INTRODUCTION
Much of the following was written as an explanation to an individual poster concerning why their OP (original post, i.e., the first post in a topic) was deleted, and was also prompted by my general sense that there was much uncertainty amongst posters, especially new posters, about how to put together an effective OP. The result of this uncertainty has been many ineffective OPs of varying degrees, some of which we’ve deleted and some of which we haven’t, but all of which have left us concerned about their effect on site quality. So, this is an attempt to ameliorate that issue with a few important caveats to bear in mind.
Caveat 1: This is not intended to be a definitive guide to structuring OPs here in two major senses
- It is not 100% official. I’ve linked from the guidelines, which are official and agreed-upon by the mod team, but what follows are my own thoughts, which I can’t presume merge exactly with my fellow mods and any errors/inconsistencies are my responsibility alone. (Upshot: That your OP does fit with this doesn’t necessarily make it great.)
- It is not comprehensive. It wouldn’t be practical to cover all the possible types of OPs that might be acceptable/desirable, their particular structures, rules, exceptions etc. (Upshot: That your OP doesn’t fit with this doesn’t necessarily make it bad)
Caveat 2: This is not intended to be judgemental. Not being able to write an effective OP is not a sure sign of any intellectual deficit. Most people can’t write well, period. And that includes among the most intelligent of us. But probably the easiest part of writing to learn is also the most important, and that is structure, particularly macro-structure, which is mostly what I address here. This, in my experience at least, is what yields the highest rate of return on overall quality, especially in texts that are academically focused.
The body of this post is divided into two sections. The first provides general advice on structure and content and the second provides a brief analysis of an OP that meets the standard we ask for here (I’ve resisted the urge to do a hit-job critique on an OP that doesn’t meet the standard as it’s a little too easy to knock things down and, considering this is pinned in Resources, I don’t want to show anyone up in perpetuity).
SECTION 1
THE QUESTION
If you don’t have a clear well-thought-out question and/or claim, you don’t have an OP. So, have one and one of some importance (at least to you) in mind. And know and be able to explain why it’s important as its importance might be questioned.
STRUCTURES
I give two basic structures here: one aimed at a confident OP writer with extensive knowledge of their subject matter (the ideal situation); and one, a modification of the former, aimed at a less confident writer with at least enough knowledge and competence to justify further exploration of an issue (the latter addition prompted by a @“Sophisticat” criticism of my original post).
A. THE ARGUMENTATIVE OP
One easy way to structure an OP based on a question you are familiar with and a clear stance you are able to argue for is as follows:
a) Title
Make it clear, unambiguous, succinct, and properly focused re the question to be asked.
b) Background information
- What is the question and the context of the question (historical or otherwise)?
- Is the question very controversial? If so, why?
- How have others answered the question?
- How do you interpret the question?
- What’s your motivation for asking the question?
etc.
(This is all part of establishing why we should care about the question)
c) Thesis
What is your position on the question?
(You don’t have to go into full detail here as you can do that as the discussion progresses, but you could give a summary of the main reasons for your stance.)
d) Lead in
What do you want from the discussion?
Make any clarifications you need to here. (For example, if people commonly answer this question with a misunderstanding, here’s your chance to head it off at the pass).
B. THE EXPLORATORY OP
A more exploratory structure on a question you have some knowledge of but may not have settled on a claim that you can definitively argue for might be as follows:
a) Title
Make it clear, unambiguous, succinct, and properly focused re the question to be explored.
b) Background information
- What are the basics of the question in its historical and/or current context?
- How did you become interested in the question?
- What is it about it that you find difficult or confusing?
- What efforts have you made to assuage that difficulty?
- What have you gained from those efforts? E.g. What’s your understanding of how others have answered the question? Why are their answers not sufficient for you?
- What’s your best interpretation of the question?
etc.
(Here you not only show why the question is of importance but establish the efforts you’ve made to solve it and give some motivation for others to help you with it.)
c) Tentative Thesis
Depending on your confidence you may be able to at least offer a tentative and hedged answer to the question. (It seems to me … /Isn’t it the case that …? etc.) If not, simply state that you don’t have enough information to put forward any kind of thesis as yet.
d) Lead in
What do you want from the discussion? If you don’t have a thesis, that’s one sure lacuna that needs filling. You also may want clarification of certain aspects of the question, some guidance on whether your reasoning concerning it is correct, whether a tentative position that you do have is even plausible etc. Here, it’s advisable to be open about any doubts you have about your approach as they are likely to become apparent anyway during the course of the discussion.
For both of the above OP types, regardless of your knowledge level, your OP should at least be about a specific clearly-defined topic that you stick to. If you can’t even stay on topic in the first post, it’s already a bust.
(It’s possible to do all that and do it well in as little as 200 words.)
SECTION 2: Analysis of a Well-structured OP
I chose the OP below because it follows a structure similar to the one I outlined and is well-written from that perspective. I’m not so much interested in this case in the actual substance of the arguments presented/facts within.
The OP:
Platonic Ideals
About 2400 years ago, a Greek philosopher/scientist named Plato, while in consideration of the natural world as he knew it, as it was then known - as a world of imprecision and approximation - recognized that without exactness and precision there could be no exact a/k/a scientific understanding of the world. His solution to the problem (without any reference here to the hows, whys, and wherefores guiding that solution) was to create the idea of an existing realm where all the perfect originals, as ideals, of all the things in the world, which were somehow imperfect copies of the ideals, could be “found.”
Some number of centuries later, the establishment view changed to an understanding that the natural world was created by God, with the consequence that everything in it possessed its own exactitude and perfection. It became, then, the scientist’s job to find out exactly what that perfection was.
In short, that for the ancient Greek, the imperfect natural world was not perfectly knowable and so by an admirable feat of imagination he created a perfect world that could be known - but that wasn’t the natural world. For Christians, however, this was an impossible situation. For Christians, God made the world and therefore it was already perfect, a fortiori, perfectly knowable, in itself.
The question here isn’t what or how exactly Plato thought as to the existence of his ideal world. As the sketch of the history above suggests, it functioned as the solution to a broad set of problems. And in course of time the ground - the absolute presuppositions - of the sciences changed from a Pagan to a Christian understanding, meaning that Plato’s solution had lost its ground.
But now millenia later, the question as to the existence of Platonic ideals is still for some people an open question, for others a closed question, but of those there are people on both sides of it.
The question here is, can we settle this question, and determine what the right understanding of Platonic ideals should be?
My own view is that the answer is obvious: Platonic ideals just are ideas of ideas. I have a pretty good idea of what a horse is. I can imagine the idea of a perfect horse, and I can also imagine that my ideas of such a perfection might themselves contain some imperfections, as judged by people who know more about horses than I do.
People like Kurt Godel, however, apparently thought that a Platonic world exists. As it turns out, Godel was also crazy, but that alone does not make his thinking dismissable.
On the question of the status of Platonic ideals, where are we? Where should we be?
— tim wood
THE ANALYSIS
A well-written OP, as well as being systematically structured (and relevant structural elements are specified below), should cultivate (among other things) the following:
- Credibility/confidence
- Clarity/Focus
- Interest
- Knowledge
And these will be identified below as benefits of structural elements included in the OP.
TITLE
Platonic ideals
Relevant structural element 1: Make it clear, unambiguous, succinct, and properly focused re the question to be asked.
It is. The subject should immediately be familiar to anyone interested in philosophy, and considering the broad nature of the question to follow, it’s also properly focused. A more specific question would demand a more specific title.
BACKGROUND 1
About 2400 years ago, a Greek philosopher/scientist named Plato, while in consideration of the natural world as he knew it, as it was then known - as a world of imprecision and approximation - recognized that without exactness and precision there could be no exact a/k/a scientific understanding of the world. His solution to the problem (without any reference here to the hows, whys, and wherefores guiding that solution) was to create the idea of an existing realm where all the perfect originals, as ideals, of all the things in the world, which were somehow imperfect copies of the ideals, could be “found.”
Some number of centuries later, the establishment view changed to an understanding that the natural world was created by God, with the consequence that everything in it possessed its own exactitude and perfection. It became, then, the scientist’s job to find out exactly what that perfection was.
In short, that for the ancient Greek, the imperfect natural world was not perfectly knowable and so by an admirable feat of imagination he created a perfect world that could be known - but that wasn’t the natural world. For Christians, however, this was an impossible situation. For Christians, God made the world and therefore it was already perfect, a fortiori, perfectly knowable, in itself.
This is a nice bit of historical background with about the right level of detail so as not to overload the reader.
Relevant structural element 1: What is the …. context of the question (historical or otherwise)?
Benefit 1: Fosters interest in the question, and knowledge of it, and provides pointers for those wanting to do further research.
Benefit 2: Helps establish credibility and confidence in OP writer. They’ve made an effort in the OP and are therefore more likely to do so in the discussion.
Relevant structural element 2: Is the question very controversial? If so, why?
Benefit 1: Again fosters interest. Who doesn’t love controversy?
Benefit 2: Helps with clarity and focus. Knowledge of the sides in the controversy may help in directing relevant comments.
BACKGROUND 2
The question here isn’t what or how exactly Plato thought as to the existence of his ideal world. As the sketch of the history above suggests, it functioned as the solution to a broad set of problems. And in course of time the ground - the absolute presuppositions - of the sciences changed from a Pagan to a Christian understanding, meaning that Plato’s solution had lost its ground.
But now millenia later, the question as to the existence of Platonic ideals is still for some people an open question, for others a closed question, but of those there are people on both sides of it.
The question here is, can we settle this question, and determine what the right understanding of Platonic ideals should be?
Relevant structural element 1: How do you interpret the question?
Benefit 1: Inspires confidence in the OP writer. Shows himself willing and able to understand and analyse the question.
Benefit 2: Again fosters knowledge and helps to establish relevance for upcoming debate.
Relevant structural element 2: Is the question very controversial? If so, why?
Benefits: As previously mentioned.
THESIS
My own view is that the answer is obvious: Platonic ideals just are ideas of ideas. I have a pretty good idea of what a horse is. I can imagine the idea of a perfect horse, and I can also imagine that my ideas of such a perfection might themselves contain some imperfections, as judged by people who know more about horses than I do.
Relevant structural element: What is your position on the question?
Benefit 1: Clarity and focus. Clearly establishes this as an argumentative OP. Posters know how to position themselves in relation to the OP.
Benefit 2: Credibility. Whether or not you agree with the OP writer, they are competent enough and confident enough to take a position. Unless this position is based on an obvious misunderstanding, it’s likely to help credibility.
SUPPLEMENTARY BACKGROUND
People like Kurt Godel, however, apparently thought that a Platonic world exists. As it turns out, Godel was also crazy, but that alone does not make his thinking dismissable.
Relevant structural element: How have others answered the question?
Benefit: Focus and positioning. Offers another position to argue for or against. (though in this case it’s rather vague).
LEAD IN
On the question of the status of Platonic ideals, where are we? Where should we be?
Relevant Structural Element: What do you want from the discussion?
Benefit: Focus and positioning. The OP writer provides some further detail on how he would like the OP answered. It’s not all that detailed again, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. It at least acts as a little extra grounding of the discussion.
CONCLUSION
The tl;dr list:
- We want more good OPs
- Writing a good OP is not rocket science
- Good OPs are researched
- Good OPs are well-structured
- Good OPs can be argumentative or exploratory
- Good OPs are properly focused and relevant
- Good OPs stick strictly to a well-defined topic
So, I hope this has provided some helpful pointers to the type of thing that will not only save your writing from being deleted by we mods but aid it in fostering productive discussions that benefit everyone. Comments, criticisms welcome.