Something I’m confused about today.
I was reading over Seth Godin’s blog last night and the way he writes is very different to the way I do. I’m not talking about his (superior) writing style, but the attitude that lies underneath his words.
I start off a piece with the following mind set:
No one has any reason to believe the things I’m saying. I’m going to battle my idea into their head! Lots of facts! Lots of text! Lots of links! Proof!
Skim my post on Bitcoin as an example.
Seth Godin’s pieces seem to come from a place where he believes that he’ll be believed. They’re a lot more gentle and simply set out his perspective - normally with a friendly analogy alongside.
I’m a bit lost on how I feel on the matter. Is it a writer’s responsibility to give the proof behind what they say? Or is it fine to simply state what you believe, plant an idea in the head of someone who agrees and spark debate in those that don’t?
Perhaps the difference in attitude comes down to the level of belief we have in ourselves. Do we believe we should be believed?
Seth Godin seems to, and lots of people seem to believe him.