I hate dumb people.

[phnxdark23]

We have peer reviews to do with our papers in my English class. The girl with whom I exchange papers is a dumbass. Here's an example (bold is her response, normal is the question):

Choose one sentence in the paper that seems to be the weakest - confusing, awkward, uninspired. The change in his life was undeniable, so the validity of the event

Comments

[iskra]

If she had to look up the word, you aren't writing to your audience. When someone doesn't understand what a word means, the point of writing is thrown out.

The best essay is one that says the most, in the most simplistic way possible. Using the word 'superfluous' only accomplishes one thing, self-flattery.

I do agree that it is a weak sentence, because the concept you are trying to communicate is over-complicated.

I don't really know the context, but I have trouble imagining how an event can be excessively valid.

Re:

[iskra]

Let me clarify on the last statement. Something is either valid or isn't. Something can not be overly right, or more right than necessary, or go above and beyond in it's level of validity. Something cannot overflow with correctness.

I also think it is rather elitist of you to assume that she is dumb because she doesn't know what 'superfluous' means. Vocabulary is only one indicator of intelligence, and I could argue that it is a relatively minor one.

Re:

[cameraman23]

But he's saying that the truth (validity) of the event is unnecessary to the change, and therefore the truth is an overflow to the actuality of the change. Not that it's over-true. That doesn't make any sense.

Although I recognize that vocabulary is often misused as an indicator of intelligence, I also believe that understanding a large number of words in your language helps so cultivate a large number of ideas. Not everything can be explained in smaller words.

Re:

[iskra]

I have no idea what he is trying to prove, I have no context, but the sentence itself seems very weak

Re:

[cameraman23]

There's a difference between using more specific words and using jargon

Re:

[iskra]

The review sheet asked if anything was confusing, and if she didn't understand the word, then it obviously was.

Yes, she should have looked at a dictionary, but she didn't and most people wouldn't...so why not explain it so it can be understood without having to use one?

If a person doesn't understand the word, they certainly aren't going to grasp the connotations.

The simple fact is, the idea could have been just as effectively (and in my opinion, more clearly) communicated without invoking an SAT word.

The change in his life was undeniable, so the validity of the event itself is irrelevant and excessive.

(I could probably do this better if I had context.)

Re:

[cameraman23]

But I'm all for people learning.

Version 1 : (When does the move to make things easy stop? When there are a lot of them, easy words start being really silly. My idea is more bad when I use easy words. It starts to be hard to say hard and big ideas with a small number of words. I can't make you have the same pictures that I have in my head if you only see easy words. Also, the small meanings inside the ideas I have will not get to you, even if I use a lot of small words.)

Version 2: (At what point does the simplification stop? Eventually, using simple words becomes ridiculous. My thoughts themselves are weakened when I only use a combination of simple ideas. Convincing someone of an idea, or even conveying the correct denotation becomes a major dificulty when you limit your vocabulary to simple words. Not to mention that the nuances of speech are completely removed.)

If you don't understand something, it should be your duty as a human being to attempt to understand it.

Re:

[iskra]

It should be...maybe. We can go around making normative statements like that all day, and it will get us nowhere. The fact remains that people obviously don't care that much. So unless you have a very, very thinly targeted audience, at least write it so can be read by most people. It just makes logical sense

Re:

[cameraman23]

And his audience was his professor.

Case closed.

Also, it's good to 'talk' to you, Kevin.

We should have LJ discussions more.

Re:

[iskra]

AND a classmate.

Re:

[cameraman23]

Who is a dumbass.

And I'm an elitist.

Therefore, his classmate isn't a person.

And I still win.

And Nate hates us for ruining his comments page.

Re:

[iskra]

My writing style will prevail...after the red revolution fosters in the glorious anti-formalist writing style.

Re:

[cameraman23]

Not to mention his inbox, if he gets comments that way.

Re:

[phnxdark23]

Holy hell. This got insane out of hand. Ah well.

Kevin (and really Rachel and Emily too) - I wasn't arguing that she was a moron because she doesn't know what superfluous means. That's not that big of a deal. The fact the she thought the weakest sentence in my incredibly weak paper that I wrote in 20 minutes (literally) was weak because she doesn't understand a word makes her a moron. Also, bear in mind that this is a small microcosm of the rest of the review and also her paper. I know her - she is a moron.

And the audience was in no way her, Kevin - I write to my professor, who understands some big words.

Re:

[phnxdark23]

And, just to clarify, Paul wins.

And yes, my inbox was crazy.