Writing and Intellect

I initially discovered and acknowledged this idea while reading Evolutionary Psychology - A Beginner's Guide by Robin Dunbar, et al. It is a profound insight, and sheds a great deal of light on why writing is so hard, and why people are generally disinclined to write about an issue rather; they find it easier to talk about it.

In essence, writing requires a far greater degree of consideration of others, and how the words will be perceived and interpreted, than speaking, which is usually spontaneous and can bear a quick correction if there be a mistaken impression.

This idea is not central to the whole book. The book is actually about various aspects of our brain and our mind, and while talking about the development of intentionality in children, the authors touch upon writing. Fictional writing, according to the writers, is a hugely demanding task since in addition to calculating how the reader will perceive the writing, now there are various intentional characters in the writing itself who have to respond to each other (within the fiction), and who have to be understood by the reader.

Writing intended for the public needs to stand on its merits for many months and years. If the writing be self-serving (e.g. a journal, or a diary) it is generally not that good (though it can serve a therapeutic and clarifying purpose). When one writes for the general public, one has to gauge their comprehension abilities, their understanding of certain concepts and cultural artifacts. When one is trying to write for a broad audience, the effort is likewise harder and the writing has to be even more self-sufficient, without a cultural bias.

The skill in writing is therefore directly linked with an intelligence which can gauge others' objections in one's intellect and preempt them while writing. It is therefore directly linked with a sophisticated apparatus for estimating how humans perceive other humans and their words. It is not for nothing that great dialogues require the greatest minds. Plato's dialogues, the written dialogues of Leibniz with Clarke, and in general, the tradition of written debate requires a degree of intelligence which is not all that common. Most of us want to say our piece and quit the scene.

I find the written tradition and the tradition for dialogue much more evolved, advanced and sophisticated in the west, whereas in India (and other Asian countries), the oral tradition and authoritarian writing (brooking no dialogue) is more common.

What do you think?