NationStates Jolt Archive

or, how using big words needlessly can make you look stupid. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112137622/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

The above titled piece was awarded an IgNobel prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006), unfairly in my view, because it's actually got some beneficial analysis, and some good advice for writers of all levels. The following is the abstract:
Most texts on writing style encourage authors to avoid overly-complex words. However, a majority of undergraduates admit to deliberately increasing the complexity of their vocabulary so as to give the impression of intelligence. This paper explores the extent to which this strategy is effective. Experiments 1-3 manipulate complexity of texts and find a negative relationship between complexity and judged intelligence. This relationship held regardless of the quality of the original essay, and irrespective of the participants' prior expectations of essay quality. The negative impact of complexity was mediated by processing fluency. Experiment 4 directly manipulated fluency and found that texts in hard to read fonts are judged to come from less intelligent authors. Experiment 5 investigated discounting of fluency. When obvious causes for low fluency exist that are not relevant to the judgement at hand, people reduce their reliance on fluency as a cue; in fact, in an effort not to be influenced by the irrelevant source of fluency, they over-compensate and are biased in the opposite direction. Implications and applications are discussed.
The end result is this: using overly ornate language is more likely to make you look dumb than look smart. Clarity is the best way to look intelligent, and it's what I preach to my college students all the time.

Side note--here's the sort of thing I look for the IgNobel prizes to see.
MEDICINE: Francis M. Fesmire of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, for his medical case report "Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage"; and Majed Odeh, Harry Bassan, and Arie Oliven of Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, for their subsequent medical case report also titled "Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage."
You can't make this stuff up, folks. :D

Did they control for correct use of the complex vocabulary?

or, how using big words needlessly can make you look stupid. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112137622/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

The above titled piece was awarded an IgNobel prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006), unfairly in my view, because it's actually got some beneficial analysis, and some good advice for writers of all levels. The following is the abstract:

The end result is this: using overly ornate language is more likely to make you look dumb than look smart. Clarity is the best way to look intelligent, and it's what I preach to my college students all the time.
Damn. I'd always try to do that in my essays. My motto was 'never use one word when five (or more) will do'. When you've got to write a 2000-2500 word essay in 5 hours, it's always helpful.

Did they control for correct use of the complex vocabulary?

I'm certainly no expert in this kind of study, but it looks like they did (if I'm understanding the lingo correctly, that is.) :D

Damn. I'd always try to do that in my essays. My motto was 'never use one word when five (or more) will do'. When you've got to write a 2000-2500 word essay in 5 hours, it's always helpful.

If I can just get my students to stop going for the Thesaurus tool every other sentence, I'll feel like I've accomplished something worthwhile.

or, how using big words needlessly can make you look stupid. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112137622/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

The above titled piece was awarded an IgNobel prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006), unfairly in my view, because it's actually got some beneficial analysis, and some good advice for writers of all levels. The following is the abstract:

The end result is this: using overly ornate language is more likely to make you look dumb than look smart. Clarity is the best way to look intelligent, and it's what I preach to my college students all the time.

Side note--here's the sort of thing I look for the IgNobel prizes to see.

You can't make this stuff up, folks. :D


I heard about the rectal massage hiccup cure. I think most people would rather hiccup. ;)

You know what to do with someone who uses needlessly complex words, don't you? Defenestrate him. :)

This thread makes my head hurt:headbang:

Did they control for correct use of the complex vocabulary?

If you find proper places to use uncommon words, it's sure to make you seem more intelligent. I think, however, that people have become accustomed to the fact that any idiot has access to a thesaurus. Using complicated words just makes it seem as if you rely too much on your thesaurus.

This thread makes my head hurt:headbang:
Try reading 20 papers written by kids who can't get enough of the big words sometime.:p

This thread makes my head hurt:headbang:Does it also give you intractable hiccups?

Does it also give you intractable hiccups?

I hear there's a cure for that. *glove snap*

Does it also give you intractable hiccups?

YAY! :D

If you find proper places to use uncommon words, it's sure to make you seem more intelligent. I think, however, that people have become accustomed to the fact that any idiot has access to a thesaurus. Using complicated words just makes it seem as if you rely too much on your thesaurus.

