# How to Write a Tinder Bio and an Expos Paper

## 2018 January 28

People write to communicate an idea, so, when you're writing, always remember:

<li>who you're talking to</li>
<li>what you're telling them</li>

For example, when I write my blog, I imagine that I'm telling something I now know to my past self, who doesn't know it. When I wrote about graph theory, I imagined that I was talking to myself from November 2017, before I read Graph Theory by Bondy.

When writing a Tinder bio, you're telling the people you find attractive that you're attractive. If you leave your bio empty, then you're not telling them that you're attractive, which is bad. Here is a nonempty bio:

Yeah I hate mathematics, computer science, and statistics majors.
Now, I would find that bad because I'm all three, but someone who also hates those majors might like that bio. The key is to always remember your audience and write for them.

For reference, my bio says that I like cooking food and fashion, which makes sense because my audience is women, who tend to like eating food and not being naked.

The same principle applies to Expository Writing papers. Many students think that their expos class is about the English language or literature, but it is not about either of those things at all. It is a science course, specifically studying social science, so all the requirements of science apply here:

<li>discoveries must be true in general, not just for 1 time and place (e.g.
Blah Blah University is a racist environment)</li>
<li>an argument must be proval (e.g. misogyny in an environment like Blah
<li>an argument cannot be obviously true (e.g. murder is bad)</li>

Before writing an expos paper, always ask yourself the 2 questions from above. Most of the time, your answers will be:
<li>a sociologist/psychologist/political scientist/etc.</li>
<li>your thesis</li>

When you're writing your paper, you should imagine that you're talking to someone interested in the field; I frequently pretended like I was directly talking to my professor, who studies women in politics. On the other hand, maybe you're pre-law and want to imagine that you're talking to a court, which also works very well. However you do it, always remember that you're talking to a human.

Your thesis should then give them new, interesting information so that, after reading your paper, they feel like they've learned something. If your thesis just restates or summarises the arguments from the original reading, then your writing is useless, you're useless, and you should feel bad.

In addition, ask yourself, "why am I writing this expos paper?" If your answer is, "to get a good grade," then you fail to remember that the whole point of writing is to communicate an idea and you deserve an F because you don't know why writing was invented.

For example, one of my theses was:

Because many traditionally oppressed groups, especially coloured people,
homosexuals, and women, are gaining rights and privileges traditionally
reserved for white men, some white men fear that they are in danger of losing
their masculinity, so these white men adopt a form of hyper-masculinity by
practicing extreme violence against these traditionally oppressed groups.
This thesis is clearly defined and it's not obviously true, so it's interesting. It's also falsifiable, so someone could reasonable argue against it. It recieved a good grade (A) because it's not obvious, and the rest of my paper proved it.

On the other hand, here is an example of a bad thesis:

By killing a fellow student, the students at Blah Blah University acted immorally.

This is obviously true because, to argue against it, someone would have to argue that murder is good. This thesis would get a bad grade because nobody wants to read an entire paper arguing that murder is bad.

This is an improvement because it's not obviously true:
By killing a fellow student because he was gay, the students at Blah Blah
University reinforced misogyny in their community.
Could someone reasonably argue that the murder reinforced misogyny? Sure. Could someone reasonable argue that the murder did not reinforce misogyny? Sure.

However, it is tied down to the particular community, and we want to find a larger, scientific truth. Here is an even better thesis:

When people in a community belittle or harm homosexuals, they reinforce
the community's misogyny.
This thesis is not obviously true and it's not tied to a particular time and place, so it's a strong scientific hypothsis. The rest of the paper should now prove the thesis.

In addition, I want to add a closely related rule: good writing is less writing. Once you finish getting your point across, just stop writing.