Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey

Some thoughts on effective writing. I am thinking about entering Legal Priorities Project's competition, and it got me thinking about how to write. Most of the analysis here actually DOES NOT apply to this competition, unless 1) you are a busy professional doing highly impactful work already, 2) you make a lot of money and expect to have more impact that way, or 3) some combo of the above. But it does apply to your daily work if you write frequently in any capacity, and it applies to people in my situation debating whether to enter the competition. 

TLDR: In most day to day work, you should not edit. You should edit more important work, in proportion to how much more important it is, starting with a second draft for work 5x as important as your ordinary day to day work. 

Most of my job consists of writing. Despite the insistence of every "expert" to the contrary, I have always been pretty averse to editing my writing. Why? Because I have this vague feeling of "I already did this once; why am I wasting time doing it again instead of doing something new." But I realized today, for the first time, that I can actually quantify this! Just need to make some simplifying assumptions. 

1. Pareto principle. You get 80% of results from 20% of effort. This doesn't always apply, but it pretty frequently does, and I don't have any reason to believe it would be inapplicable to writing. The work seems to fit the general pattern of diminishing marginal returns that any economist would warn you about, and Pareto is just a nice back of the envelope way to estimate many instances of the general pattern. 

2. Ok then you have to explain what 100% of the effort would be. So I make the simplifying assumption that you could write 5 drafts of one project, and that this would be the "standard", =100% output for that project. 

3. Each draft takes equal effort to the last. Which may be more or less true depending on your work style, so adjust accordingly. 

4. All of your typical projects have about the same marginal value. If you are highly effective at prioritizing, this will not be true, and you should make appropriate adjustments to my numbers.

5. Your work time can be fully occupied by doing new work instead of revising old work if you choose to set your priorities that way. 

Implications: one draft is 80% as good as five drafts. 

Further implications: writing 5 "first draft"-quality documents is 80%*5=400% as good as writing one fully polished 5th draft. 

So: write more, edit less.

When should you deviate from this? When the work is more important than your normal daily work. Applying 80-20 rule again. First draft=80% of total possible value of the project. Second draft=16% of total possible value. If a project is 5x as valuable as your typical daily work, then extracting that 16% is as good as getting 80% out of a standard new project, so doing the second draft is equal to doing a first draft of something new. At that rate, you might as well do the second draft. But the third draft only gets you 3.2% of the 5x project, or 16% of the 1x project. So you should only edit once. But for a 25x project, that third draft is suddenly worthwhile, because 3.2% of 25 =80% of 1. And so on. 

So it turns out my anti-editing intuition is correct for day to day work, and needs some tweaking for more important projects. 

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This really depends on the context. An email trying to communicate something that is very specific to the time and context? --> don't spend too much time making it perfect.

If this is something many people will read, something that is going to contribute to your thinking and others' thinking, part of a larger project, part of an intellectual project... then editing may be extremely important because ...

  • There is so much writing out there, much too much to read
  • Only the small nib that makes an improvement over previous work in some area actually contributes to the discussion and knowledge base
  • Your only hope of being in the latter category is to be extremely clear. Otherwise ~0 chance.

OK, so maybe the individual piece you are working on has ~0 chance of being in the latter category anyways, so why edit it?

  • If the chance is close to zero it is still not zero; and something with an 0.2% chance is twice as valuable as something with an 0.1% chance
  • By improving it you may return to it later, build it into your later work, and ultimately consolidate it into something that makes the 'superstar' category

(See the discussion of 'Superstars' and Power/Pareto distributions in Economics)

I think this response is fully accounted for by adjusting editing time based on the importance of the work, as stated in the post. 

If it's only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it's probably not something you should write at all. Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft. 

I think this response is fully accounted for by adjusting editing time based on the importance of the work, as stated in the post.

Yes, I did read this, but it's just maybe a matter of different emphasis. I tend to think that more stuff people are working on is important enough to merit careful writing.

If it's only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it's probably not something you should write at all. Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft.

