The fact that you was taught that in elementary school and thus literally concluded that it is impossible to read something without knowing conclusion first is what makes it cultural. The fact that he and everyone around him sees conclusion up front as jumping the gun and likely was taught that structure in school, is what makes it cultural.

> How could you read anything without knowing the point in the beginning. Even research papers start off with an abstract.

It is pretty easy to read email or argument without knowing the conclusion up front. You just read on. Research papers are specific writing with specific rules. I dont really think they are in general example of good or persuasive writing.

It doesn't make sense as being cultural because there plenty of real examples of effective writing that starts with what you are writing about. The only exception might be in story telling, but that only works because there is some kind of context assumed or it works as a tool.

It makes no sense for this "culture" to think less of research or any writing that intends to persuade because it starts with a introduction or summary. Anyone who starts with a summary of what is going to follow will be a more effective communicator. They would be missing out on lots of writing that is done this way.

Your first paragraph or sentence will always be an introduction. If you choose to not take advantage of it to set the context of what follows the writing will be more confusing or require a second read through. Its like wandering through a forest vs following a trail map. At work, writing something that needs automatically needs a second read through is a problem.

I guess i have hard time believing this culture exists the way is presented, and isn't being misinterpreted.

> It is pretty easy to read email or argument without knowing the conclusion up front.

Its not, that was the point of the thread were commenting on

> Research papers are specific writing with specific rules. I dont really think they are in general example of good or persuasive writing.

This is one example, it has rules because those are effective at communicating. How can you just write it off like that? With no reason other then you think it doesn't count?

> It doesn't make sense as being cultural because there plenty of real examples of effective writing that starts with what you are writing about.

This is a non-argument. In the US, writing is considered effective if you put the bottom line up front. GP wrote that BLUFfing is considered offensive in their culture. Now you respond that lots of people like BLUFfing.

Now you say it's not culture-dependent but a universal truth that BLUF is better.

Well, other cultures disagree.

Bluf seems to be a specific thing, no one mentioned that in the thread I'm commenting on.

The post that I responded to suggested having an intro with a summary of what's to follow is offensive

> It doesn't make sense as being cultural because there plenty of real examples of effective writing that starts with what you are writing about.

That argument does not make sense.

> It makes no sense for this "culture" to think less of research or any writing that intends to persuade because it starts with a introduction or summary.

And it does not make sense for you to look down at writing that puts conclusion to the end going with arguments first. It is just an habit and meaningless difference, that is all.

> This is one example, it has rules because those are effective at communicating. How can you just write it off like that? With no reason other then you think it doesn't count?

Researchers and their papers are not effective at communicating. That a thing that researches complain about periodically.

In any case, corporate mail is not research paper. Among other things, it is supposed to be significantly shorter. Just like it is not newspaper article.

Can you show me something written that doesn't have an introduction that includes a summary of what's to come

You could still totally just read the ending first if it's that big of a deal for you.

This approach depends very much on culture. For example, US culture is very much, get to the point, start with the conclusion. German culture requires you to outline how you got to the conclusion.

Interesting book on this topic: The culture map, by Erin Meyer. (https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Map-INTL-ED-Decoding/dp/16103...)

It has a whole chapter on this topic: 3 - Why versus How, the art of persuasion in the multicultural world.

German culture requires no introduction in any writing? Am I talking about the same thing as everyone else commenting?

Anything you write will always have a first sentence or paragraph. Your saying it's offensive to use that to give an overview of what's to come and to set the tone of the writing?

Looks like i wasn't very clear.

The difference according to the book is that if you want to convice an audience of something, e.g, result of a study, americans are more interested in the results and how to apply it. Germans want to understand how you got to the results, what the process was behind it so they can understand that your results are correct.