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?

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.

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

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.