Could it be that all those bullet point lists and fragmented writing (looking like a raw subtitle file without the timestamps) harms our communication with others?

The other day I wrote about slow speaking (my handicap, searching for the right words) and how it may actually be an advantage. If the audience is interested in the topic, they start to try and complete your sentences, co-creating meaning. It also means more active listening, more engagement, less boredom - but I'm more interested in the co-creation part. Also, how many times have you just switched-off when someone spoke too fast? Of course it can happen with slow speaking too, but you get my drift.

Today I thought about my aversion to being presented with endless lists of bullet-points, and why they used to be considered bad writing. Remember when we used to read "long form content" (aka books) and we used to highlight the important words or phrases? Of course we still do, maybe less, but I still use yellow highlighter for the most important, green for second-tier, pink for third. Active reading, taking notes.

Bullet-points are good and useful. But I think their usefulness lies more in the process of making them, which requires thinking, understanding, engaging. But now it turns out to be ChatGPT's favourite output format. It's a valid reason to avoid using them in your public writing all together (your readers be like "if it's written by AI, why should I read it? I don't know how much thought process went into creating them, and I'm not interested in finding out myself")

But there is something else about bullet points and fragmented posts. They are easier to skip through and digest. Fast reading. I guess if we want readers to quickly skip through the message, then they are useful.

Anyways, I'll keep thinking of reasons why I dislike them, even though I love haikus. And subtitles.

The above is incomplete, but it may spark some meaning co-creation with readers. Or with myself when I come back to it.