I hate dumb people.
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 ( Read more... )
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 ( Read more... )
I think true intelligence lies in the ability to explain complex concepts in the most simplistic manner possible. When you explain complex things in complex words you aren't doing anything, aside from showing off what words you know. When you break it down into more simplistic language you are actually explaining what the concept means, instead of relying on the aid of other people's vocabulary and intellectual ability.
If I say "The emergence of the European Union is a clear departure from realist IR theory. The apparent success of this departure is paving the way toward universal acceptance of functionalist and neofunctionalist international relations thought."
That would tell 99% of the population absolutely nothing. I would be much better off dropping the jargon and explaining the concept in more simplistic terms.
"The emergence European Union clearly runs against the way Europeans have traditionally viewed foreign policy. In the past, Europeans thought that large military build-ups were the only way to remain safe and avoid war. Today, Europeans see that cooperation and integration, through the European Union, is the best way to achieve lasting peace. The success of the European Union is convincing people that this new approach is the better one."
Anyone who has a basic understanding of European history can understand what was being communicated in the second one, and the two say essentially the same thing. Since the second paragraph can inform a wider percentage of the population, I would venture to say it was the more intelligently written one.
Just because you know the words doesn't mean you should use them. The fact that the word-choice is valid becomes irrelevant when the word isn't understood.
Reply
Jargon is used usually exclusively within a field to save time and avoid overexplanation of common subjects. While neofunctionalist international relations may not come up in my every day speech, the term would be very useful to someone who regularly dealt with matters of international affairs.
Specificity in language is not a bad thing. To use a silly example, I would prefer to use the word "plenipotentiary" than say "Someone who holds full control and responsibility for the future potential and possibility of a person or commodity. This person is implied to have a legal or political responsibility." Because the full connotations are not obvious when a word is simplified, more specific words are needed.
The person who read Nate's paper should have read a dictionary. Dictionaries were made for just this purpose. The word "superfluous" does not mean quite the same thing as "excessive or unnecessary". The validity of the event was superfluous to the truth of the change.
Reply
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.)
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Case closed.
Also, it's good to 'talk' to you, Kevin.
We should have LJ discussions more.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
And yes, my inbox was crazy.
Reply
Leave a comment