Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?

This is not so much concerning the exact content of writing, but more along the lines of how such writing is framed. Obviously the viewpoint of thought and writing has the same source, but do they necessarily coincide in expression?

As a writer, I would like to believe that I have the ability to "speak" through various characters and situations, encompassing entirely different mindsets, value systems, etc.

However, there is undoubtedly some of "me" in whatever it is I write -- the "me" may be masked somewhat because most of what I create is fiction -- but I'm sure some of me comes out in the final draft....

The goal, of course, is never specifically to add or subtract "me" into or from the equation -- the goal is to tell an interesting and fun story that people will, hopefully, enjoy.

If I'm really doing my job, you'll be able to discern how Frank or Teresa or Larry feels about a Neptunian attack on Earth; but, like an umpire at a baseball game, a good author is most on his game when HIS presence is essentially unnoticed.

In the case of "fictional writing", I don't think that it is safe to assume very much about the author based on the writing.

But I do think that in the case were personal viewpoints are being expressed, the way those viewpoints are expressed, as well as the viewpoints themselves, are a very good indication of not only how the author thinks, but how one can expected them to act. Especially if there is a "high volume of data" (i.e. a lot of writing) from which to develop patterns and trends.

But that's just based on my own experience. Other' may have different experience.

It would seem to me that this would entirely depend on what the author is writing about, and how he or she expresses themselves.

If the author is writing fiction then I think it would be very misleading and inappropriate to believe that the fictional stories in any way are a reflection of how an author thinks.

However, in the case of things such as science or philosophy, I think it's appropriate to assume that a writer holds the views that he or she writes about. Especially if they are stating them as assertions and demanding that they can support them via irrefutable logic.

On the other hand, if they are writing them as "What if" scenarios rather than as assertions then clearly it would be wrong to assume that those ideas reflect how they think.

I was very fortune to have a really great professor in college when I took a course on scientific and technical writing. He would literally dance into the classroom everyday singing "Audience and Purpose, Audience and Purpose". He proclaimed that if this connection between Audience and Purpose was all we ever got out of his course we would become great technical writers. I found this perspective to be quite useful.

So, I guess my answer would be that it depends on what an author is writing about and how they frame their writings. If they are making assertions in their writings, then I would assume that they hold that view, otherwise why would they be writing it that way?

I take it that we write what we are .
This is true to some degree in the fiction world as well .
Will a caring, nice, just and respectable writer writes about how enjoyable it is when a rapist rapes a woman or a child for example ?. It is obvious the answer is no .
When I read my favourite authors I can feel how they try to emphasize a point .

I am a huge fan of Robert Heinlein. I've read everything he's published multiple times. Most of his published works are fiction, but he has also publish a significant amount of non-fiction, much of which is about his own personal philosophy. And there was a book published by his widow ("Grumbles From the Grave") that consisted solely of his personal correspondence with people such as his agents, editors, publishers, and friends.

Now with that in mind, I have noticed that in virtually every fictional book he has wirtten, there is at leaast one character whose personality and viewpoint align perfectly with his viewpoint as expressed in his non-fiction writings where the subject is explicitly his own viewpoint.

Now this is not to say that writers always do that. But it does seem to be a not unusual thing.

I don't think about what I'm going to write when I write. I keep a tape recorder by my bed and I record my dreams, or my thoughts that stem from my meditation... and write from what I have dictated to myself. I don't know where It comes from but when I wake or come out of the meditation I have much to record and then I decipher it later...and put it together.
So...yeah I suppose what I'm writing is from my thoughts however the thoughts come on a subconscious level.

Yes, I would say so. Even in the fiction I have read. There is an imposition of the auther? I am not sure that is the right word but I am trying to say a shadow or traslucent over lay of the author in the writing. Without it the book would lose vitality.

Example, had you never met Stephen King or seen him or heard him talk, you would still have a sense of the man. Anne Rice, same thing.

I think when people write personal like on these forums you may be able to get a lot more information about them.

But it is not completely accurate. I am speaking for myself. I write on here, even of personal things, but my wall is there so my real self is not disclosed even half the way.

As for thought process translating to writing... I say no because I am much better at verbally expressing my thoughts than to put them down in writing. Probably because I am more visual, so I can think things through with seeing myself speak it versus typing it out.

If that makes any sense and sometimes my fingers and my mind don't work together.

