Back

Writing

Writing Craft

Specificity is the single most powerful lever in writing — for clarity, persuasion, humor, and audience growth. A sustainable writing practice requires defended time blocks (Sacred Hours), a pipeline of raw material (story-mining frameworks like Homework For Life), and a distinct voice (the Tequila Test). Atomic essays and outlining/output session splits provide the format and workflow. Recognizing AI slop patterns is a necessary editing skill now that LLM-generated prose is everywhere. Presentation shares deep structure with writing: open with an empowerment promise, cycle key ideas for retention, build fences to distinguish your concept, and package work with Winston's Star (symbol, slogan, surprise, salient idea, story).

Created Apr 13, 2026·Updated Aug 4, 2026

Recent Updates

The Specificity Principle

Jason Cohen (A Smart Bear, WP Engine founder) distills his single best writing advice into two words: be specific. This applies universally — marketing copy, blog posts, sales pitches, investor decks, and humor.

The progression from generic to powerful writing:

  1. Eliminate generic words — "usage," "many," "effort," "better" are signs of lazy writing. They span broad concepts instead of conjuring specific images. Generic words are interpreted differently by different readers, making your actual message unclear.

  2. Move from truth to accuracy — Even after removing obviously generic words, common labels like "expert" can be technically correct but imprecise. An "evangelist" is more specific than an "expert" when describing someone who actively promotes a technology. The more precisely a word captures your intended meaning, the more evocative the writing.

  3. Add concrete examples — Examples clarify abstract arguments, make them more believable, harder to counter, easier to apply, and easier to research further. Name names. Reference specific products, companies, industries.

  4. Use specificity for humor — Almost any statement can be made funny by being specific. Techniques: exaggerate to the extreme, exaggerate to banality, invent a vivid example, highlight the absurd, blow something out of proportion, or transfer the concept to another context. In every case, the individual nouns, verbs, and adjectives must be specific.

"Farmers looking for a deal on a new tractor aren't peeling iPhones out of their Wranglers and thumbing out tweets through work gloves." — This is funny because it's specific. The generic version ("Twitter hasn't reached some industries") is forgettable.

Atomic Essays: A Content Format for Audience Building

Dickie Bush built a 438,000-follower X audience and a $20M digital business using a single content format: the Atomic Essay — a 250-word, single-idea essay published as a visual screenshot. It fills the gap between a thread (too long for casual readers) and a single tweet (too short for substance).

The 7-step process:

  1. Pick a specific topic — Start by answering a question. Prompts: write about what you're consuming, respond to someone else's work, teach a "how to," share a life lesson.

  2. Decide who you're writing for — Three audience buckets: general, niche, or industry. This determines tone, depth, and framing.

  3. Craft an intriguing headline — Must answer: who is it for, what is it about, what emotion does it create, what outcome does it promise, and how much information can the reader expect.

  4. Outline key points — Readers skim before they read. Key points must be relevant to the headline and earn trust in seconds.

  5. Expand on main points — Build credibility with personal stories (context) and research (proof).

  6. Edit for the reader — Writing and editing are different tasks. Writing taps creativity; editing steps into the reader's shoes. The core question: "Am I making this easy to read?"

  7. Publish and gather data — Target: 30 atomic essays in 30 days. Volume generates data on what resonates. Data steers the direction — not guesses.

Outlining vs. Output Sessions

Bush splits his daily writing practice into two distinct session types, each with a different cognitive demand:

Outlining sessions create containers for future writing. Raw ideas are captured throughout the week — from books, podcasts, conversations, meetings, personal reflections — into a single "Raw Ideas" note. During an outlining session, one of those raw ideas gets a 10-minute brain dump into bullet points. The outline then sits for at least a day before being touched again.

Output sessions expand a pre-written outline into a finished piece. The workflow is deliberately ritualized: the night before, one outline is placed into a fresh note and left as the only open window. The next morning's first hour goes entirely to expanding that outline using ten expansion patterns — tips, stats, steps, lessons, benefits, reasons, mistakes, examples, questions, and personal stories.

