Big Words VS Dumbing Down - Round 5

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I don't disagree, but in conversation what we're looking for is understanding, mutual understanding; agreement is too much to ask for. That's perhaps a bit different from closing a sale.

Yes I agree and audience is better but the point remains. And in truth you haven't hit on the the heart of things. Intention -

I am much better at explaining business so let me try this from a more comfortable angle.

In business we market, sell and provide/produce.

I always have businesses describe their audience, who they plan to sell to. Then I ask can this audience fully support and grow your business? Then the question is how are you going to get the message that you have what they need/want to them.

The sale happens upon the agreement of terms and completes upon delivery of the promised product.

So in this case I think everyone is trying to say who is your audience and how are you getting the message to them.

You are right if your target audience is Willie etc you hit right on but if you hoped to open up conversation with a larger group well you did that you just didn't necessarily open the conversation I believe you intended.

So Intention - Aim your conversations with Intention - know your audience or at least recognize the audience you'd like to get to know. You may not hit a bullseye every time but you'll gain knowledge and so will they.

[shellebelle]

Agreement is not your sale - conversation, information - your intention - that is your sale.

My point remains - choose your intention and be clear in conveying it. Whatever it may be. Like you are marketing.

I don't disagree, but in conversation what we're looking for is understanding, mutual understanding; agreement is too much to ask for. That's perhaps a bit different from closing a sale.

[Willie Lumplump]

None of us (I presume) likes the language-games of witch-hunters, and most of us don't approve of Bush either. But is their irrationality what we don't like about them? I don't think so.

Perhaps not, but the original issue wasn't what we like or don't like about people. Rather, it was whether or not it is rational to call someone else irrational. If so, that's just what I was doing. If not, the term "irrational" has no meaning because you can never point to irrationality and say, "There it is!"

[Sonomamark]

It looks to me in this conversation that what you're all talking about isn't really the use of "big words". It's about WHY people use them. Words are tools, they have uses: using vocabulary to communicate ideas is what those words are FOR. I'm completely with Conrad that stupidizing our discussions to the lowest common denominator is the wrong way to go. We've got enough problems with the steady dumbing-down of America without having thoughtful people decide to start talking like morons just to fit in.

On the other hand, dropping five-dollar words while not saying anything (apparently) just to make yourself look bright is pompous and irritating. I think that's what's being criticized. I certainly don't see any point in it.


SM

Mykil, sheesh! Read Conrad's post again. It's written in very clear language, easy even for us uneducated people to read. Yes, he responded directly to you, but I have to agree with Conrad that dumbing down posts is kind of pointless. Words we don't understand we can lookup, right on our computer in seconds, including pronunciations! That's amazing and something I've wanted for years. I love the fact that I learn new words almost every day on Waccobb. I appreciate that people more educated than us post here. They could be sticking to some university bulletin board that features only educated posters and we'd be that much poorer.

Learn to appreciate those who write clearly but at a level that gives us something to learn. It's one thing when someone is using their education to intimidate others or to bolster a needy ego. Some educated people can string sentences together in a way that would confuse Einstein. Conrad is someone who speaks and writes in such a way he reaches most of his audience very clearly.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Maybe we've come to the crux: following Davidson, what I was trying to say was that if someone is conversing, he's rational. He may be mistaken, wrong, in error, misinformed, confused, and so on, but not irrational. The very act of pointing out to someone that he is in error presupposes that he is rational, i.e. open to correction. Rather than accuse someone of irrationality, just stop at pointing out where they've made a mistake, etc. (Of course, assuming others are rational means assuming they are rational as you understand it -- which includes being open to correction by others as to what constitutes rationality under a given set of circumstances.)

Perhaps not, but the original issue wasn't what we like or don't like about people. Rather, it was whether or not it is rational to call someone else irrational. If so, that's just what I was doing. If not, the term "irrational" has no meaning because you can never point to irrationality and say, "There it is!"

