I do know as a Stacker that sometimes it gets damned hard to keep important articles and information from becoming really long pieces without losing pertinent information.
Thanks for the comment, Lance. And you’re right about something that’s worth saying plainly.
What often gets called “lengthy” today is really just context. Most people are now conditioned to consume information in short emotional bursts rather than complete explanatory structures. Misinformation doesn’t win because it is sophisticated. It wins because it is brief, emotionally charged, and requires no pause to inspect.
Reality does not compress cleanly into 400 words.
This piece is written to slow the reader down long enough for the emotional mind to stop leading and for the reflective mind to re-engage. That pause, looking first and thinking after, is exactly what modern information systems have trained people out of.
False narratives work because they are compact, vivid, and emotionally complete. Explaining how they form, how they embed biologically, and why they persist after correction inevitably takes space. Cutting that down would simply recreate the same compression that causes the problem in the first place.
I appreciate the engagement, and I’m genuinely interested in how others experience this trade-off between depth and attention. Where do you think the balance should sit when the subject itself is about how people are fooled by brevity? Thanks Lance, there's a lot more distance to cover in all my writing, bring lunch. kindest, adam.
A bit lengthy, but accurate!
I do know as a Stacker that sometimes it gets damned hard to keep important articles and information from becoming really long pieces without losing pertinent information.
Thanks for the comment, Lance. And you’re right about something that’s worth saying plainly.
What often gets called “lengthy” today is really just context. Most people are now conditioned to consume information in short emotional bursts rather than complete explanatory structures. Misinformation doesn’t win because it is sophisticated. It wins because it is brief, emotionally charged, and requires no pause to inspect.
Reality does not compress cleanly into 400 words.
This piece is written to slow the reader down long enough for the emotional mind to stop leading and for the reflective mind to re-engage. That pause, looking first and thinking after, is exactly what modern information systems have trained people out of.
False narratives work because they are compact, vivid, and emotionally complete. Explaining how they form, how they embed biologically, and why they persist after correction inevitably takes space. Cutting that down would simply recreate the same compression that causes the problem in the first place.
I appreciate the engagement, and I’m genuinely interested in how others experience this trade-off between depth and attention. Where do you think the balance should sit when the subject itself is about how people are fooled by brevity? Thanks Lance, there's a lot more distance to cover in all my writing, bring lunch. kindest, adam.