The separation matters because the two modes have different energy requirements. Output sessions demand deep focus and clear-headedness. Outlining sessions can happen on high-distraction days when mental bandwidth is thin, because they don't require "thinking through" a finished piece — just capturing and structuring raw material. This removes the pressure of "writing every day" while still maintaining a daily writing habit.

The target state is idea abundance — always having more outlines queued than can be written in a single session. This guarantees that every output session begins with something ready to expand rather than a blank page.

Sacred Hours

Bush's prerequisite for a sustainable writing practice is blocking off Sacred Hours — planned, calendar-defended chunks of at least two hours with zero distractions. The concept sits at the intersection of two questions: When am I most productive? and When can I be least responsive? The overlap is where writing happens.

Sacred Hours are not found — they're constructed. They must be planned in advance, blocked on a calendar, and defended against intrusions. The compounding payoff comes from consistency: completing these blocks day after day turns writing from an occasional act into a default behavior. This complements the outlining vs. output session split — Sacred Hours are the container; outlining and output sessions are what goes inside them.

Story Mining: Three Frameworks from "Storyworthy"

Bush draws on Matthew Dicks' book Storyworthy for three frameworks that generate raw material for writing. All three attack the same problem: writers believe they have nothing to say, when in fact they have untapped stories every day.

Homework For Life — A daily five-minute exercise. Two columns: date and story. Each day, answer: "If I had to tell a five-minute story about something that happened today, what would it be?" Write one sentence. The practice trains pattern recognition for storyworthy moments and, over time, assembles a library of raw material.

Crash and Burn — A five-minute freewriting exercise Dicks calls "dreaming from the end of your pen." Three rules: (1) don't get attached to any single idea, (2) don't judge what appears, (3) never let the pen stop moving. If stuck, list random items — fruits, colors, people — until a memory triggers. Follow with ten minutes reviewing the output for storyworthy threads. The constraint of continuous motion bypasses the inner critic and surfaces ideas the writer didn't know they had.

First, Last, Best, Worst — A grid exercise for filling gaps in memory. Columns: Prompt, First, Last, Best, Worst. Rows: any life category (pet, job, skill, gift, travel, trouble, advice). For each cell, recall the specific moment. The combinatorial structure generates dozens of story seeds from a single sitting.

All three feed into Bush's idea abundance principle — they are upstream of outlining sessions, ensuring there is always more raw material than can be processed.

The Tequila Test

Bush's heuristic for differentiation in online writing: the Tequila Test. The premise is that voice and personality — the qualities that make readers choose your writing over someone else's on the same topic — come through when you write the way you'd talk over drinks. If your writing wouldn't sound out of place coming from you at a bar, it passes the test.

This complements the specificity principle: specificity makes writing clear; the Tequila Test makes it yours. Both strip away the generic — one at the word level, the other at the voice level.

Recognizing and Removing AI Slop

LLM-generated text has identifiable stylistic tics that weaken writing even when the underlying ideas are sound. Peter Yang's "no-ai-slop" taxonomy catalogs 20+ recurring patterns, grouped by the kind of damage they do:

Fake structure and drama:

  • Binary contrasts — "It's not X. It's Y." Forces a false dichotomy to manufacture a reveal.
  • Negative listing — "Not a X. Not a Y. A Z." Stacks negations for rhetorical buildup that adds no information.
  • Dramatic fragmentation — "That's it. That's the whole thing." Short sentences used as mic-drops where no emphasis is earned.
  • Colon reveals — "The best part: it learns." The colon is doing the work of an argument the writer didn't make.

Vagueness disguised as authority:

  • Importance puffery — "marks a pivotal moment," "game-changing." Asserts significance without evidence.
  • Weasel attribution — "experts agree," "studies show." Claims consensus without citing anyone specific — the opposite of Cohen's specificity principle.
  • Superficial analysis — "highlighting the team's commitment." Restates surface-level observations as insight.
  • Fake-strong verbs — "serves as a centralized hub." Sounds active but says nothing.

Stylistic tells:

  • Throat-clearing openers — "Here's the thing..." Delays the point with performative intimacy.
  • Faux-insight setups — "What nobody tells you..." Promises insider knowledge, delivers a commonplace.
  • Synonym cycling — referring to the same entity as "the agent," then "the assistant," then "the tool" to avoid repetition, creating confusion about whether these are distinct concepts.

