Yapping and White papers

I’ve often been called out for yapping, been called a yapper, or been told I speak yapanese - these are synonymous with the idea that I can’t shut up. From this, I’ve caught myself talking for prolong periods of time, possibly making a roundabout argument / case that isn’t clear cut and thus misleading. To work on this, I wanted to take inspiration from Nash’s thesis, known to be the one of the most short but influential pieces of writing ever, and learn how to present myself with more clarity and conciseness. As such, I wanted to read other works that get the point across in an efficient manner.

I thus looked towards white papers, concise essays that oftentimes aim to persuade the audience about some cause. Unfortunately, searching up “most influential white papers” leads to websites that praise various papers which are five billion pages long. Respectfully, I’m not reading all that.

So, here I compiled four white papers that have great presentation and prose:

They mention topics significantly impactful in nature, but I’m not here to talk about that matter (for that I refer the reader to find various literature to learn about the topics at hand). Instead, referring back to my original motive, I just want to highlight behaviors I found exhibited within all white papers that push the authors’ arguments forward with great conciseness. Looking back, these points seem obvious, but it seems that I’ve forgotten their significance over time.

1. Confidence (Churchill)

Regardless of whether any of Churchill’s claims made in his white paper were respected from the perspective of the 21st century, the actual purpose of that document was to instill confidence within diplomacy and his majesty’s power. Churchill’s consistency in referring back to the leadership within the country and its clearcut goals w.r.t maintaining peace on all sides of Israel-Palestine perhaps acted to rally and unite the voices within Britain and the rest of the world. Cutting through all the doubt surrounding this conflict, Churchill’s prose developed a narrative of unwavering confidence within the government in achieving these goals.

2. Pathos (Palantir)

I guess this is something I’ve not considered enough - the human heart. When I think about mentioning applications of domains or the benefits of algorithms, I usually mention the logical, high-level pros / cons, e.g. algorithm A saves the government 10 quadrillion dollars. That’s great and all but arguments seem stronger when there’s a direct emotional connection to the reader, and most readers are not working directly with the government. A simple rephrasing maintains truth but packs more punch: algorithm A saves the common taxpayer 10k dollars each year. Now listening to that makes me want to invest in said algorithm (point 11, page 15). Furthermore, talks about “the glory days” also help to build some idea of a catharsis and a longing for some return to the reader’s (and society’s) peak (page 7).

3. Bluntness (Bitcoin)

One criticism scientific writing often receives is the proliferation of bespoke lexicon that enkindles abashment among the assemblage (I’m being satirical here); why use unnecessarily difficult words or add meaningless filler? There’s no need for adding analogies to sentences that are already clear. Such additions give more chances to accidentally misdirect the reader, in addition to wasting time. The Bitcoin white paper uses zero analogies and gets straight to the point. The reader will come to better understand the brilliance behind the idea as the chronological layout of the paper helps push the narrative forward. Every sentence builds upon the next; there is no need to be apologetic or rely on awkward segways like Family Guy.

4. Tomorrow? (Turing)

After explaining our point, we can’t just leave it there. Importantly, connecting the present to the future is necessary. We should mention the applications and achievements yes, but we must also point out our uncertainties. Being fully transparent of what we do and do not know helps ground our perspective with the real world and build reputability. White papers that have missed this step illustrate narratives that seem exaggerated or narcissitic. Turing points out all the things he does not know about machines and how society will progress together in advancing the machine. His ability to take a step back and view the entire picture enables him to confidently predict what will happen 50 years after his work, and looking at his thoughts come to fruition now proves his brilliance (last page).

tldr

These white papers are very influential. The subject matter is significant, of course, but the matter to which the authors write is crucial in clearly bridging the concept to the audience. Conciseness is key, and building rapport with efficiency requires confidence, pathos, bluntness, and (talking about) tomorrow.