Long answers vs. short answers

[Smiling_Stray]

Heyo! So I'm not sure if anyone's noticed here, but I have a tendency to give some pretty long answers to questions here on the forums XD while I've noticed others give brief answers that do the trick. I get where this comes from (not making long-winded texts) but I just find this stuff absolutely fascinating (I'm a bit of pickup nerd) and can't help but explaining why certain things work and others don't, other times I like to show how I know what I know (what article or how I came across whatever technique). But to contrast, short answers that are to the point save time and just get right to answering the question.

What do you guys think? Do you prefer to include more in your post (a little more like me) or do ya keep it short here (like texting)? And more so, do ya prefer the more in depth answers (explanation and everything) or sort and to the point (Just do XYZ, or a single sentence, ect.) when checkin your posts for a reply? Just to be clear, I think both answers work and have no problem with either one but I'm wondering about the majorities preference or if there's a reason for shorter answers, I might try to break this habit (Like how I'm try to do with a few other things in life right now) but I'm curious to see what you guys think.

 

[Fuck This]

Brevity.

From "A River Runs Through it" (1992) "My father, being a Scot, believed the art of writing lay in thrift. "Make it half as long', he'd say, [knowing that over-writing is not good writing]"”

 

[Chase]

Brevity.

Indeed. Concision is a vital, powerful quality.

A lot of work goes into being concise. You need to be able to distill a message to its essence.

In editing writing, for instance, Stephen King's "first draft = second draft - 10%" rule makes a huge difference in how fast-paced a piece of writing is. That 10% removed really tightens things up.

In speaking and writing, short, simple sentences are often best. They're easy to process, and the message sticks better.

Sometimes you do need longer stuff though. Especially if you are explaining something to someone who isn't necessarily thinking how you're thinking.

e.g., if some guy thinks the best way to get that cute girl from school is to become her friend and let her cry on his shoulder, and you leave him some concise remark, like, "Dude. Don't get used while she runs around with other guys. Just ask her out. And move on if she says no," unless he is already predisposed to see you as an authority / listen to your advice, or on the cusp of the realization himself, he will just dismiss it: "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. This girl is special." Whereas a more thoughtful reply that paces his reality and makes points to him gradually may get through.

Also need to be careful with matching message response to the length of the message you respond to.

If someone asks a one-sentence question, and you go into a 10-paragraph response, unless it's some kind of interview where that's appropriate, you can come off as way too verbose. On the other hand, if someone asks a 10-paragraph question, and you reply with a one-line answer, you risk coming across as if you don't care and are being dismissive.

So, yes. Shorter is good, much of the time.

When you are trying to change minds more than make points, however, you often need longer. When you are trying to pace realities, you need longer. When responding to someone who's just thrown a lot of content at you, you will often need longer.

Also, when you're covering lots of different scenarios (like in this response), you will necessarily be longer.

I could've said "Use short when you want to make a concise point. Use long when you have more explaining to do", but there's a lot less useful stuff in that response than in the one I wrote here, and a lot less information I could convey would be conveyed.

Thus, depends a lot on what your objective is.

Chase