After reading this OP again, it occurs to me that one must conclude that what one writes is an exact reflection of what one thinks.

Even in the case of fictional writing, if a writer writes “John looked out over the landscape”, one has no choice but to conclude that the author was thinking exactly that when he wrote it.

Likewise, I think it is perfectly safe to conclude that how one writes reflects how on thinks.

For example, a writer who writes in a very minimalist and terse manner, could safely be considered the think in a very minimalist and terse manner, whereas a writer who writes in a very flowery and expansive manner could safely be considered to think in a flowery and expansive manner.

So there can be no doubt that there is at least some correlation between how one thinks and how one writes.

As I see it, the real issue boils down to the implications of the first three words of the OP. “Is it safe”, and the implied, “How much is safe.” That is, the degree of correlation between writing and thinking vis-à-vis the degree of safety.

Which really can only be answered by the reader and his own personal concept of what he considers is “safe” to conclude.

I'm not sure if I would be willing to take things quite this far. I personally feel that expressive writing is much like the other arts such as painting and music.

I can imagine the most beautiful violin music in my mind, but getting it to come out of my violin is a whole other story.

I can also imagine beautiful images in my mind, but drawing or painting them on cavass is, once again, a whole other story.

In a similar way I believe that thoughts (epsecially artistic expressive thoughts) can often be difficult to convey via written words. If it were easy, everyone would be a poet.

However, I still hold that scientific and technical writing is quite different. Especially if the writer is making assertions and demanding that the assertions constitute the eptiome of logic. In a case like that, no 'artistic expression' is even being considered. It's just a dry assertion that is claimed to be logically sound, or factual.

It seems to me that when a writer makes an assertion and claim that something is factual or logical, then the writer is basically stating that he or she holds this view. Otherwise why write it as an assertion?

If a writer makes an assertion and demands that it's true then it only seems right to assume that it is indeed the writer who is holding this view.

Who else could the view be attributed to if not the writer?

Excellent point.

In translating that "music" example into an example of "writing", is it safe to assume that if one uses poor grammar and spelling, they think in terms of poor grammar and spelling.

Well… in the case of grammar, it think it would be true.

But in the case of spelling, I wouldn’t necessarily think so. (Although it coud be said that a misspelling is how one thinks it should be spelled. But that is a reductio as absurdum that becomes all but irrelevant to what I believe to be the OPs intent.)

So it really becomes a question of: “How much is it ‘safe’ to assume?”.

And as I said in a previous post, that question can only be answered from the perspective of the reader, based on his own experience and evaluations.

I think that it is very important to first recognize the fact that whatever is implied to the reader by the words of a writer stems from what has already been accepted as true within the reader regarding what those words, used in that context, mean to them.

That does not necessarily equate the reader's presuppositions to the writer's.

For instance, I find it illogical to conclude that I can know, with any degree of certainty, that a writer necessarily agrees with every subject matter that s/he writes about just because they write about it in what is, or seems to me to be, a matter-of-fact style.

An author attempting to effectively place themself into the ideological mindset of *any* popular school of thought, must do so without presupposition. In order for myself to be able to entertain a foreign ideology, I feel as though that that task is best accomplished if and only iff I can do so carrying as little presupposition as possible into that line of thought.

In my experience, I have found that a reader who presupposes too much, will inevitably find what they are already looking for.

I feel quite confident that if I were to have said this to my English professor he would give me the following advice:

You do what you must do to consider whatever ideology you wish to entertain. However, there is no reason to maintain that mindset when writing to others about it. When writing to others you must consider your Audience and Purpose, not your own personal needs.

Ok.

And I was the favorite student of many of mine... scored in the 99.99% of evry standardized test I have taken since 6th grade... was told by a Creative Writing professor from the University of Cincinnati that my writing reminded him of a very famous mid-western writer whom I had not heard of before then.

How does any of that or your response apply to the OP?

Oh yeah, and my grandmother is an English professor.

So?

I feel quite confident that I would tell your English professor that he needed a course in logic, because of this...



Your purpose is your own personal need.

Here is a TEDtalks link which gives a scientific view of what we think about another's...



http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html

Considering the context of a course on technical writing I would imagine that the professor was more than justified in assuming that the ultimate purpose is communication.

But then I confess that this is just a guess on my part.

You premises may vary.