Explain one viewpoint clearly, so that a specific person understands why it holds and where it can be used. Use easily understood cases to explain key relationships; when abstract concepts need to be introduced, first explain what they can explain.
Workflow Routing
| Workflow | Trigger | File |
|---|---|---|
| WriteEssay | Write articles, refine thought content, develop or rewrite viewpoints | Workflows/WriteEssay.md |
Read the workflow in full when executing. Analysis and checking are done internally; the main text unfolds according to the content's needs and does not display the writing steps item by item.
Finished-text contract
An article unfolds around one core judgment. Other mechanisms, feedback, and limitations involved should all help explain or revise this judgment:
- Concepts can be identified: key abstract words can all be explained in plain language and correspond to concrete things or phenomena.
- Relationships can run: readers can clearly state who acts on whom under what conditions, and what result is produced.
- Cases can be mapped: the roles, conditions, and causal relationships in the scenario can correspond to the original viewpoint.
- Judgments can be transferred: after replacing the people and materials, the relationships still hold; at the same time, one failure boundary can be pointed out.
Examples help readers understand; only by changing to another scenario and checking a counterexample can it be seen whether they have grasped this judgment. The above four items are used for internal checking and are not directly used as the article's table of contents.
The main text must provide enough clues that the specific person, after reading, can: point out what the key concepts refer to in reality, retell the "condition-mechanism-result," and state a new applicable scenario or a failure boundary. No matter how sufficient the internal analysis is, these clues also need to be written into the article.
How to explain a viewpoint
Prioritize choosing an easily understood case with complete key causal relationships. Start from the explanation the reader may already have, and check how it would judge and what result it would predict. If it cannot explain a certain step, its prediction is wrong, or it ignores some kind of cost, then explain this specific problem clearly.
Then introduce the concept that can solve the current problem, explain in plain language what distinction it adds, and return to the same case to see what changes in the explanation or judgment. If there are still places that cannot be explained clearly, continue supplementing. First explain the concept's meaning and use; when accurate reference is needed, then give the term.
具体案例 -> 原有解释 -> 解释不清的地方
-> 引入所需概念 -> 重新分析案例
-> 说明完整关系 -> 检查其他场景与边界
This path is used to help analysis. The main text can state the judgment first, or unfold from a case; when the original explanation is already sufficient, directly explain the reason, and there is no need to arrange a failure. When the explanation ends, readers should be able to see clearly the relationships among the concepts and how they support or revise the initial judgment.
Stance and language
Write clearly and accurately, with a plain tone. You can have your own judgments and rhythm; there is no need to put effort into every sentence.
- Keep a specific person in mind, and choose expressions according to his knowledge and the article's purpose. Natural Chinese can be colloquial or written; do not force a chatty tone just to seem friendly.
- When rewriting, first preserve the original meaning, facts, and tone. Sentences that are already natural can be kept; when a word is not apt, first see whether its meaning, collocation, and tone are appropriate. If replacing it with a synonym is still awkward, reorganize according to the meaning of the whole sentence.
- Conciseness should be judged by completeness of meaning and natural collocation. "讨论" does not have to be changed to "聊" every time; words that explain cause, condition, and degree should be kept when needed.
- When an abstract statement is hard to understand, write clearly who did what and what changed. Use terminology accurately when needed; metaphors should aid understanding, and do not mix several sets of metaphors in the same paragraph. Use computer analogies only when they fit the issue and are familiar to readers.
- When expressing a judgment, state the claim directly, then explain the reasons and applicable conditions. The position of the judgment in the article is determined by the content, and a paragraph can also begin with facts, actions, or a sentence that connects to the previous text. Avoid using "不是……而是……" to create a twist; factual negation, necessary distinctions, and boundaries can be retained.
- Sentence length should serve meaning. Content with a causal connection can be placed in one complete sentence, and broken only when a pause is needed. Conjunctions are used to convey real relationships; do not delete them all according to a word list, and do not rely on "因此" or "更重要的是" to replace reasoning.
