What makes a word explanation good?
- Establishes the prerequisites/background the reader needs, and then builds on that background
- Simulates the reader's inexperienced state of mind
- Anticipates common misinterpretations/misconceptions and counters them
- Does not assume infinite working memory (what goes wrong when this is violated: Unbounded working memory assumption in explanations)
- When different words/terms/phrases are used to point to the same idea, this is explicitly pointed out (synonyms are very common even in technical fields!)
- When the same word/term/phrase is used to refer to different ideas, this is pointed out (this is also very common even in technical fields!)
- Considers all or many permutations of ideas (see permutation trick for a similar idea) -- actually it's more like sometimes when people write, they will implicitly establish a "table" with columns for attributes and rows for examples, and then they will fill in some of the cells but not others; example where this doesn't happen: https://github.com/riceissa/project-ideas/issues/18
- Alternates between concrete and abstract
- Actually gives a precise/technical/gears-level/mechanistic model for the reader to tinker with
- Each time you use a phrase, make sure the reader knows what the phrase means (this often turns into a problem when you use a vague phrase that could mean many things, or you use some really abstract-sounding phrase where the reader has no idea which concrete things it connects to; it's similar to vaguebooking)
- Structured as discovery fiction
- Opens with the motivation for studying the topic, the "so what"
- Gives motivation for steps throughout
- Doesn't just give the crucial insight, but also the general heuristic one would use to discover such insights
- Mentions obvious but failed approaches to the topic/things that don't work