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

I heard about the rectal massage hiccup cure. I think most people would rather hiccup. ;)
I'll try anything once. :p :eek:

You know what to do with someone who uses needlessly complex words, don't you? Defenestrate him. :)
Do that with anyone. Don't see why you should need any sort of reason.

One thing to consider is the reader. If you use uncommon words (even if correctly) and the readers have a low vocabulary, it might be more likely to negatively impact their judgement of your intelligence. If you use correctly use uncommon words and the readers have a high vocabulary, then I would virtually gaurantee that their judgement of your intelligence would be positively influenced.

One thing to consider is the reader. If you use uncommon words (even if correctly) and the readers have a low vocabulary, it might be more likely to negatively impact their judgement of your intelligence. If you use correctly use uncommon words and the readers have a high vocabulary, then I would virtually gaurantee that their judgement of your intelligence would be positively influenced.

Actually, I would reverse that.

People with a high vocabulary will just be annoyed; people with a low vocabulary might be impressed.

I'll try anything once. :p :eek:


Do that with anyone. Don't see why you should need any sort of reason.

I've been defenestrated. It's not so bad. :)

I've been defenestrated. It's not so bad. :)

You were on the first floor, weren't you.

There's a theasaurus tool? :eek:

Good grief, I've yet to tame my spell checker!:p

"erudite vernacular" doesnt mean anything.

http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/patel.html

Enjoyable essay to read on the use of the English language. I use it to check my writing for some of the more blatant abuses of this fair tongue.

"erudite vernacular" doesnt mean anything.

See? A consequence. ;)

When teaching my students not to use jargon, I write this sentence on the board without explanation:

THE FECAL MATERIAL HAS IMPACTED AGAINST THE ROTARY OSCILLATOR.



About ten minutes later, someone bursts out laughing and explains to the rest of the class... which demonstrates why the $20 words are less effective sometimes that the $1 ones.

or, how using big words needlessly can make you look stupid. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112137622/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

The above titled piece was awarded an IgNobel prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006), unfairly in my view, because it's actually got some beneficial analysis, and some good advice for writers of all levels. The following is the abstract:

The end result is this: using overly ornate language is more likely to make you look dumb than look smart. Clarity is the best way to look intelligent, and it's what I preach to my college students all the time.

Side note--here's the sort of thing I look for the IgNobel prizes to see.

You can't make this stuff up, folks. :D

Is the reverse also true? If a writer is not overly bothered about what guesses readers might hazard about a writer's IQ then the writer can say any damned thing she wants? Or if a writer wants to temporarily lull the reader into a false sense of ivory tower based superiority then the writer should actively seek obtuse verbage?

THE FECAL MATERIAL HAS IMPACTED AGAINST THE ROTARY OSCILLATOR.

...which demonstrates why the $20 words are less effective sometimes that the $1 ones.

What $20 words? Honestly, I think what's being demonstrated is the state of education in some places (including my own...).

The opposite is sometimes, unfortunately, also true.

In college, taking a Shakespeare course in the English department (huge mistake, only take Shakespeare courses from the Drama department!) I wrote a final paper that was a masterpiece about Shakespeare's views on love at first sight, and how it can happen to anyone. Because I was making the point that high flown love is not just for the upper classes, I wrote the paper using a very colloquial style, with a lot of slang and such. I got a B-, and a note on the back from the professor saying "don't be flip". I asked her if I might rewrite it and resubmit for a higher grade. I did, using big words all the way through, but keeping my exact premise and structure. After final grades had been turned in, I went to pick up the paper. I got an A. I could only say "You just didn't get it, did you?" as I walked out.

When teaching my students not to use jargon, I write this sentence on the board without explanation:

THE FECAL MATERIAL HAS IMPACTED AGAINST THE ROTARY OSCILLATOR.



About ten minutes later, someone bursts out laughing and explains to the rest of the class... which demonstrates why the $20 words are less effective sometimes that the $1 ones.
Er, wow, slow class...:(

I never had a thesaurus until I noticed there was one built into MS Word. I tried using it on a few occasions, but it was never terribly useful. I usually opt to simply write the way I speak. And there are times that some people will laugh at the things I say, the language that I use - but that's okay with me. I just laugh right back.

