US science magazines.

[DanaC]

There's a big difference between having to read something multiple times in order to make sense of the more difficult concepts, and having to reread it multiple times for it to make sense as written word.

There is a skill in writing about a highly specialised subject in a way that makes it intelligible for a non-specialist reader. That reader may still need to go back and reread it for all the ideas to settle in their mind, but they should get a sense of it on the first read. If they don't, then I'm sorry, but they're either reading something intended for a specialised readership, or the author has failed in their task.

You rattle off 'English Major' like it is an insult. As if concentrating on ideas and how we communicate them is a worthless endeavour. At the risk of being personal, this attitude explains a good deal about your own particular posting style. You have so many worthwhile ideas, but I so often skim them at a shallow read because your communication of those ideas is challenging to say the least.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There is a skill in writing about a highly specialized subject in a way that makes it intelligible for a non-specialist reader. That reader may still need to go back and reread it for all the ideas to settle in their mind, but they should get a sense of it on the first read.

Which is what I wrote. Described was how that works - the always required important details. Also recommended rereading the post to sufficiently understand it.

An example of better written science was cited: The Economist.

Scientific American is also good. Basic principles apply (that English majors often do not grasp). For example, a well written article defines important nouns. And always defines mnemonics with an English phrase when first used. Two reasons why that neutrino article is laymanized science.

A difficult to read book was Thomas Barnetts. He laymanizing advanced military concepts that also required rereading. George Jr's administration clearly did not do what was necessary to understand. But then some are only English majors.

The term English major is not an insult. A phrase that, well, you probably do not listen to Prairie Home Companion. An amusing radio show that describes English majors. Because Garrison Keillor apparently was an English major.

My statistics book was a disaster. The professor agreed. But he had no choice. It was dictated by the department’s 'central committee'. Richard Feynman details the problem. Many who approve of badly written material typically do not read/comprehend it. Keillor uses the term English major.

Feynman’s “Lectures on Physics” is superbly written science. Why does a genius write so clearly? He had a superior grasp of the topic.

An expression that is uncomprehendable because its terms are so subjective and undefined: “your communication of those ideas is challenging to say the least.” If saying something useful, well, executive summaries are also useless. Too short. No details. No examples. No matter how many times I read that sentence, it still makes no sense. Not a personal insult. A perfect example of why some material is so hard to follow.