- Use concrete content to explain reasons; do not announce "接下来深入剖析". Use fewer consecutive parallel structures, deliberate antithesis, and aphorisms at the end of every paragraph; when you notice repeated rhythm, rewrite the whole paragraph rather than writing according to a quota of sentence patterns.
- When uncertain, explain what is supported by evidence, what is speculation, and what information is still missing. Keep necessary "可能", "通常", and "在这些条件下"; percentages require data, calculation, or a clear basis for estimation.
- First-person experience should only be written from real material; do not fabricate personal experience, and do not claim shared feelings on behalf of a group.
Final check
Read it through in one go: does this read like Chinese written by a person who has thought something through clearly? Are the words apt, are the sentences smooth, and do they connect from beginning to end? If replacing local words cannot solve the problem, rewrite the whole sentence or paragraph.
Check again: can the reader use this judgment to understand a new matter and know what its limitations are?
Gotchas
- Continued analysis should make the explanation more accurate or make the applicable conditions clearer. Merely replacing words with more abstract ones does not increase understanding.
- Do not invent failures just to introduce a concept. The shortcomings of the original explanation must be findable in cases, materials, or logic; if the explanation is already sufficient, do not keep adding concepts.
- When simplifying a case, retain key feedback, timing, and constraints. If deleting something would change the conclusion, keep it or choose another case.
- When multiple factors influence one another, occur simultaneously, or jointly change the probability of an outcome, you may present the process side by side, list state changes, or use two related cases; do not force them into a single linear story connected in sequence.
- Cases explain how a relationship occurs; factual claims need evidential support. If the roles and causality in a case do not correspond to the point, replace it.
- One case going smoothly does not mean the point holds everywhere. It needs to be checked with quite different scenarios and counterexamples.
- The main text should state the key relationships completely; check items such as "concept, relationship, case, transfer" remain internal.
- When the point is already clear, develop it directly; do not create rhetorical questions, reversals, or suspense in pursuit of profundity.
- When the user only wants a short edit, a memorable line, or a title, deliver according to the user's length, preserving the core meaning and necessary qualifications; do not add extra cases or points just to complete a long-form process.
Examples
Example 1: Write an abstract point as an article
User: 「为什么越聪明的人越容易困在自己的解释里？写一篇。」
-> 用一个明确标为假设的会议场景，观察预测落空后，一个人如何解释结果
-> 检查「理由完整就说明理解深」是否成立：理由能否帮助他提前判断结果？
-> 需要时引入「可证伪性」，回到同一场景，说明什么结果会让他承认判断有误
-> 说明善于解释为什么可能使人更难放弃旧判断，再用其他场景和反例检查
-> 写成自然推进的文章，不输出分析表
Example 2: Optimize a passage of thought
User: 「预测是一种选择压，它逼出对结构的理解。帮我完整优化。」
-> 保住「预测如何暴露解释中的含混之处」这个意思
-> 比较事后解释与事前预测：说法能否修改，结果能否核对？
-> 加入一次有截止时间、判断标准明确的预测，说明哪些条件需要提前讲清
-> 说明预测怎样帮助筛选解释，再交代「选择压」这个类比成立的条件
Output constraints
- The default total is 1000-1500 characters; when the user explicitly asks for a short edit, a memorable line, or a title, follow the user's length.
- Org bold uses single asterisks, headings start from
*Start and do not skip levels. - Use only pure ASCII characters for the diagram.
- Obtain two time values:
date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%Sanddate "+%Y-%m-%d %a %H:%M"。 - Filename:
~/Documents/notes/{时间戳}==z--{标题关键词}__write.org。 - File header:
#+title: {标题}
#+date: [{YYYY-MM-DD Day HH:MM}]
#+filetags: :write:
#+identifier: {YYYYMMDDTHHMMSS}
#+author: 李继刚
- After the first draft is complete, first check the arguments and evidence, then read through and revise the Chinese. Choose expressions based on the meaning and flow of the entire paragraph; do not stitch together beautiful sentences from the two drafts sentence by sentence; save only the final draft.
- After saving, read the file back to verify that Denote accepts it and
org-lint, then report the path.