I always try to balance eloquence and clarity. However, the use of more esoteric terms can give you more control over the intended audience; if you're writing something for a popular audience, put it in layman's terms. If your work is intended for people in your field or a well educated audience, adjust accordingly.

The ultimate marker of intended audience is jargon...when you use that, the only people who understand you clearly are those in the field.

I never had a thesaurus until I noticed there was one built into MS Word. I tried using it on a few occasions, but it was never terribly useful. I usually opt to simply write the way I speak. And there are times that some people will laugh at the things I say, the language that I use - but that's okay with me. I just laugh right back.

Honestly, I've never used a thesaurus...no matter what, using it always makes the final sentence sound awkward. You have to know the complex terms to use them properly; otherwise, you're just not going to be able to accommodate them in to your writing style in a way that flows properly.

When teaching my students not to use jargon, I write this sentence on the board without explanation:

THE FECAL MATERIAL HAS IMPACTED AGAINST THE ROTARY OSCILLATOR.



About ten minutes later, someone bursts out laughing and explains to the rest of the class... which demonstrates why the $20 words are less effective sometimes that the $1 ones.

... Anyone over the age of thirteen should have been able to comprehend that. Jeez.

---

And if the "big words" are used in context, I say use them. Also, I am staunchly against thesauruses. If you don't know the words already, you're probably not going to use them correctly. So stick to words you know and understand.

I never had a thesaurus until I noticed there was one built into MS Word.
You're still miles ahead of me Dobbs, I didnt notice there was a theasaurus in MS Word until I read this thread....

"erudite vernacular" doesnt mean anything.

I think that's the point. ;)

You should read the crap I have to write for these hotel video scripts - or worse, the scripts that other people have written. There's only so many ways of describing a Rodeway Inn or a Best Western - but the clients are never happy 'til you've bogged everything down with superlatives. Their bathrooms are never just... well, clean - it's always some falderal like, "our well-appointed and luxurious ensuite bathrooms will entice and pamper your senses while our rigorous standards of cleanliness will guarantee your happiness".

I kid you not.

Actually, I would reverse that.

People with a high vocabulary will just be annoyed; people with a low vocabulary might be impressed.
I don't understand the basis for such an annoyance. They already know what the word means, and you're one of the few people who uses it in the correct place.

As for less intelligent people, when they see a word they don't know, do you think they assume that it was used correctly? If not, it could certainly be an annoyance to them.

As for less intelligent people, when they see a word they don't know, do you think they assume that it was used correctly? If not, it could certainly be an annoyance to them.

I think even people who don't understand the term can get an idea of its correct usage; some words just don't sound "correct" when they're placed incorrectly regardless of whether you understand them or now.

And then there's shit like this: “Civilization and its Discontents: American Monomythic Structure as Historical Simulacrum.”

As for less intelligent people, when they see a word they don't know, do you think they assume that it was used correctly? If not, it could certainly be an annoyance to them.

Oh I don't know - in my experience, it tends to amuse such people more often than it annoys them.

Oh I don't know - in my experience, it tends to amuse such people more often than it annoys them.

It amuses me...I mean, I'm a college student so I see a lot of the products of Academia and a lot of them are laughably overwrought. I think a few too many professors have run out of real ideas and have started to just repackage old ideas in increasingly esoteric terms. They're reviving the high-school concept of filler and applying it to a much bigger scale.

We're in an arms race of esoterica...truly a terrifying thought.

I think even people who don't understand the term can get an idea of its correct usage; some words just don't sound "correct" when they're placed incorrectly regardless of whether you understand them or now.

And then there's shit like this: “Civilization and its Discontents: American Monomythic Structure as Historical Simulacrum.”
Yes you can kind of tell by syntax, but if you're trying to gauge the meaning of a word by syntax alone then you can't possibly tell if it was used incorrectly. If you don't already know the meaning of a word, you need at least two standards for determining its meaning in order tell if it was used correctly. Usually certain words can be understood by their components, like if they have any prefixes or suffixes.

Please floccinaucinihilipilificate my sesquipedalian circumlocutions. They are the result of one of my more annoying pecadilloes, one which has stymied many past relationships and prematurely terminated otherwise pleasant discourse. Namely, I desire to use words that amuse me, and at times I masticate over my verbosity more than is ultimately necessary for proper perusal of pedestrian parley preferred by the petulant pedagogue I never properly placate.

