I believe a person’s writing is defined by and closely correlated to the type of materials this person likes to read or watch. For me specifically, I am a tech enthusiast and a person with great curiosity. That’s why the materials that I tend to watch and read online are closely related to explaining how something works and the reasoning behind why it works this way. One good example of how this impacts my writing behavior would be my communication emails with my past colleagues. When I type out an email, it is typically my norm to go to a significant length explaining my point of view backed with statistical data, and at the same time, proving that my intentions are bias-free and harmless without sounding contradictory or conflictive. And suppose an email recipient is a non-technical person. In that case, I will usually try my best to explain the technical aspects within my conclusions in layman’s terms to help clarify my train of thought.

Another unique writing behavior that I exhibit is my strict attention to historical accuracy and context. After all, I believe that any conclusions that relied solely on an opinion may inadvertently mislead your readers into accepting an ideology opposite to what you were trying to advocate or prove. Similar to the overuse of personal views, any writer who publishes statistical data with their article without establishing full background knowledge or historical context will inevitably lead to biases in their conclusions. Such writing behavior could be disastrous and could imminently degrade the writer’s creditability and trustworthiness over time.  

Lastly, one of my most notable writing styles is my ability to see both sides of the argument. Being relatable, in my opinion, is crucial in any successful article. The ability to put yourself in the shoes of others and often with opposing views is critical to establishing integrity. An excellent example of this type of writing behavior is one of my YouTube comments to a documentary video earlier this year, discussing whether or not it is morally right to drop the two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. A group of people argued that it is ethically unnecessary and wrong for President Truman to authorize the drop of these two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I argued in that same thread, given the historical context and the intelligence President Truman knew at that time and the subsequent prediction of about four hundred to eight hundred thousand American soldier casualties if we were to invade Japan. Given all of these facts, if I put myself in President Truman’s shoes, I would have likely made a similar decision as him to avoid this massive cost of American lives.