When a claim is shown to be incorrect, defenders may say that the author was just being “sloppy” and actually meant something else entirely. I argue that this move is not harmless, charitable, or healthy. At best, this attempt at charity reduces an author's incentive to express themselves clearly – they can clarify later![1] – while burdening the reader with finding the “right” interpretation of the author's words. At worst, this move is a dishonest defensive tactic which shields the author with the unfalsifiable question of what the author “really” meant.
⚠️ Preemptive clarification
The context for this essay is serious, high-stakes communication: papers, technical blog posts, and tweet threads. In that context, communication is a partnership. A reader has a responsibility to engage in good faith, and an author cannot possibly defend against all misinterpretations. Misunderstanding is a natural part of this process.
This essay focuses not on [...]
---
Outline:(01:40) A case study of the sloppy language move
(03:12) Why the sloppiness move is harmful
(03:36) 1. Unclear claims damage understanding
(05:07) 2. Secret indirection erodes the meaning of language
(05:24) 3. Authors owe readers clarity
(07:30) But which interpretations are plausible?
(08:38) 4. The move can shield dishonesty
(09:06) Conclusion: Defending intellectual standards
The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. ---
First published: July 1st, 2025
Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZmfxgvtJgcfNCeHwN/authors-have-a-responsibility-to-communicate-clearly ---
Narrated by
TYPE III AUDIO.
