![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am starting to suspect I am actually pretty skilled in writing in a way that is -- um. Let's just say, a way by which I mean the application of technical jargon -- as well as language that could potentially be seen as obsfucating, primarily for the use of a substantial number of complex words in lieu of a lesser number of simplistic ones -- to the paradigm of writing in support of making the implicit (as well as explicit) argument that one possesses a fundamental understanding of various theoretical works which are written in a similar manner. This is for the reason that the audience for the writing in question wishes to access the methodologies of said works in situations in which the theories may or may not actually be relevant, if indeed (for in the absence of prescriptive sensibilities or quantitative studies in the works in question, it is not unambiguous) these methodologies at all add substantially to what we might think of as a simple human decision-making process. If you see what I mean.
On the other side... Rereading The Checklist Manifesto recently, I came across this quotation:
"Here are the details of one of the sharpest checklists I've seen, a checklist for engine failure during flight in a single-engine Cessna airplane... It is slimmed down to six key steps... But step one on the list is the most fascinating. It is simply: FLY THE AIRPLANE."
On the other side... Rereading The Checklist Manifesto recently, I came across this quotation:
"Here are the details of one of the sharpest checklists I've seen, a checklist for engine failure during flight in a single-engine Cessna airplane... It is slimmed down to six key steps... But step one on the list is the most fascinating. It is simply: FLY THE AIRPLANE."
