The possibility always exists. I am not assuming it will happen. That is only determined should there be reason given.



Now I understand what grounds your thinking here. How could you possibly conclude that a piece of unread material reflects anything at all?

One does not have to read the actual written material in question in order to logically answer your initial question below.

"Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?"

This is why a reader is not required. I can logically conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks. Even if they are ambiguous and vague in their writing style, and even it they are writing pure fiction.

The reason is that all that is written comes from the authors mind and the authors thoughts. Much as said author might think s/he can write without revealing how s/he thinks, s/he is mistaken.

All that is written, unless the author is stealing material from another author, comes FROM THAT AUTHORS OWN MIND.

The author has probably read it. But are you suggesting that if there is no observer, then it does not exist?

Without reading a piece of writing it is safe to conclude that it reflects the writer's thoughts simply because the writer must think in order to write?

Does that not presuppose way too much?

No not at all. Unless the author is stealing material from someone else. As I said above, everything the author writes comes from his mind and his or her THOUGHTS.


An exception might be completely technical writing or narrative writing. But most technical writers don't sign their work as "authors."

Exceptions would also include a writer's wrongful use of unfamiliar terminology, a writer's inability to put their thoughts into words, a purposeful attempt at entertaining foreign concepts, playing the devil's advocate, etc.

Know whatta mean?

You wish.

I wish what?

Well its been fun, gotta go to bed now.

C-ya!

Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?







yes.

"A safe bet" has a completely different connotation, to me, than simply "safe". So didn't really understand the original question. So with the new meaning, I would say that the safety of the bet would be directly proportional to how wll the reader knew the writer.

But who is to judge over-confident assumptions? The writer? That would require the writer to know of the reader, in which case you simply have the exact same situation in reverse.

And it doesn’t make sense for the judge to be the reader. He can only judge his own experience based on his own experience.

No, these are NOT exceptions. Sorry. Perhaps you wish they were.


The "wrongful" use of unfamiliar words would reflect that the writer did not have a very good education or vocabulary, and for some reason is not using a dictionary in this case. Or it might reflect that s/he is being humorous.

A writer's inability to put their thoughts into words... then there would be no written words at all. Or if there were, they would probably be meaningless anyway.

A writers Purposeful attempt at entertaining foreign concepts: (?) -- I am not sure what this might refer too.

Playing the devil's advocate: Whatever that means to you, if you think people cannot get an idea about how the writer thinks or have an opinion about the writer's agenda or thinking you are mistaken.

Of course the more dishonest, ambiguous, and vague a writer is, the more he is apt to be misjudged by a given reader.

A writer CAN make it difficult for readers to form accurate opinions about him or her, or about the meaning of what he writes, and if this is the case, at no time does the writer have the right to complain that a reader has formed a 'wrong opinion.'

So the writer should take responsibility for the content of his words and strive to be clear, concise and honest if he wants to be understood.

Being 'shifty, vague, ambiguous invites assumptions and misinterpretations. I have told you this before but you just don't seem to get it.

It seems like those who did answer your question said "YES."

well i can assure you that straw man never works



but all you did was tell him what YOU think constitutes a true injustice. you still don't know what HE thinks. and then you used YOUR thought on what constitutes a true injustice to continue the debate on the primise that that is what HE thinks constitutes a true injustic. which may or may not be accurate. so you've learned nothing about how he thinks.



straw man doesnt make sense i agree. and you are being quite clear about YOUR thinking. but you began this part of the debate by trying to understand HIS thinking. i'm just saying that you cannot accomplish that if you interpret HIS words that you may not understand with YOUR own wording no matter how clear your wording is. asking for clarification makes sense but for YOU to provide the clarification is not him clarifying what you don't understand and makes no sense at all especially when continue the argument without his confirmation that your clarification is accurate. that's straw man arguing at it's worse and yes, i agree it makes no sense.

There were only two choices as to what he meant by the "true injustice" according to what HE wrote, so I did not need clarification. It had to be one or the other. I was simply asking him which one did he mean.

You say "straw man" never works. I don't know what you are talking about. All he would have to do is answer my question. Which (of the two choices) does he mean? Then, if he answers that question, I can proceed to ask him WHY he thinks that is an injustice.

The only reason I tell a person what I think he said is to hopefully allow him to understand where I am in the communication. If I can't understand him, perhaps he can understand me. Its better than nothing.

Anyway, the question has been asked and answered in the affirmative, and not just by me. I clearly stated my logical reasons for my answer.

Therefore, the subject is closed as far as I am concerned.

JB wrote...



And if this description of 'being shifty, vague, ambiguous' is a misinterpretation in and of itself?




Sky...



Not exactly...

The holder of the thoughts is the only one who can judge overconfidence of another's claim regarding those thoughts. This would be done through repeated written conversation. The writer, in this case, would not need to know the reader in order to know the correctness of the reader's opinion regarding the writer's thoughts. All s/he would need is those expressed opinions and his/her own thoughts.

JB...



I would not call it logical to hold an opinion that states it is possible to draw a conclusion about a piece of writing without reading it.

I do see your point, even if I do not believe it to be very well made. On a whole, I believe that a writer's words do reflect their thoughts in some way or another. However, I would not agree that it is always safe to conclude exactly what those thoughts are just because of this. Although it is often done.

So I would concede to the idea that a writer's words are a reflection of their thoughts in some way, shape, or form.

Yes is the answer that I would give as well, but it would need to be read in order to be able to make that conclusion. It does not follow that the reader necessarily can know exactly what those thoughts may be, only that the writing reflects them.

What means do we use in order to determine the source of the reflection?

i'm not trying to convince you of anything jb. if you want to know what i'm talking about when i say straw man argument you might want to google it. all that matters to you is what you think of how you debate. what i say shouldn't matter. if you want to know what staw man means it's there for you to learn. once you understand what it means then you can decide if avoiding it as i try to do is right for you.

The opinion is not about a particular piece of writing. It is about whether or not it is safe to say (conclude) that what an author writes is a reflection of how the author thinks.

This is a general (generic) statement and of course it will not be true 100% of the time. Percentage wise, however, I think it is 'safe' to say that it is.




Now that you have added "always" and "exactly" to the equation I would have to agree. (.."always safe to conclude"... means 100%) Nothing is "always" safe to conclude. "Exactly" is also an absolute.




The writing would only have to be read to actually analyse or interpret the thoughts of the writer. And yes, the reader cannot know the thoughts of the writer. He may get some general idea of HOW THE WRITER THINKS if he reads it.

But the writing itself would not have to be read in order to answer your initial generic question.

And of course I agree that the reader can never know EXACTLY what those thoughts may be. ("ALWAYS AND EXACTLY" are absolute terms I would usually avoid using those terms in any conclusion.



I don't understand the question. Please clarify.