:p

In promulgating your esoteric cogitations and articulating your superficial sentimentalities or amicable philosophical observations, beware of platitudinous ponderosities.

That would be "platitudinous ponderings" not "ponderosities".

Not like all of the words I use are highly esoteric... Nor were they superficially sentimental. What I said describes a real problem I have had with using words other people don't know. Less amicable, more aggravating, because sometimes words (such as peccadilloes, poltroon, stymie, circumlocution, et cetera) just *FIT* what I want to say....

It amuses me...I mean, I'm a college student so I see a lot of the products of Academia and a lot of them are laughably overwrought. I think a few too many professors have run out of real ideas and have started to just repackage old ideas in increasingly esoteric terms. They're reviving the high-school concept of filler and applying it to a much bigger scale.

We're in an arms race of esoterica...truly a terrifying thought.

I am of the opinion that if you can't explain a concept to a twelve-year-old, you are overcomplicating it.

Not only would universal application of this principle slow down the "arms race" you point out, but it also helps stop you from outsmarting yourself.

I am of the opinion that if you can't explain a concept to a twelve-year-old, you are overcomplicating it.

Not only would universal application of this principle slow down the "arms race" you point out, but it also helps stop you from outsmarting yourself.

I'll call bullshit on that. Case in point: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11791636&postcount=1679

Essentially, there is a fair amount that comes from experience within a field, that requires so much background a 12 year old simply cannot handle it.

Essentially, there is a fair amount that comes from experience within a field, that requires so much background a 12 year old simply cannot handle it.

Yes, but requiring background knowledge is not the same thing as being complicated.

Yes, but requiring background knowledge is not the same thing as being complicated.
Oh? What, pray tell, makes something complicated, then?

Reductum ad absurdum doesn't make a subject simpler. That is, you can't say "oh, that's easy, it all comes back to your ABCs and your basic 8th grade math." Complexity entails having all the required background and knowing how to apply it. Hence, required background knowledge does make a subject more complex. In the case of the problem I'd linked to, a number of things were required: understanding a quasi-logarithmic graph, knowing the relationship of voltage, current, and resistance, knowing the effect of temperature upon a semiconductor, recognizing the form of the problem, and being able to simplify a problem involving numerous pieces of math beyond the basic "1 + 1 = 2, 2 * 2 = 4".

You're telling me that if I can't get a 12 year old to understand all those concepts and how to apply them, then what I'm saying is being "overcomplicated"?

The end result is this: using overly ornate language is more likely to make you look dumb than look smart. Clarity is the best way to look intelligent, and it's what I preach to my college students all the time.

Still, it would be nice if all courtrooms were like the People's Court. (where a person dosn't need a lawyer to translate english to english) :D

Oh? What, pray tell, makes something complicated, then?

Usually, a suspension of common sense in favor of highly abstract thinking.

Reductum ad absurdum doesn't make a subject simpler. That is, you can't say "oh, that's easy, it all comes back to your ABCs and your basic 8th grade math." Complexity entails having all the required background and knowing how to apply it. Hence, required background knowledge does make a subject more complex. In the case of the problem I'd linked to, a number of things were required: understanding a quasi-logarithmic graph, knowing the relationship of voltage, current, and resistance, knowing the effect of temperature upon a semiconductor, recognizing the form of the problem, and being able to simplify a problem involving numerous pieces of math beyond the basic "1 + 1 = 2, 2 * 2 = 4".

You're telling me that if I can't get a 12 year old to understand all those concepts and how to apply them, then what I'm saying is being "overcomplicated"?

The question is whether the reason the twelve-year-old does not understand is the esotericity of the concept itself or simply the quantity of background knowledge required.

When I wrote what I did I was actually thinking of philosophy, though, not the "hard" sciences so much (which have complexity built into them).

That would be "platitudinous ponderings" not "ponderosities".

Not like all of the words I use are highly esoteric... Nor were they superficially sentimental. What I said describes a real problem I have had with using words other people don't know. Less amicable, more aggravating, because sometimes words (such as peccadilloes, poltroon, stymie, circumlocution, et cetera) just *FIT* what I want to say....
I think the most important point here is that peccadilloes is a groovey word, (although not to be mistaken with armadillos), circumlocution has a nice ring to it also.

