# How to Build Your Post

LWers often [wonder](/r/discussion/lw/81l/improving_my_writing_style/) how to write a good post. [Many](/lw/86a/rhetoric_for_the_good/) [great](/r/discussion/lw/81l/improving_my_writing_style/50lr ) tips and resources have been suggested already, mostly on the style and substance, not on the post structure. This is an attempt to fill some of the void using a construction toy metaphor: **nested state-explain-summarize blocks**.

First, there is a convenient and versatile building block of non-fiction writing, often called the [inverted pyramid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid) in the news business, though I think of it as more of a diamond when applied to technical writing in general:

![](http://images.lesswrong.com/t3_82d_0.png?v=174bc634c7a3775d3056428e2abb21c4)

I have alluded to this [previously](/lw/730/overcoming_bias_in_others/4n38) in the context of an [elevator pitch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch). It is how most news stories are structured, and it follows the [rule of three](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)): the main point is first **stated**, then **explained** in some detail, then **summarized**. This is similar to how an oral presentation ought to be [structured](http://www.businesstown.com/presentations/present-tell.asp).

If any of these three gets too large, it can, in turn, be constructed of smaller diamonds. These building blocks can be combined and/or **nested** to build a complete post. If you want to make several points, it is a good idea to dedicate a diamond to each, and **nest** them into a larger one that provides the context, **states** the points at the top and **summarizes** them at the end:

![](http://images.lesswrong.com/t3_82d_1.png?v=7a99230c4b1558552a602d7d62194181)

Why repeat the same point three times? I am no evolutionary psychologist or a cognitive scientist, but my feeling is that it is because people have to be [primed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)) to accept new information (hence the first two times). The third time is to make sure they retain what you've told them. In any case, [what I tell you three times is true](/lw/eg/what_i_tell_you_three_times_is_true/) tends to work.

I am not pushing this format as the one true way of writing a post, just as a reliable way to get your point across. There are many ways of constructing short articles, [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Structure_of_the_article "Wikipedia:Writing better articles") is a good place to learn one of them. If you think that a short article format is too restrictive, then maybe the LW Discussion section is not the best venue for what you are writing. Consider starting your own blog (or writing a Wikipedia article) and linking to it. That said, I am yet to see a long _non-fiction_ LW post (likely including this one) that cannot be improved by some ruthless trimming.

The "non-fiction" qualifier is important: it is entirely possible to engage the reader using a fictional narrative. Eliezer does it quite successfully in the sequences, even in the long posts. However, this is an art, not a craft, and one would do well to master the craft first. My own attempt to post a bit of fiction here failed miserably.

Again, this \[meta\]post is about the post _structure_: **nested state-explain-summarize blocks** (and the post itself is deliberately structured this way). I did not try to address the issue of content, partly because there has been so much said about it already, and partly because it would make this post too long to hold your attention.

I hope to improve this post based on the feedback, provided there is enough interest.

###### This post has the [Flesch-Kincaid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readability_test) readability [score](http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/index.php)  of 45 (accessible to a high-school senior).