com, there are no real standards. The manufacturer, through its own research and testing, determines what is age appropriate for each toy. However, in the case of younger children, the age recommendation often refers to safety,

especially when the toy has small parts that a young child could swallow. Here are some recommendations when you choose a toy for Christmas for a kid. When considering safety, don't think just of the child the toy is intended for. Always think of the youngest child in the house. If an older child leaves a toy out that has small parts,

it could be a hazard for that younger child. Just as important as age is a child's interest and skill level. If a child has no interest or ability to use the toy, it's a total waste of time. And every parent thinks their child is smarter than most and can handle more sophisticated toys. But the age recommendations really are excellent guidelines and really should be followed.

And that is something you should know. You can easily subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts. They make it amazingly easy. You just hit the subscribe button and you're in, and then we deliver the episodes right to you. I'm Micah Ruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know. I myself have been married for 56 years. Unfortunately to four different women. You can work out a whole lot of shit in the hours of target every week on the moth podcast we share stories that are funny strange heartbreaking and above

all true i refuse to settle for being the future when i can be right now listen along by searching the moth wherever you get your podcasts. Contained herein are the heresies of Rudolf Puntwine, erstwhile monk turned traveling medical investigator. Join me as I study the secrets of the divine plagues and uncover the blasphemous truth that ours is not a loving God and we are not its favored children. The Heresies of Randolph Buntwine, wherever podcasts are available.