I apologize in advance because I have feelings, opinions, and a hell of a lot of subjectivity on the topic of the rule of thirds. There will be cursing. That kind of arbitrary structure was some of the hardest to accept as gospel in high school English / Language Arts. But first I want to admit that I too have no horse in the chocolate vs butterscotch rat race and that it was your mention of milquetoast that made me hungry.
I wish I had the Roy Peter Clark / Poynter Institute explanation for the numerology in language much earlier than the mid-thirties when I discovered it and it finally clicked. Three seems like such an arbitrary number, but his guide to writing finally explained that it was a sociology hack. One is a thing, distinct from nothingness. Two invites the reader to compare and contrast. Three forms a trinity and has an aura of completeness. Four or more however appears weaker because it degrades things to a list. That's all there is to it when it comes to ... ahem ... persuasion. The relative strength of the evidence or actual facts don't matter. That always set off bullshitting alarm bells in my head. I loved reading about advertising hacks as a kid and how to identify all of the fake ways ads and salespeople tried to get into our heads in media and shopping centers and taught my kids to avoid interacting with the impulse buy aisle in the stores and look for the good stuff on the uppers shelves and compare cereals based on the nutrition info on the sides rather than anything on the cover because that was the exact opposite of what /they/ were trying to get you to do with their cheap psychology hacks.
In science we're taught we need at least 21 data points to establish a relationship. The point being, anything that happens less than 5% of the time is indistinguishable from random chance. Heck, the placebo effect can have greater measurable impact than 5%. Just tell them you've magically fixed something and don't even bother with the intervention or treatment. So we're already relying on extreme cherry picking of evidence when we assert that three points of data are enough to conclusively prove anything to anyone.
What's so special about the number three? The example Roy Peter Clark uses comes from the Bible, the compendium of cheap social hacks that work on the masses of uncritical people. The Bible's religion is complete, because it is formed from trinity comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now, they write a ton about God and Jesus, but where the F does the Holy Ghost arbitrarily come from if only to "complete" this "trinity".
From an engineering standpoint, we might talk about three supports forming a strong foundation for the three legged stool analogy. This is the first thing that holds some water if you're a civil engineer. However as a mechanical engineer we find three-wheeled vehicles as incredibly unstable. Sure a four-wheeler is just as likely to flip and crush you, but there's still an element of chance involved. On a tricycle you're expected to flip over from its inherent dynamic instability -- and it'd be your fault. But no, once an engineering type produces four or more supports for a vehicle or essay, they're just off making their pointless bullet points of inscrutable details no one cares about anymore and no one should listen to them. The British navy hated listening to engineers, relying instead on maritime tradition to develop and maintain their fleet. No one talks about the strength of the British navy anymore.
And are there situations where less than three supports are enough? I'm not the jealous type, but apparently religious people are so let us take the example of infidelity. If someone's spouse comes home with an STD, are they going to to say "well, I don't have three supports for the motion to file a divorce" and go on with married life until there's sufficient evidence? Sure, baseball taught us to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until three strikes and they're out, but even then they let the player walk on four balls so they're operating on a double standard or at least not playing on a level field.
I have more evidence to submit but I'll withhold them and stop at three because apparently the gullible masses can't comprehend anymore without weakening their reasoning abilities. But I will admit that the rule of threes does make sense in certain contexts. As a child I read a lot more books on jokes and magic, and the rule of threes works brilliantly there to support the weaker jokes and magic tricks. The first two points establish a pattern of expectation, and then the third one delivers an unexpected result. Ta da! You've been successfully fooled into believing something demonstrably wrong in the minimum possible steps! So that's what I associate with the rule of threes.
I hear some rumblings about education, uh, "decolonizing" some of these western essay structures like the rule of thirds and I tell you, I cannot stop counting the days until this passes.
I apologize in advance because I have feelings, opinions, and a hell of a lot of subjectivity on the topic of the rule of thirds. There will be cursing. That kind of arbitrary structure was some of the hardest to accept as gospel in high school English / Language Arts. But first I want to admit that I too have no horse in the chocolate vs butterscotch rat race and that it was your mention of milquetoast that made me hungry.
I wish I had the Roy Peter Clark / Poynter Institute explanation for the numerology in language much earlier than the mid-thirties when I discovered it and it finally clicked. Three seems like such an arbitrary number, but his guide to writing finally explained that it was a sociology hack. One is a thing, distinct from nothingness. Two invites the reader to compare and contrast. Three forms a trinity and has an aura of completeness. Four or more however appears weaker because it degrades things to a list. That's all there is to it when it comes to ... ahem ... persuasion. The relative strength of the evidence or actual facts don't matter. That always set off bullshitting alarm bells in my head. I loved reading about advertising hacks as a kid and how to identify all of the fake ways ads and salespeople tried to get into our heads in media and shopping centers and taught my kids to avoid interacting with the impulse buy aisle in the stores and look for the good stuff on the uppers shelves and compare cereals based on the nutrition info on the sides rather than anything on the cover because that was the exact opposite of what /they/ were trying to get you to do with their cheap psychology hacks.
In science we're taught we need at least 21 data points to establish a relationship. The point being, anything that happens less than 5% of the time is indistinguishable from random chance. Heck, the placebo effect can have greater measurable impact than 5%. Just tell them you've magically fixed something and don't even bother with the intervention or treatment. So we're already relying on extreme cherry picking of evidence when we assert that three points of data are enough to conclusively prove anything to anyone.
What's so special about the number three? The example Roy Peter Clark uses comes from the Bible, the compendium of cheap social hacks that work on the masses of uncritical people. The Bible's religion is complete, because it is formed from trinity comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now, they write a ton about God and Jesus, but where the F does the Holy Ghost arbitrarily come from if only to "complete" this "trinity".
From an engineering standpoint, we might talk about three supports forming a strong foundation for the three legged stool analogy. This is the first thing that holds some water if you're a civil engineer. However as a mechanical engineer we find three-wheeled vehicles as incredibly unstable. Sure a four-wheeler is just as likely to flip and crush you, but there's still an element of chance involved. On a tricycle you're expected to flip over from its inherent dynamic instability -- and it'd be your fault. But no, once an engineering type produces four or more supports for a vehicle or essay, they're just off making their pointless bullet points of inscrutable details no one cares about anymore and no one should listen to them. The British navy hated listening to engineers, relying instead on maritime tradition to develop and maintain their fleet. No one talks about the strength of the British navy anymore.
And are there situations where less than three supports are enough? I'm not the jealous type, but apparently religious people are so let us take the example of infidelity. If someone's spouse comes home with an STD, are they going to to say "well, I don't have three supports for the motion to file a divorce" and go on with married life until there's sufficient evidence? Sure, baseball taught us to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until three strikes and they're out, but even then they let the player walk on four balls so they're operating on a double standard or at least not playing on a level field.
I have more evidence to submit but I'll withhold them and stop at three because apparently the gullible masses can't comprehend anymore without weakening their reasoning abilities. But I will admit that the rule of threes does make sense in certain contexts. As a child I read a lot more books on jokes and magic, and the rule of threes works brilliantly there to support the weaker jokes and magic tricks. The first two points establish a pattern of expectation, and then the third one delivers an unexpected result. Ta da! You've been successfully fooled into believing something demonstrably wrong in the minimum possible steps! So that's what I associate with the rule of threes.
I hear some rumblings about education, uh, "decolonizing" some of these western essay structures like the rule of thirds and I tell you, I cannot stop counting the days until this passes.