{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"301. 1,500 Words on Writing a 5-Word Tweet","description":"Writing a tweet is a microcosm of writing a book. If you think deeply and carefully about every word in a tweet, and what the tweet as a whole communicates, you can extend those skills to all your writing. In this article, I\u2019ll break down how to think about every word in a tweet, nearly tripling its performance. Step 1: The first-impression tweet The tweet we\u2019ll work on came to me like most tweets, a thought that popped into my head. It was this: Ironically, strong opinions are the ones that are easily argued against. I could have just tweeted that. But I\u2019ve made a habit of instead writing down my first-impression tweets in a scratch file, and later working on them before publishing. Here\u2019s what my thought process looks like. As a tweet, this phrase is a little wordy, and weak. It starts somewhat nonsensically with an adverb: \u201cIronically.\u201d What action is being performed ironically? Step 2: Improving word economy There are also some extra words that could be cut out. Do we have to refer to \u201cstrong opinions\u201d again, by using the word \u201cones\u201d? The word \u201cthat\u201d is often not necessary, and it doesn\u2019t seem necessary here. If we cut out all those extra words, we end up with: Strong opinions are easily argued against. Step 3: Adding back in meaning That\u2019s shorter, more elegant, and economic. But now it\u2019s weaker. It\u2019s a simple statement of fact, without presenting what\u2019s remarkable about that fact, or how anyone should feel about it. At least when it said, \u201cironically,\u201d it pointed out the irony that strong opinions are those that are easily argued against. Also, since I\u2019ve removed the second reference to \u201cstrong opinions\u201d by removing the word \u201cones,\u201d the statement no longer pits \u201cstrong opinions\u201d against other types of opinions. Before, I was implying the existence of opinions that weren\u2019t strong, and describing what was different about opinions that were. Our shortened statement is also in the passive voice, which makes it weaker. \u201cStrong opinions are easily argued against,\u201d by whom? Who is doing the arguing? It would be more direct to say: It\u2019s easier to argue against strong opinions. But still, this statement doesn\u2019t pit strong opinions against other types of opinions. Fixing that, we could instead say: Of all opinions, strong ones are easiest to argue against. Finally, I think we at least have an improvement over the original, \u201cIronically, strong opinions are the ones that are easily argued against.\u201d It\u2019s more direct, and pits strong opinions against opinions at-large. It also has the important quality, in tweet format, of delivering the most surprising \u2013 or ironic \u2013 thing about the statement at the end. There\u2019s a bit of misdirection in this statement. We\u2019ve addressed all opinions, homed in on the strong ones, which primes you to expect them to be lauded in some way. Instead, the statement points out the irony that what makes an opinion \u201cstrong\u201d is that it\u2019s easy to argue against. Step 4: Tweaking for the audience But this tweet is still not ready. The most glaring problem is, nowhere in the tweet is the term, \u201cstrong opinions,\u201d and, as a tweet, that\u2019s where its potential lies. \u201cStrong opinions\u201d is a term in the parlance of some sections of Twitter. This term became popular after Marc Andreessen appeared on Tim Ferriss\u2019s podcast, where he advocated for, \u201cstrong opinions, weakly held.\u201d By trying to be economical with words in our tweet, we\u2019ve broken apart this term. In our latest iteration, \u201cOf all opinions, strong ones are easiest to argue against,\u201d it\u2019s simply referred to as \u201cstrong ones.\u201d Depending upon how prevalent the term \u201cstrong opinions\u201d is in the minds of our audience members, we could stick with that more subtle hint. Sometimes that\u2019s more effective. In my experience, on Twitter, you have to bash people over the head with what you\u2019re saying to cut through the noise. So we could instead say: Of all opinions, strong opinions are easiest to argue against. We\u2019ve replaced \u201cstrong ones\u201d with \u201cstrong opinions.\u201d It\u2019s less economical, but includes the term \u201cstrong opinions,\u201d pits them against opinions at-large, and delivers the counterintuitive element at the end, like the punchline of a joke. Step 5: What are we trying to say? This is probably as economically as we can write this, meeting that criteria. But it\u2019s still not ready. Now it\u2019s not clear from this observation how the author wants us to feel about strong opinions. It\u2019s, ironically, not a strong opinion. Is the upshot that you shouldn\u2019t hold strong opinions? Is it that when you hold strong opinions, you have to be comfortable with the fact they are easy to argue against? What makes an opinion \u201cstrong,\u201d anyway? Is it the force with with which you express the opinion? If so, the statement, \u201cstrong opinions, weakly held\u201d would mean you express the opinion with force, but are quick to change it if presented with contrary evidence. Or maybe it means that you should take decisive action on your opinions, and if that action presents you with contrary evidence, you should change your opinion and act accordingly? Now we\u2019re starting to get to what I, as an author, really think \u2013 which is like an excavation to discover, Where did this idea come from in the first place? My personal opinion is that to hold a strong opinion, you have to be faking. There are few things any of us are qualified to have opinions about. Having a strong opinion is a very \u201chedgehog\u201d way of being, and hedgehogs are