<story><title>Don’t! The secret of self-control</title><url>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all#</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>biohacker42</author><text>Does anyone here, like me, really appreciate Feynman&apos;s just the fact&apos;s style of writing?&lt;p&gt;Most people describe it as eerily cold, but I love it. Articles like the this one on the other hand, while excellent, bury their valuable information under a lot of fluff. And most people like that kind of writing, but I just find it annoying.&lt;p&gt;Good article, I just wish it was more direct.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sachmanb</author><text>The author of this article writes more for us, people who want just the substance, on his blog: &lt;a href=&quot;http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;He still wraps the information, but not to the extent he does for other publications and he frequently separates the substance into its own paragraphs.  It&apos;s a great blog and I recommend it.&lt;p&gt;Two other cognitive biology blogs that I recommend are &lt;a href=&quot;http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://merzenich.positscience.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://merzenich.positscience.com/&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Don’t! The secret of self-control</title><url>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all#</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>biohacker42</author><text>Does anyone here, like me, really appreciate Feynman&apos;s just the fact&apos;s style of writing?&lt;p&gt;Most people describe it as eerily cold, but I love it. Articles like the this one on the other hand, while excellent, bury their valuable information under a lot of fluff. And most people like that kind of writing, but I just find it annoying.&lt;p&gt;Good article, I just wish it was more direct.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>silentbicycle</author><text>Consider the source, though. People who place a high priority on dense, &quot;just the facts&quot; writing are probably going to read the research directly. This is intended to introduce the research to an audience that would find it interesting, but are unlikely to already comb through academic journals of psychological research.&lt;p&gt;I find Oliver Sacks, Douglas Hofstadter, Stephen Pinker, etc. fascinating, but when I want the direct data (rather than commentary), I still go to primary sources. That&apos;s what they&apos;re for.</text></comment>