Usually, a suspension of common sense in favor of highly abstract thinking.



The question is whether the reason the twelve-year-old does not understand is the esotericity of the concept itself or simply the quantity of background knowledge required.

When I wrote what I did I was actually thinking of philosophy, though, not the "hard" sciences so much (which have complexity built into them).

Even in philosophy there are a number of complexities that, at the age of 12, a vast majority of people are incapable of properly understand. Take, by means of example only, the philosophy of solipsism: only the self is reality. Within the thought carries implications and contradictions to the "take the world as presented" view that a large number of 12 year olds (hell, a lot of adults) have. Then you get to philosophers like Kant, Descartes, Nietzsche. All have ideas which take more than simple analysis to adequately present their thoughts. Objective reality? A priori knowledge? The list goes on, but hopefully the point's been demonstrated: not everything can be reduced to a state of generalized comprehension without losing the content conatined therein.

Even in philosophy there are a number of complexities that, at the age of 12, a vast majority of people are incapable of properly understand. Take, by means of example only, the philosophy of solipsism: only the self is reality. Within the thought carries implications and contradictions to the "take the world as presented" view that a large number of 12 year olds (hell, a lot of adults) have. Then you get to philosophers like Kant, Descartes, Nietzsche. All have ideas which take more than simple analysis to adequately present their thoughts. Objective reality? A priori knowledge? The list goes on, but hopefully the point's been demonstrated: not everything can be reduced to a state of generalized comprehension without losing the content conatined therein.

None of those concepts are beyond the comprehension of a twelve-year-old, when they are presented properly. Some of the readings and arguments are, but that is precisely the point - they are so because they are needlessly complicated.

IIRC I read, understood, and attacked Descartes at twelve, and I remember arguing out the solipsism question as well. The concepts are really not that difficult; often they are clouded with needless jargon and complexity, however, and it is that against which I am arguing.

I think the most important point here is that peccadilloes is a groovey word, (although not to be mistaken with armadillos), circumlocution has a nice ring to it also.
Thank you! You see the beauty in those words :D.

Since I've actually stuck around longer than I thought, might as well translate my paragraph for those too lazy to use a dictionary:

Please floccinaucinihilipilificate (judge to be worthless) my sesquipedalian (foot and a half long words) circumlocutions (words used to get around a subject). They are the result of one of my more annoying pecadilloes (small character flaws), one which has stymied (hindered, slowed) many past relationships and prematurely (before the "right" time) terminated otherwise pleasant discourse (conversations). Namely, I desire to use words that amuse me, and at times I masticate (chew) over my verbosity (wordiness... in total, in my head I chew over the process of using more words than needed) more than is ultimately necessary for proper perusal (observation) of pedestrian (common) parley (conversation) preferred by the petulant (irritable... a joke at the expense of the OP ;)) pedagogue (educator) I never properly placate (pacify...er.. make at ease).

AKA

Excuse my lengthy BS. I can be annoying, and it slows a lot of the talks I try to have with people. Basically, I like having fun with English, and sometimes that involves thinking over the wordiest way to say something simple. This usually means what I'm saying isn't good for normal conversation, and it annoys the easily irritated teachers for whom I never try to make life easy.

Do not dissipate your competence by habitudenous prodigality lest you subsequently lament an exiguous inadequacy.

It amuses me...I mean, I'm a college student so I see a lot of the products of Academia and a lot of them are laughably overwrought. I think a few too many professors have run out of real ideas and have started to just repackage old ideas in increasingly esoteric terms. They're reviving the high-school concept of filler and applying it to a much bigger scale.

We're in an arms race of esoterica...truly a terrifying thought.

I remember when I was an undergrad in a class about early British Lit having to read some criticism on The Faerie Queen and telling my professor that I was tired of reading "critics" who wouldn't actually take a stand, but rather hid what meager points they were trying to make in jargon. I told her that in response to the various schools of critical thought, I was going to try to form the "no bullshit" school of lit crit. Still working on that one.

Have you checked this out yet?



http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

I am of the opinion that if you can't explain a concept to a twelve-year-old, you are overcomplicating it.

