Weinberg always seeks to move writing forward, and keeps a list of things to do depending on his energy level and state of mind. If he feels high in spirit, he might develop fieldstones into new sections. If he feels drained, he might reword a section that needs fine-tuning or perhaps take a break.

Weinberg’s technique seems to produce a volume of writing: he has published over forty books and numerous articles and other writings.

When reading through his description of the Fieldstone Method, I was struck by the similarity to my own writing technique. I tend to collect insights, thoughts, quotes, and articles that I find interesting and repurpose them in later work. I call these nuggets instead of fieldstones, but the concept is generally the same. They are raw materials for writing, things that strike me as useful but need explication. Typically when I write for other people I use these as a basis and then expand upon that until it likely makes sense for my audience. Parsimony and unambiguity are criteria to consider, with preference for the former for blogging (long posts don’t get read.)

This method significantly increases work in progress. My current blog draft count is half that of my published posts. Many of these are just plain nuggets, like a hyperlink or a sentence. Some have a few quick arguments or thoughts. A few are probably politically unpublishable. Still others are nearly done or completed. Hence, I need to strike a balance between writing what I feel energetic about and finishing articles that I have worked on. Weinberg recommends not writing about things that you are not interested in. This is different from sharing things that you have already learned and believe that others will be interested in.

I think the real power here comes because subconscious creative juices are not consistent. I only get one morning shower per day where inspiration hits. The key seems to be writing down nuggets whenever they strike, and then consistently fleshing them out afterwards. Keeping a journal or log of thoughts helps.

This method also works well with limited time constraints. If you have an hour a day to write or you commit to one hundred words, it’s nice to be able to write about something that interests you that day. Longer periods of time might be necessary for harder sections or cleaning up tough spots.

I found these quotes helpful:

The stone itself is not the key to effective writing. The key to effective writing is the human emotional response to the stone. As a writer, if I respond to a particular stone with tears of joy or sadness, I know that others will, too.

If I don’t respond, my readers probably won’t either. That’s the secret of the Fieldstone Method: Always be guided by emotional responses, or, as Fieldstone writers say, by the energy–the heat that coal provides when it burns inside of you.

I’ll have more to write about energy in the near future. For now, finishing this post.

The most important book you’ll ever have for your writing is the blank book, or the scrap of paper, or the card, or some modern electronic capture device that you have ready for writing down this reference.

Always be ready to capture. Inspiration strikes at strange times. You will forget insights that you have if you don’t immediately write them down. In the field, I email myself and star it for adding later to a permanent file.

Original article: Fieldstone Method of Writing

Every day for a week, write down the following snippet and answer it ten times:

Something I really want out of life is…

It seemed interesting, and I like it when things are spread out over a period of time so that you can see yourself in different ways. So I did this off and on for a few weeks. I expected that depending on the time of the day and my mood that this would fluctuate quite a bit, but I was surprised to see some recurring themes and a strong direction.

One of the things that struck me was “Something I really want out of life is to have meaningful conversations”. I put this down a few times, but I never really defined “meaningful conversation.” Perhaps I knew what I meant, but perhaps I didn’t and was just being vague. So I thought about it for a bit.

Meaningful conversations are one of the most desirable events that I can think of. If I knew that I would have a great conversation but I had to miss something else to have it, there are few things that I would rather do with that time. Of course, this rarely happens in practice because there is a certain degree of spontaneity, it just so happens that two people are walking along similar paths in life, considering the same problems or running into the same obstacles. It is, of course, possible to be too analytical, and thereby spoil things. As with anything that is desirable, it is advisable to not become too attached to previous experiences and expectations.

Sure, there are standard conversations that people have, but how many conversations do you have that change your life? That change your way of thinking? Is there a limit to how many meaningful conversations a person can have in a lifetime, or is this capacity without limit for someone that has a certain perspective or skill set?

Perhaps this is a high bar, but it is something to strive for. There will inevitably be conversations that are merely transactional in nature. “I’ll have that.” “Two dollars.” “Thanks.” “Thanks.”

And, of course, to get to a level where you can converse deeply with someone, there has to be a degree of rapport.

So with that in mind, what are the qualities of a good conversation? I have come up with a few indicators, mostly dealing with the sum total of the conversation. Seeing the whole for what it is and the synergy is the most important. For now I’ll just address conversations that have two people involved.

The very highest value that can come of a conversation is when two people discuss something and both understand each other’s perspective more clearly than when they began, and even come to a new understanding together. You don’t necessarily have to agree at the end of the conversation. There is a give and take with the conversation, mutual respect and a sense of discovery, acceptance.

There needs to be a sense of space, which is important to feeling comfortable and being able to explore thoughts and ideas without fear of judgment. This can take physical space in terms of environment and natural pauses, as well as emotional space. You don’t feel like your conversation partner is going to talk over you or that you have to rush to say what you would like to say. Space means you are listening. A conversation where one party isn’t listening isn’t a conversation. Periods of silence give time to internalize what is being talked about.

Good conversations are recursive (you can also view this as a stack.) A question or topic is raised, and tangents occur along the way, but at least one of the people is composed enough to steer the conversation back to the previous topic. This allows the conversation to flow but still explore all thoughts on the subject so both people feel validated. While the conclusions of the discussion cannot likely be foreseen by either party, in retrospect the conversation will have an orderly structure.

You are likely to be surprised by good conversations more often than you will anticipate them. However, I think that there are ways to attract them. Probably the best way is to have more and deeper relationships. I probably have some work to do on this front. See each interaction you have as a way of exploring reality, to see what others hold as their mental models and find interest in their beliefs. Time constraints seem to be inimical to exploring thoughts. Another way to attract meaningful conversations is to be serious and yet playful at the same time. It’s hard to open up around the permanent philosopher, and tough to interrogate reality with someone who always kids around. If something is on your mind, someone else has thought about it before.

Perhaps the most aggressive way is to talk to people that you don’t already agree with, to read books that you believe advocate an untenable position. What do you know to be true? Those are the thoughts that must be explored, that must be compared with reality and other interpretations of events. What if these beliefs were not true? What would it mean if you could set aside your beliefs long enough to entertain another beliefs, and thereby gain another useful way of looking at the world? The point isn’t to shoot down, the point is to understand. It’s not a zero-sum game.

Understanding fully another person’s position takes listening and an open mind, both of which are sometimes difficult for me depending on my state of mind and the immediate environment. Again, this doesn’t mean that you have to agree with the other person wholeheartedly, just that you are able to hear what they have to say and explore the ramifications of that world view. To be self-confident and flexible enough (understanding your own defense mechanisms and self-imposed limitations) to explore someone else’s views without negative emotions can be difficult, but it represents a growth opportunity.

Original article: Meaningful conversations