home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Simtel MSDOS 1992 September
/
Simtel20_Sept92.cdr
/
msdos
/
hypertxt
/
hyper.arc
/
FILE50
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1988-02-01
|
4KB
|
74 lines
Why five is the magic number for good outlines
==============================================
I have strong opinions on what makes a good outline. For example, I think a
good outline is easily understood by the reader. I think that happens if:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The topics seem complete.... i.e., the end points are covered │
│ The topics are parallel..... i.e., they belong together │
│ The topics are ordered...... i.e., their sequence seems appropriate │
│ The topics are understood... i.e., the number of topics is limited │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
To start, unless there are obvious reasons for more, I limit my outlines to
five (5) subtopics at each level. This contrasts sharply with ideas of
George Miller (Harvard) who claims that on the average people can handle
seven items (plus or minus 2) in short memory.
However, in print I think the maximum is five because with any more than
that, the connectives (i.e., commas/and/or) become overloaded or
overworked. Two sentences can comfortably contain a total of five ideas
(two in one, three in the other).
Anything more approaches unreadable magnitudes...and anything less seems
wrong. Here's why:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Two subtopics .....is too didactical, no grey edges │
│ Three subtopics... is too symmetrical, topics are not that parallel │
│ Four subtopics.....is also too symmetrical for the same reasons │
│ Five subtopics.....just right │
│ Six subtopics......too many for text connectives (and/or) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
I usually try to organize my information in hierarchies following these
guidelines, just to make it easier on readers. As my goal is effective
communication, I'm just packaging information in formats that seem natural to
others. <FILE75 STRUCTURE>
My trick is to use my language skills to put information into reasonable
hierarchies having five subtopics. For example, I'd say:
-- There are five ways to get rich, which are...
-- There's only five types of sand on the beach. They are...
-- The five rules for making good outlines are...
Here's why that's important. You want readers to accept your information.
But first, they'll want to see if your claims match their understanding.
But if your five topics cover the end points (seem inclusive), cut the subject
appropriately (seem parallel), and are memorable (not to many to overwhelm),
then your information is accepted by all but the most critical readers.
Now, that's what you want . . . readers quickly validating, then accepting
your view of the relationships. That makes for effective communication.
In contrast, if you put your information in other formats (too few/many
topics, obvious exceptions, wrong order, unbalanced classification), the
reader is less ready to accept your information. And if your outline
structures don't immediately pass the validation test of each reader, you're
in trouble.
The reader simply stops accepting your information, stops reading, or
starts reading critically. Either way, you've lost your edge in the
communication process, and you (or the reader) don't want that.
That's why you mold your information into the suggested outline formats.
They just work.
Neil Larson 1/15/88 FILE50
44 Rincon Rd., Kensington, CA 94707
Copyright MaxThink 1988 -- Call 415-428-0104 for permission to reprint