Other than background knowledge, I'd agree. A math formula or chemical equation is going to be complicated by its very nature, but you should try to explain the concept in as easily accessible terms as possible even though the concept itself is complicated. Sometimes, for example when you're dealing with math proofs, that is impossible because the nature of proof requires extremely precise and specific language to prevent error and address all of the steps.

However, the "soft" fields (like economics, philosophy, art, sociology) should have no problem doing this because their studies deal with the experiences and decisions of ordinary people. Really, we should use a linguistic version of Occam's Razor; use the simplest language that explains the entire concept accurately, and then cut out the rest of the filler and jargon unless it's absolutely necessary.

Not only would universal application of this principle slow down the "arms race" you point out, but it also helps stop you from outsmarting yourself.

Sometimes I seriously doubt if some professors know exactly what they are saying after they're done writing a paper. I could almost see them writing it and then replacing every word possible with a more erudite synonym.

I remember when I was an undergrad in a class about early British Lit having to read some criticism on The Faerie Queen and telling my professor that I was tired of reading "critics" who wouldn't actually take a stand, but rather hid what meager points they were trying to make in jargon. I told her that in response to the various schools of critical thought, I was going to try to form the "no bullshit" school of lit crit. Still working on that one.

Hell, if you take in to account the trees you'll save by eliminating all that filler you could bridge the gap between literary criticism and environmentalism...

Hell, if you take in to account the trees you'll save by eliminating all that filler you could bridge the gap between literary criticism and environmentalism...
I've done my part. My students turn in electronic copies of their essays and I grade them using Word's comment function.

The opposite is sometimes, unfortunately, also true.

In college, taking a Shakespeare course in the English department (huge mistake, only take Shakespeare courses from the Drama department!) I wrote a final paper that was a masterpiece about Shakespeare's views on love at first sight, and how it can happen to anyone. Because I was making the point that high flown love is not just for the upper classes, I wrote the paper using a very colloquial style, with a lot of slang and such. I got a B-, and a note on the back from the professor saying "don't be flip". I asked her if I might rewrite it and resubmit for a higher grade. I did, using big words all the way through, but keeping my exact premise and structure. After final grades had been turned in, I went to pick up the paper. I got an A. I could only say "You just didn't get it, did you?" as I walked out.
Why would you ever use colloquial language in a formal essay and expect a decent grade?

or, how using big words needlessly can make you look stupid. (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112137622/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

The above titled piece was awarded an IgNobel prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006), unfairly in my view, because it's actually got some beneficial analysis, and some good advice for writers of all levels. The following is the abstract:

The end result is this: using overly ornate language is more likely to make you look dumb than look smart. Clarity is the best way to look intelligent, and it's what I preach to my college students all the time.

Side note--here's the sort of thing I look for the IgNobel prizes to see.

You can't make this stuff up, folks. :D

Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.

Damn. I'd always try to do that in my essays. My motto was 'never use one word when five (or more) will do'. When you've got to write a 2000-2500 word essay in 5 hours, it's always helpful.

It is and it isn't. I did the same until I encountered Dr. Lence, one of my favorite aand most influential profs.

It's helpful if you want to pass off a BS essay like I did for my horrible World History course (by the end of the course, I was attempting to see how badly I could write a paper and still recieve asn A. I got an A in the course. Dr. Lence would likely have flunked me for the monstrosities I turned in.)

But if you want a well written paper for a properly demanding prof., baffel them with simplisity rather than BS.

If I can just get my students to stop going for the Thesaurus tool every other sentence, I'll feel like I've accomplished something worthwhile.

Indeed. I have the same problem with my conversational ESL students and electronic dictionsries. You'd be amazed at the shock when I tell them I do not allow any dictionaries in class, and explain why.

If you find proper places to use uncommon words, it's sure to make you seem more intelligent. I think, however, that people have become accustomed to the fact that any idiot has access to a thesaurus. Using complicated words just makes it seem as if you rely too much on your thesaurus.

No. If you find the exact proper place to use a word, it is because you are intelligent.

You know what to do with someone who uses needlessly complex words, don't you? Defenestrate him. :)

I've been defenestrated. It's not so bad. :)

I would be utterly shocked if you had not been.

http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/patel.html

Enjoyable essay to read on the use of the English language. I use it to check my writing for some of the more blatant abuses of this fair tongue.