I agree that you shouldn't work on things that aren't important, of course, and I think maybe people are 'writing about too much stuff and writing too much'.

But I might disagree with

If it's only ~as important as your normal daily work, and you have to do 5 drafts to make it better than existing work on the topic, it's probably not something you should write at all.

I assume most EAs normal daily work is important. And I think that in the case that it is important, 5 drafts to make it 'better than existing work' may indeed be worth doing.

Do something that will make a unique contribution on the first draft.

I agree with 'do something important', but I think there are many, perhaps most, important areas in which at least enough has been written that 'just a first draft' will not make an important, unique contribution. Highlighting contribution because it may be unique, but if it is not well-communicated and rigorous it may not actually add anything.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > Why ending the worst abuses of factory farming is an issue ripe for moral reform I recently joined Dwarkesh Patel’s podcast to discuss factory farming. I hope you’ll give it a listen — and consider supporting his fundraiser for FarmKind’s Impact Fund. (Dwarkesh is matching all donations up to $250K; use the code “dwarkesh”.) We discuss two contradictory views about factory farming that produce the same conclusion: that its end is either inevitable or impossible. Some techno-optimists assume factory farming will vanish in the wake of AGI. Some pessimists see reforming it as a hopeless cause. Both camps arrive at the same conclusion: fatalism. If factory farming is destined to end, or persist, then what’s the point in fighting it? I think both views are wrong. In fact, I think factory farming sits in the ideal position for moral reform. Because its end is neither inevitable nor impossible, it offers a unique opportunity for advocacy to change the trajectory of human moral progress. Not inevitable Dwarkesh raised an objection to working on factory farming that I often hear from techno-optimists who care about the issue: isn’t its end inevitable? Some cite the long arc of moral progress; others the promise of vast technological change like cultivated meat or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) which surpasses human capabilities. It’s true that humanity has achieved incredible moral progress for humans. But that progress was never inevitable — it was the result of moral and political reform as much as technology. And that moral progress mostly hasn’t yet extended to animals. For them, the long moral arc of history has so far only bent downward. Technology may one day end factory farming, just as cars liberated w
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We’re already in the second half of 2025 and there are still an incredible number of EAGx and Summit events coming up, as well as the first ever EA Global: New York City. We’re so excited to continue watching the EA community connect and grow.  Below is our conference schedule for the rest of the year. We’re supporting the first EAGx in Brazil, and inaugural EA conferences in France, Vietnam, New Zealand, and Turkey. We hope to reach more people than ever before. Please spread the word, especially for events happening near you!  We are also eager to initiate new events; if you’d like to apply to run an EAGx or Summit in 2026, please fill out this form! Apply to run an EAGx or EA Summit in 2026 Upcoming EA conferences EA Global * EA Global: New York City (10–12 Oct) | Applications close September 28—apply now! EAGx * EAGxSãoPaulo (22–24 Aug) | Applications just extended until August 18—apply now! * EAGxBerlin (3–5 Oct) | Applications close September 7 * EAGxSingapore (15–16 Nov) Applications close October 20 * EAGxAustralasia (28–30 Nov) | Applications close November 9 * EAGxAmsterdam (12–14 Dec) | Applications close November 23 * EAGxIndia (13–14 Dec) | Applications close November 30 EA Summits * EA Summit: Paris (13 Sep 2025) | Applications close September 9 * EA Summit: Vancouver (19–20 Sep) | Applications close September 15 * EA Summit: Vietnam (20 Sep) | Applications close September 12 * EA Summit: Philippines (27 Sep) | Applications close August 20 * EA Summit: New Zealand (27 Sep) | Applications close September 12 * EA Summit: South Africa (11 Oct) | Applications close October 4 * EA Summit: Istanbul (18 Oct) | Applications close October 18 Tentative events that have not yet been confirmed:  * EA Summit: Bogota (Nov) * EA Summit: Los Angeles (22 Nov) What is the difference between EA Global, EAGx, and EA Summits? * EA Global (EAG) conferences are for people with a firm grasp of EA principles who are taking, or planning to take,