it's a stylized example, for noobs who find themselves offensive upon any listen-back. For example, the comment I'm responding to suggests "reading their own writing to be painful". This is clearly not performer-tier, which you clearly are talking about.

To flesh out the example, I was bad at singing initially. I could be in-tune in a certain range, maybe 1.5-2 octaves, but even then my timbre was off, my pronunciations were off, it was too shrill here and there, my range was limited, etc.. Easy things to figure out on your own; painful things to hear on playback.

Now, later, I have 3+ octave range, multiple tones I can accomplish, the ability to power voice / head voice / rasp / break / scream, so when I sing for people they are able to give me subjective feedback on my artistic expression rather than my technical shortcomings, so the feedback diverges from what I would think myself, which is fantastic.

My point is that you don't get to the "performer" stage where people critique your expression without getting to a stage where your own art/work is palatable to you yourself.

> Do you draft while you think and research? What's your process?

Yes, I write behind a main thesis statement, and I write a first draft and simultaneously I collect evidence for this point. if I come to some conflict in my readings, I let this fuel my learnings. I don't just brush it aside as confusing, and then publish my work, come back to the conflicting info in 6 months and realize my idiocy, and then be like "oh damn my opinion flip flopped again, oops".