Good choice. :D

When teaching my students not to use jargon, I write this sentence on the board without explanation:

THE FECAL MATERIAL HAS IMPACTED AGAINST THE ROTARY OSCILLATOR.



About ten minutes later, someone bursts out laughing and explains to the rest of the class... which demonstrates why the $20 words are less effective sometimes that the $1 ones.

That reminds me of my father's stint as our scout troop's scoutmaster. His method (the most effective of the 4 scoutmasters I survived) for dealing with swearing was to suggest overly ornate and obscure phrasings - "the current situation does indeed cause a vacuum" instead of "this sucks", for example. It didn't catch on until we slowly figured out we could functionally secretly swear.

Honestly, I've never used a thesaurus...no matter what, using it always makes the final sentence sound awkward. You have to know the complex terms to use them properly; otherwise, you're just not going to be able to accommodate them in to your writing style in a way that flows properly.

I use a thesaurus on occassion, simply to find exactly the precise word I need.

I've done my part. My students turn in electronic copies of their essays and I grade them using Word's comment function.

Hehehe... That's right up there with my Intro Anthropology prof's John Daniels grading scale"...

Excuse me for interrupting your longwinded debate on the merits of bullshitting, but I'm wondering.. Can you cure hicups by wanking/anal sex?

Excuse me for interrupting your longwinded debate on the merits of bullshitting, but I'm wondering.. Can you cure hicups by wanking/anal sex?

Do you mean by digital rectal stimulation? :p

The art of Bullshit is one of the oldest in humanity. Shall we give up our oldeat social convention just because one study tells us to?

No!

The art of Bullshit is one of the oldest in humanity. Shall we give up our oldeat social convention just because one study tells us to?

No!
I don't think anyone's saying you have to give it up. We're just saying that it's not going to get you what you desire--at least not in my classroom, it won't. ;)

Do you mean by digital rectal stimulation? :pWell... I interpreted that to mean "fun with a programmable dildo". For us guys at least, that's pretty much the same as having a wank.

So what's the answer? Is hicups a valid reason for casual sex & public wanking? I'd love an excuse for pulling my dick out next time I see a few nuns on the bus :p

You were on the first floor, weren't you.

*nod* Yes. Though I have defenestrated myself from a second floor.

*nod* Yes. Though I have defenestrated myself from a second floor.I'm impressed. I've only thrown myself out of a first floor window.

Well... I interpreted that to mean "fun with a programmable dildo". For us guys at least, that's pretty much the same as having a wank.

So what's the answer? Is hicups a valid reason for casual sex & public wanking? I'd love an excuse for pulling my dick out next time I see a few nuns on the bus :p

You need an excuse to do that?

Hell, if you take in to account the trees you'll save by eliminating all that filler you could bridge the gap between literary criticism and environmentalism...

To Nazz, inventor of the 10 page English textbook!

You need an excuse to do that?I never said anything about need. I don't need an excuse to offend people. The thing is, being able to justify it with something utterly idiotic adds to the fun :cool:

To Nazz, inventor of the 10 page English textbook!Well, Strunk and White got it down pretty tight in Elements of Style. I've never seen anyone else get it closer than that. But I did write a piece for our Department handbook for the composition classes titled "5 Steps to Writing an Interesting Essay." It's been pretty well received so far.

Well, t'would help if our essays were based more on content than the number of words or length. I could give all the required information for some essays in third of the given size range, and fail it.

Untill that's fixed, it's BS all the way...

Well, t'would help if our essays were based more on content than the number of words or length. I could give all the required information for some essays in third of the given size range, and fail it.

Untill that's fixed, it's BS all the way...

Well, I give assignments based on readings that are quite complex, and then give them a word range. For instance, when my students read the introduction to Renato Rosaldo's Grief and a Headhunter's rage, they were required to use a personal experience to discuss and explain one of the many points Rosaldo argued, and then to do it in 1,000 to 1,200 words. That's actually tough to do, as it required economy of language as opposed to ability to bullshit, and when I looked at some of their rough drafts, I often drew lines through the bullshit and told them to try again (and gave them suggestions as to the direction they might try).