Sometimes clients or log readers remark about how I write very concise; bare bones content without unnecessary elaborations. Or in the words of an old boss of mine "Not enough text!"
This is probably nowhere more obvious than in a comparison between this
William R. Polk, 15 December 2014
(more direct link not possible, scroll down there)
and a blog post I wrote about China's defining experiences five years ago:
2009-09 Relevant Chinese history
The intent was similar, the style very different.
It's saving time, but it also shows that I write this blog with (among others) two assumptions:
(1) It's OK to merely point people at facts or ideas, for those who are or have become truly interested will look up more about it.
(2) Texts with the full reasoning, technical details or historical details would be too long and I cannot predict which part will not be understood or not known. It's best to address this in replies to comments.
Especially part 2 explains why my style here differs so very much from the professional writings of think tanks, for example. In my job it's fine to be concise in writing and to explain whatever still needs explanation in a meeting with the client. Here, it's in my opinion fine to be concise in writing and to explain whatever needs explanation (or justification) in the comments.
I CAN write long-ish dissertations, studies and the like, but I rarely get paid for it or are self-motivated to do it.