Personal opinions shouldn't dominate technical writing; aim for clarity and objectivity.

Outline (brief)

• Hook question and answer: True or False? False — personal opinions don’t belong in effective technical docs.

• Why this matters: clarity, accuracy, objectivity as the backbone; audience needs over author vibes.

• Where opinions creep in and why it hurts: biases, anecdotal warmth, superlatives; consequences for reliability.

• Staying objective in practice: data, standards, citations, neutral tone, structure that serves the user.

• Practical tactics: templates, checklists, peer reviews, user-centered testing, revision rituals.

• Real-world analogies and light tangent: maps, safety instructions, API docs—how neutrality guides users.

• Quick tips recap and gentle nudge to apply these ideas.

In the world of technical communication, you’ll often face questions that feel almost philosophical, even when they’re about very practical tasks. Here’s a question that shows up a lot: True or False: In effective technical communication, the writer's personal opinions should dominate. The answer is False. And yes, I’ll explain why without turning this into a lecture hall about ego. The question isn’t about suppressing personality. It’s about making sure the information stands up, travels cleanly, and helps the reader get where they need to go.

Let’s start with the core: what makes technical writing work well

If you’ve ever opened a user guide or a product spec and walked away with a clear understanding of how to do something, you’ve felt the power of objective writing. The main goals are straightforward: clarity, accuracy, and usefulness. The audience—engineers, technicians, product teams, or everyday users—should be able to read, understand, and apply what you’ve written without stumbling over the author’s voice or opinions.

• Clarity means simple, direct language that reflects how people think and act.

• Accuracy means facts, figures, steps, and references that you can verify.

• Objectivity means presenting information neutrally, with boundaries between what’s known, what’s recommended, and what’s opinion.

Put differently, effective technical writing serves the user first, not the writer’s perspective. It’s a form of service delivery—information as a tool, not as a stage for personal discussion.

Where personal opinions creep in—and why that’s a problem

Let me ask you a quick thing: have you ever run into a manual that feels like it’s cheering for the author’s favorite gadget rather than guiding you through the steps? That’s personal opinion edging into the page. Some telltale signs:

• Phrases that signal belief rather than fact: “I think this is the best way,” “In my experience, users prefer...”

• Superlatives or value judgments about products, approaches, or methods that aren’t backed by data.

• Vivid, subjective adjectives that color the instruction beyond what’s needed for the task.

Why is this a problem? Because bias can mislead, distract, or confuse. If a reader starts questioning the credibility of a claim or the reliability of a procedure, they slow down. In critical contexts—safety, troubleshooting, configuration, or compliance—opinion-based statements can fail the reader when a precise, evidence-backed approach is required.

Think of it like navigation. A good map gives you the route, distances, and landmarks. It doesn’t spin a tale about the cartographer’s favorite neighborhood or who should win the next highway race. If the map starts telling you, “In my opinion, this is the nicer road,” you might hesitate or get frustrated. The goal is straightforward directions, not a diary entry.

How to keep documents objective in real life

Staying objective isn’t about muting your voice completely. It’s about channeling it into helpful, verifiable form—where your role is to guide, not to persuade with personality. Here are practical moves:

• Lead with user needs and outcomes. Every section should answer: what does the reader do, and why does it matter?

• Rely on data and standards. Use measurements, test results, specifications, and cited sources. If you mention performance, back it up with numbers.

• Use neutral language. Favor terms like “this method,” “the steps,” “the recommended approach,” rather than “the best way” or “our preferred option.”

• Separate facts from opinions. If you must include a recommendation, frame it as a data-backed conclusion or a policy-derived directive, not as a personal verdict.

• Apply a consistent voice. A style guide—whether it’s a brand guide, a corporate guide, or a standards document—helps enforce tone, terminology, and formatting so readers don’t get jarred by mismatches.

• Show your reasoning, not your mood. When you explain a choice, reveal the logic, the pros and cons, and the trade-offs. That transparency builds trust.