The antidotes are the fundamentals: lead with the point, use active voice, untangle hard-to-follow sentences, prefer concrete numbers over abstractions.

Tooling: Yang's taxonomy is packaged as an installable Claude Code skill with two modes — edit a draft (rewrites with minimum effective changes, then self-checks against an eval rubric) and detect slop (returns every pattern found with the quoted line). The self-eval loop means the tool catches its own regressions, a pattern worth replicating in any automated editing workflow.

Presentation as Communication Craft

Patrick Winston's MIT "How to Speak" lecture distills decades of presentation coaching into a set of heuristics that apply beyond the podium — several map directly onto writing structure.

The Knowledge–Practice–Talent formula. Communication quality is determined by knowledge of technique, practice applying it, and innate talent — in that order, with talent contributing the least. Winston illustrates this with a skiing anecdote: an Olympic gymnast was a worse skier than he was because he had the K and P; she only had T. The implication for writers: studying craft and producing volume matter far more than waiting for inspiration.

Empowerment promise. Never open with a joke — open with a promise of what the audience will know at the end that they don't know now. This is the presentation equivalent of a strong lede: it gives the reader a reason to stay. Bush's atomic essay headline test ("what outcome does it promise?") is the same principle in a written format.

Cycling. Revisit your key idea three times because at any given moment roughly 20% of your audience is fogged out. In writing, this translates to restating a core thesis at different levels of abstraction — once as a claim, once through an example, once as an implication — without feeling repetitive.

Fence-building. Explicitly distinguish your idea from the nearest similar idea. Winston's example: "My algorithm might seem similar to Jones's, except his is exponential and mine is linear." In writing, a single sentence of contrast ("This is not X; it's Y because...") prevents readers from mentally filing your argument under the wrong category. This is distinct from the AI slop "binary contrast" pattern — fence-building is earned differentiation backed by a real distinction, not a manufactured rhetorical reveal.

Winston's Star — five S's for memorability. For an idea to stick, it needs: a Symbol (a visual anchor — Winston's own PhD work on arch learning became famous partly because "the arch" was a recognizable image), a Slogan (a handle phrase — "one-shot learning"), a Surprise (a counterintuitive result — you don't need a million examples), a Salient idea (one concept that sticks out above the rest — the "near miss"), and a Story (the narrative of how it works and why it matters). Writers packaging a concept for an audience can audit against these five: does the piece have a visual, a phrase, a surprise, a lead idea, and a narrative arc?

Contributions, not conclusions. End with what you did, not what you observed. Winston insists the final slide should say "Contributions" — a mirror of the opening promise. For written pieces, this means closing with the specific takeaway the reader can act on, not a summary of what was discussed.

Connections

Writing craft is a foundational skill for distribution — cold outreach, content marketing, and audience building all depend on clear, specific writing. The cold outreach playbook emphasizes the same specificity principle: subject lines that feel written for exactly one person, openers that show you paid attention, asks that are too easy to say yes to.

The Connection: Specificity Enables Atomic Essays

Cohen's specificity principle and Bush's atomic essays reinforce each other. An atomic essay is a 250-word constraint — every word must earn its place. Generic words waste precious space. Specific words do double duty: they inform and persuade simultaneously. The combination of a tight format and specific language is what makes viral content.

Sources

  • "Specificity: A weapon of mass effectiveness" — Jason Cohen (link)
  • "If you can write this, you can build a massive audience on X in 2026" — Dickie Bush (link)
  • "How To Turn A 10-Minute Daily Brain Dump Into Content You Can Post Everywhere" — Dickie Bush — Outlining/output session split and idea abundance principle
  • "7 Simple Frameworks To Become A Prolific Digital Writer" — Dickie Bush (link) — Sacred Hours routine, three story-mining frameworks (Dicks' Storyworthy), Tequila Test differentiation heuristic
  • "no-ai-slop" — Peter Yang (link) — AI slop pattern taxonomy: 20+ recurring LLM writing tics grouped by damage type
  • "How to Speak" — Patrick Winston, MIT OpenCourseWare (link) — Communication heuristics: empowerment promise, cycling, fence-building, Winston's Star memorability framework, contributions-not-conclusions