I'm a mechanical thinker. I like lists and numbers and charts and graphs and knowing exactly where I'm going and what I'm going to do to get there. This ideology has always spilled over into my writing and I've always felt that that was not how writing was supposed to be. In my mind I felt like writing research papers was different than writing schematics or a computer program. I felt like papers were heart-felt reflections of impulse where you're not supposed to think, you're just supposed to write. In some poetic cases that may be true, but I'm learning that this is not always true in research papers. In fact it's never true (yes!).
What is my claim? Do I have reasons to back up my claim? Do I have evidence to support my reasons? Do I acknowledge and respond to alternatives? What principles make my reasons relative to my claim.
I read those question conditions that TCR claims is the foundation of research writing, and I like it. I like it to be mechanized. I like how linear and cohesive it is. My original ideology wasn't wrong after all. CLAIM because of REASON based on EVIDENCE. I'm starting to enjoy the clockwork of this book now.