How can I stop overusing "I" in my writing?
I won't edit this question, so you can see how much I use it. The current count is 3 times. I've been told that the solution is to revise, revise, revise, but is there a particular strategy for editing that I should be taking? I never really learned editing strategies other than to just...do it. Are there patterns I can look out for to avoid this while writing something, so I can retrain myself? Are there resources for writing less casually in the area somewhere between non-fiction and technical writing?
"When is it acceptable to use the first person ("I", "we") in technical reports" doesn't help, because not everything is a technical report. It could be a comment on GitHub, an email, or especially some of my longer Stack Exchange posts, where I found my preferred initial style is to build a narrative that mirrors how I thought about communicating a problem or figuring something out. Part of this habit comes from the perceived need to couch every scientific statement I've ever made with some "I think-" or "Most likely"-type language, and it seems to have pervaded my writing ever since the end of undergrad. The result is long blocks of text that ramble too much and contain anywhere between one "I" every two sentences to two "I"s every sentence. Writing a science PhD dissertation did not break this habit.
Here and here are concrete examples. Upon rereading, maybe these aren't so bad, but I at least perceive them to overuse "I" because of their rather casual style.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/37492. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
You go through piece by piece because you will want to assess each instance. Sorry. That's my answer. Someone may have an easier answer, but easy does not mean better. Look at each instance. Just do it.
Start a list of phrases to swap. i'll edit your piece and bold the edit's. This is one quick pass.
I won't edit this question, so you can see how much I use it. The current count is 3 times. Some say the solution is to revise, revise, revise, but is there a particular strategy for editing that one could take? I never really learned editing strategies other than to just...do it. Are there patterns to look out for to avoid this while writing something, to retrain myself? Are there resources for writing less casually in the area somewhere between non-fiction and technical writing? "When is it acceptable to use the first person in technical reports" doesn't help, because not everything is a technical report. It could be a comment on GitHub, an email, or especially some of my longer Stack Exchange posts, where (deleted) my preferred initial style is to build a narrative that (deleted) communicates a problem or figures something out. Part of this habit comes from the perceived need to couch every scientific statement (deleted) with some "I think-" or "Most likely"-type language, and it seems to have pervaded my writing ever since the end of undergrad. The result is long blocks of text that ramble too much and contain anywhere between one "I" every two sentences to two "I"s every sentence. Writing a science PhD dissertation did not break this habit. Here and here are concrete examples. Upon rereading, maybe these aren't so bad, but they seem to overuse "I" because of their rather casual style.
Are you female? Are you young (under 30)? Here's some reporting that shows youth and gender impact use of first person pronouns.
Knowing that, and knowing that 'old white men' are generally in charge and have been historically within my culture, was enough for me to break habits I did not personally want.
If you'd like to cede your power (as an anonymous individual) in writing, you can ignore that information. When I see a post riddled with "I's" I assume youth.
If you'd like to understand trends in society, you can take the data and interpret it to your best ability, however you like, your schema, what fits your experience.
Again, those particular data were enough to help me break habits. Just do it. There are enough roadblocks up to young people. Appearing self-indulgent works against you.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37493. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I see this a lot in unpublished writing (including my own early drafts): "I entered the room and saw a red couch and a bookcase. I thought it was a particularly nice red. I heard the clock ticking."
Remember that we, the readers, know that the words and ideas are coming from you, the writer. So you can just say stuff rather than saying that you think it.
Look for "I thought..." "I saw..." "I felt..." and in a surprising number of cases you can delete that phrase and tweak the wording a bit.
So... "In the room was a red couch and a bookcase. It was a particularly nice red. The clock ticked."
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37524. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
You can talk about you.
This is a sales letter trick, often used in manuals as well. Make all your "narrative" lines as "you," (the reader), or some equivalent.
I will also try to show that the unrelaxed difference density is still not equivalent to the transition density.
Hopefully you will see the unrelaxed difference density is still not ...
I can't find the definition of {a} in the paper,
You will not find a definition of {a} in the paper ...
Importantly, we always start from the set of ground-state MO coefficients
It is important you start from the set of ground-state MO coefficients ...
Because I don't want to mess with the block-diagonal structure of PΔMO, I will transform T to the MO basis:
You don't want to mess with the block-diagonal structure of PΔMO, so you can transform T to the MO basis:
I am not sure if the MO coefficients in the double sum can be simplified, but it doesn't matter; assume they are unity.
Whether or not the MO coefficients in the double sum can be simplified or not, you will find it does not matter. For example, [you can] assume they are unity.
And so on. Everything you attribute to "I" or "We", rewrite to attribute to the reader.
Several studies of this technique in Sales have shown it is strangely and wildly effective; far more people will read to the end of a sales letter if it addresses them specifically as "you" and "your". It is talking about you, your children, your home, your car, your retirement, your entertainment options. Do you want to put all that at risk? We want to hear from you, listen to you, help you achieve your goals. You might think people would see through such a transparent trick, but you'd be mistaken, it still works for advertisers, and it can work for you too.
0 comment threads
Put it in Neutral.
As if YOU did not write the paper, but must describe the action line by line. An example from your first linked example:
I will also try to show that the unrelaxed difference density is still not equivalent to the transition density.
An attempt will be made to show the unrelaxed ...
I can't find the definition of {a} in the paper,
The paper apparently contains no definition of {a} ...
Importantly, we always start from the set of ground-state MO coefficients
It is important to start from the set of ground-state MO coefficients ...
Because I don't want to mess with the block-diagonal structure of PΔMO, I will transform T to the MO basis:
The block-diagonal structure of PΔMO is preserved by transformation to the MO basis:
I am not sure if the MO coefficients in the double sum can be simplified, but it doesn't matter; assume they are unity.
Whether the MO coefficients in the double sum can be simplified or not will not matter; assume they are unity.
And so on.The "couching in qualifiers" speech pattern is something we called Programmer's Disease when I was in college (four decades ago), but plagues scientists generally; a side-effect of learning that damn near everything has exceptions and to be accurate requires qualifiers. So you gain accuracy by restricting the domain of cases you are describing.
However, to laymen and undergrads, every qualifier subtracts certainty from what you are talking about, thus the more qualifiers you use, the closer you asymptotically approach the state of having said nothing at all they can understand.
If they push back with questions or qualifiers of their own, they prove their ability to process a restricted domain, so acknowledge your overreach in the interest of simplicity and use qualifiers to restrict the domain then.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads