Anticipating reader apprehension and identifying bottlenecks in the development of your narrative is crucial to any written exchange. You may choose to ignore the reader completely and surpass their capabilities for comprehension by creating something that is completely esoteric, then place it inside Pandora's box and then conveniently lose the key. Perhaps you don't even know what you were trying to say. This is the useless case as well as the worst case scenario; propagation presupposes an exchange. Possibly a presuppositionalist, you are whatever “they” need you to be. Knowledge presupposes supposition, The Art of Rhetoric by Isocrates or the plays of the Attic tragedians, whose titles should tempt your imagination, are subjective in speculating as to their contents. Now we can only wonder. Like Ludwig Wittgenstein's beetle in a box, your beetle looks more like Schrödinger's cat. Alternatively, you could maximize comprehension and potential valuation. Rubrics like the PEC method categorically arrange the evaluator into a repeatable pattern of Mutually Assured Instruction (MAI)[1].

Popular amount evaluators, the PEC method for evaluation is as follows...

  1. Make your Point.
  2. Explain how and why the point is relevant.
  3. Discuss the Consequences/implications of the theory or study. Are they positive or negative?

For Example

(Point) It is argued that psychoanalytic therapy is only of benefit to an articulate, intelligent, affluent minority.

(Explain) Because psychoanalytic therapy involves talking and gaining insight, and is costly and time-consuming, it is argued that it is only of benefit to an articulate, intelligent, affluent minority. Evidence suggests psychoanalytic therapy works best if the client is motivated and has a positive attitude.

(Consequences) A depressed client’s apathy, flat emotional state and lack of motivation limit the appropriateness of psychoanalytic therapy for depression. Furthermore, the levels of dependency of depressed clients mean that transference is more likely to develop.

For me, the tradeoff between peer or public valuation versus educational edification is a no-brainer. I always side with the pursuit of my passion. Optimistically intuitive, my personal relationship with knowledge is intimate at best and neglected at worst. This may change, due to an unlimited amount of possible outcomes, the need for blind spots should be included in an updated and revised version of the social contract.

More on this whenever you want to hear about it.


  1. Because who doesn't want to see another Useless Acronym (UA). ↩︎