scientifically proven to be wrong. Yet if you express your honest opinion \u2013 which is to be more like a \u201cfox\u201d than a hedgehog \u2013 you\u2019re essentially expressing no opinion at all. Instead, you\u2019re exploring thoughts around a potential opinion. Given the mechanics of media today, few who see what you have to say when expressing your fox-like opinion will interact with it. And because few will interact with it, fewer will see it. So in a way, to be fox-like in media is doing oneself a disservice. Your message doesn\u2019t get seen, and since nobody can disagree with your non-opinion, you learn less. It\u2019s beneficial to masquerade as a hedgehog on social media, but be a fox in your private intellectual life. What\u2019s our angle? It\u2019s at this point in revising a tweet, where I often step back and write plainly the sub-text of what I\u2019m trying to say. One angle is, In your pursuit of learning, you have to pretend to have strong opinions, because strong opinions are the easiest to argue against \u2013 which helps you collect information. Another angle is that When you express a strong opinion, be ready to be disagreed with, because strong opinions are by definition the easiest to argue against. So now I have two potential angles: \u201cYou should pretend to have an opinion.\u201d \u201cWhen you express your opinion, be ready for criticism.\u201d Since this is a tweet, the sub-text of the tweet is very important. Because of the social mechanics of Twitter, people will not like or retweet something that makes them look bad. The \u201cYou should pretend to have an opinion\u201d angle is weak, because to retweet something that espouses being inauthentic is to admit to being inauthentic, and that\u2019s socially repugnant \u2013 even if our angle has merit. Also important, it\u2019s not socially-repugnant enough to get people to argue, which would be another way of driving engagement. The \u201cWhen you express your opinion, be ready for criticism,\u201d angle is somewhat stronger. It would be a small flex to like or retweet this, because it would show that you\u2019re a person resilient enough to expose yourself to criticism, a quality which has social clout in some circles. Moving forward with that best angle, in the clearest way possible, we could say: When you share strong opinions, you will be criticized. Because strong opinions by definition are the easiest opinions to disagree with. Besides the fact it\u2019s much longer, there\u2019s something weak about this tweet. I think it\u2019s that it makes strong opinions not look good. Why have them if they\u2019re so easy to disagree with? As someone with a fox cognitive style, to me it doesn\u2019t feel right. So ultimately it seems, I believe a third angle: \u201cStrong opinions aren\u2019t good.\u201d If we put that simply, we\u2019re back to \u201cOf all opinions, strong opinions are the easiest to argue against.\u201d That still doesn\u2019t express clearly how I feel about strong opinions. It\u2019s just a statement of fact. Step 6: Applying rhetoric Maybe we can make this more economical, while also expressing more clearly my feelings about strong opinions, if we use a rhetorical form. Rhetorical forms are time-tested structures in language that add meaning beyond the simple content of the words. \u201cAntithesis\u201d is a good rhetorical form for tweets. Mark Forsyth in The Elements of Eloquence describes antithesis as \u201cX is Y, and not X is not Y.\u201d We won\u2019t use that exact formula, which would essentially be \u201cStrong opinions are easy to argue against, and weak opinions are hard to argue against.\u201d Instead, let\u2019s pit the word \u201cstrong\u201d against its antithesis, \u201cweak\u201d \u2013 which is part of why the phrase \u201cstrong opinions, weakly held\u201d is so memetic. As it happens, the idea of a \u201cweak argument\u201d is a commonly-used metaphor, so we can add extra power to our phrase by tapping into that existing idiom. With those elements in mind, we end up with: Strong opinions are weak arguments. That\u2019s about as good as we can do. We\u2019ve reduced the phrase from eleven words to only five. It\u2019s now clearer what I think of strong opinions, and it presents the irony I wanted to point out in the first place. Was all this work worth it? So, how did this tweet do? I published it, making sure to record a prediction that I was 70% sure it would get fewer than 1,500 impressions (in 48 hours). It actually got 1,081. One month later, I published the unedited tweet I presented at the beginning of this article. I was 70% sure it would get fewer than 1,000 impressions. It got 384. The data suggest that through all that excruciating detail \u2013 more than 1,500 words about writing only five \u2013 I nearly tripled the performance of this tweet. The tweet still didn\u2019t go viral, which isn\u2019t the point of thinking of language in this level of detail. The real point of this exercise is that if you make a habit of thinking carefully about language, you internalize much of this process, which makes all your writing better. Image: Flower Myth, by Paul Klee About Your Host, David Kadavy David Kadavy is author of Mind Management, Not Time Management, The Heart to Start and Design for Hackers. Through the Love Your Work podcast, his Love Mondays newsletter, and self-publishing coaching David helps you make it as a creative. Follow David on: Twitter Instagram Facebook YouTube Subscribe to Love Your Work Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Stitcher YouTube RSS Email Support the show on Patreon Put your money where your mind is. Patreon lets you support independent creators like me. Support now on Patreon \u00bb       Show notes: https:\/\/kadavy.net\/blog\/posts\/how-to-write-a-tweet\/ ","author_name":"Love Your Work","author_url":"http:\/\/kadavy.net\/blog\/archive\/love-your-work\/","html":"