Vanity amendments are those which improve a text only in terms of appearance. They do nothing to change the meaning or to improve clarity by reducing the possibility of a false interpretation. Vanity amendments are not bad in and of themselves. Improving appearance is still an improvement. There are times when we need documents to look perfect.
Vanity amendments are a problem because they slow the world down by distorting the priority of work.
They ought to be of low priority because of their minimal value. Writing first needs to have good content, that can be used. There is rarely value in having perfect aesthetic form. Users want to sign a contract to start a new business, read a report so that they can use its contents to make decisions, browse a guide to learn something new. They can accept if there are some small errors.
Often, vanity amendments fill in what the reasonable reader would have easily filled in themselves mentally when reading. However, this makes them easy to spot and highlight. You can look pretty smart and sharp, having picked up on a missing word or wrong formatting, instead of putting the effort to think about deeper concerns. When reviewers in a position of power fixate on this, it distorts priority from important concerns and focuses everyone's attention on the wrong things. This wastes energy that can be spent on the contents, making sure the messages within are correct and useful to the reader.
It could be said that a document with errors looks sloppy and shows insufficient thought. What about a different view, accepting that with limited time, errors might happen because energy has been spent on the important things. Sadly it is hard to show how much effort is put into the content, good content looks easy after all.
Or, it could be argued that tiny errors have led to huge outcomes before (such as a comma triggering insolvency). What are the real chances of this? Is it worth the added effort? In any case, when vanity errors cause problems, is it more a problem of the system than the writer?
The world has no time for this kind of perfection. Neither do individuals having to balance the difficulties of life. If we learn to cut down our need to force things to look perfect in our eyes, we would have more time to solve real problems.
Vanity amendments are a problem because they slow the world down by distorting the priority of work.
They ought to be of low priority because of their minimal value. Writing first needs to have good content, that can be used. There is rarely value in having perfect aesthetic form. Users want to sign a contract to start a new business, read a report so that they can use its contents to make decisions, browse a guide to learn something new. They can accept if there are some small errors.
Often, vanity amendments fill in what the reasonable reader would have easily filled in themselves mentally when reading. However, this makes them easy to spot and highlight. You can look pretty smart and sharp, having picked up on a missing word or wrong formatting, instead of putting the effort to think about deeper concerns. When reviewers in a position of power fixate on this, it distorts priority from important concerns and focuses everyone's attention on the wrong things. This wastes energy that can be spent on the contents, making sure the messages within are correct and useful to the reader.
It could be said that a document with errors looks sloppy and shows insufficient thought. What about a different view, accepting that with limited time, errors might happen because energy has been spent on the important things. Sadly it is hard to show how much effort is put into the content, good content looks easy after all.
Or, it could be argued that tiny errors have led to huge outcomes before (such as a comma triggering insolvency). What are the real chances of this? Is it worth the added effort? In any case, when vanity errors cause problems, is it more a problem of the system than the writer?
The world has no time for this kind of perfection. Neither do individuals having to balance the difficulties of life. If we learn to cut down our need to force things to look perfect in our eyes, we would have more time to solve real problems.