A few tactical examples you can copy-paste

• Instead of: “In my experience, users clearly prefer this tool because it’s faster.”

Try: “User tests show a 20% faster completion time with Tool A. This document uses Tool A for the primary workflow.”

• Instead of: “This feature is amazing and will change everything.”

Try: “This feature enables X, reduces Y by Z, and aligns with standard N. The impact is measured in A, B, and C.”

How to practice objectivity without sounding robotic

Objectivity is not the same as blandness. You can be precise, clear, and even a touch human without drifting into subjective territory. A few levers help:

• Structure your content for the reader’s tasks. Start with context, move to steps, then wrap with outcomes and caveats.

• Use active voice to convey responsibility and action, but balance with necessary passive constructions when you’re describing a system-wide process.

• Include examples that illustrate the steps with real-world data or test cases, labeling assumptions clearly.

• Welcome feedback. A quick peer review can flag moments where tone slides into opinion or bias.

Let’s take a moment for a quick analogy

Think about a manufacturer’s safety bulletin. The aim isn’t to entertain; it’s to prevent harm. You want precision: exact temperatures, clear warnings, and explicit actions if something goes wrong. Personal storytelling or opinion would dilute that purpose. The same mindset applies to API docs, installation guides, or troubleshooting manuals. Your job is to convey facts that empower the reader to act correctly and safely.

A few bite-sized tactics for day-to-day writing

• Start with a task-focused outline. List the user’s goals first, then the steps, then the outcomes. Don’t wander into a paragraph that’s all “I.”

• Use checklists for consistency. A short list at the start of a procedure helps readers know what’s coming and what to verify.

• Cite sources and standards. When you reference a spec or a test result, link to or cite the exact source.

• Prefer concrete nouns and verbs. “Install the module,” not “the module can be installed.” Specificity helps readers act.

• Keep sections scannable. Use headings that reflect tasks, not opinions.

• Don’t overpromise. If a feature has limitations, say so—and explain the workarounds.

Where to bring in a little human touch without tipping into bias

A touch of warmth can help readers feel understood, especially in long guides or dense docs. A light, context-aware aside can be fine, as long as it doesn’t overshadow the instruction. For example, after a set of steps you might add a brief note like, “If you’re using this on an older system, you may see a longer load time; here’s a recommended pause.” It’s practical, not persuasive.

Real-world contexts where this matters

• User manuals for complex devices: People rely on precise instructions to avoid errors or injuries. Objectivity matters more than personality.

• Technical white papers and product notes: Readers want evidence, not persuasion masquerading as information.

• Developer docs and API references: Clear, deterministic language helps developers integrate quickly and correctly.

• Safety and compliance documents: Neutral, verifiable language is not negotiable.

A few quick takeaways

• The correct stance is simple: let the information do the talking. The writer’s opinions should not dominate.

• Prioritize clarity, accuracy, and usefulness. Every sentence should serve the reader’s task.

• Use data, standards, and evidence to back up recommendations and claims.

• Maintain a consistent, professional tone that respects the reader’s time and needs.

• Iterate with peers. A fresh set of eyes often spots bias or subjective phrasing you might miss.

If you’re crafting technical content, consider this moment of honesty: you’re building a bridge for someone else. Your bridge should be sturdy, well-lit, and straight to the point. Opinions can be a detour or a decorative flourish, but they shouldn’t be the main deck that supports the crossing.

Final thoughts

The idea that personal opinions should dominate in technical communication doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. When you foreground clarity, accuracy, and objectivity, you’re delivering something truly valuable: reliable information that helps people do what they need to do, safely and efficiently. A well-constructed document reduces cognitive load, speeds up learning, and earns the reader’s trust—one neutral, well-supported line at a time.

If you’re looking to sharpen this muscle, start with a simple audit: read a piece you’ve written and mark any sentence that reads like an opinion. Can you replace it with a factual alternative, backed by data or standards? If yes, you’re on the right track. And if you want, I can help you tailor a quick checklist or a template that keeps your writing crisp, user-centered, and thoroughly grounded in evidence.