[shellebelle]

YES!! And saying what could be said with less words.

I wonder if anyone else is like me -I have a few minutes to get on and catch up. I am mom, I am employee and I run my own business - my time is a commodity. I really want to hear and enjoy conversation that is new and interesting. But when it comes to the point that I can't find the intention - the message and I need a dictionary to read it then I say well enough - time to move on.

But I also then note that who ever posted is not quick reading or worse pointless and I bypass all their writing even if I read the thread and everyone else's. I know I may miss great info but I am a commodity and so is my time - it is finite not infinite as am I.

I also wonder why does the writer need so much of my time and how do they find so much time to write? What do they do that they can write for hours on end these articles of pragmatic info and still live a successful life? I of course realize they must not have a young child in the house demanding their time and self yet still how do they make a successful living when their writing demands so much of them?

On the other hand, dropping five-dollar words while not saying anything (apparently) just to make yourself look bright is pompous and irritating. I think that's what's being criticized. I certainly don't see any point in it.


SM

[mykil]

Oh Boy Fredrick; this is like opening a can of worms that is just dieing to get out! LMAO!!! About what you just wrote, this is a wonderful wonderful statement that I understand completely. Now on the other hand, I have been getting scrutinized about the way I write every step of the way. I can’t spell yet I have something to say. I have gotten about five hundred complaints about my misspellings and misrepresenting on the vocabulary I am writing. It is a wonder I even try to stay in focus with the issues and conversation at all. Am much as I get accused of being in such poor relations with the English language I am surprised myself that I even continue to write on the BB. If you where to take about five percent of the abuse I have for you writing over the top you would never return to this little community.

I can understand what all of you are talking about this is easy enough. The challenging part is having to try. Reading a small article should be like riding a bike, not having to get on a dam unicycle every time you want to go get a gallon of milk from the store. You have a problem with you over zealous communication skills just like I have a problem with writing proper English. You don’t even realize you are using such prolific language until someone enlightens you, I know I don’t get all the mistakes I make and probably never will, I will try harder. You also have this habit of comparing things to people and places I for one have never heard of. When you compare Davidson to god knows what most really do not understand where you are coming from. Peace and you can probably hear me saying HUH next time you use a word with more than ten letters in it!

Maybe we've come to the crux: following Davidson, what I was trying to say was that if someone is conversing, he's rational. He may be mistaken, wrong, in error, misinformed, confused, and so on, but not irrational. The very act of pointing out to someone that he is in error presupposes that he is rational, i.e. open to correction. Rather than accuse someone of irrationality, just stop at pointing out where they've made a mistake, etc. (Of course, assuming others are rational means assuming they are rational as you understand it -- which includes being open to correction by others as to what constitutes rationality under a given set of circumstances.)

[Willie Lumplump]

On the other hand, dropping five-dollar words while not saying anything (apparently) just to make yourself look bright is pompous and irritating. I think that's what's being criticized. I certainly don't see any point in it.SM

As I see it, you can always look five-dollar words up in the dictionary, so that's no real problem. What can be a problem is the unclear use of words of any denomination (whether two-cent or five-dollar). There is no dictionary that tells you what a fuzzy sentence means. It's possible to write clearly in long sentences, but short sentences usually are easier to understand.

[Willie Lumplump]

Maybe we've come to the crux: following Davidson, what I was trying to say was that if someone is conversing, he's rational.

This strikes me as a very wild assumption. Try talking to some homeless people sometime. About one-third of them are seriously mentally ill. If you think that mentally ill people are rational, then I'd say you don't know what "rational" means.

Rather than accuse someone of irrationality, just stop at pointing out where they've made a mistake, etc.

I don't know about you, but if I'm being irrational, I like to have that pointed out. Some months ago I got into a disagreement with Mad Max, and he pointed out that my argument was irrational. I reviewed my reasoning, and . . . sure enough! It wasn't rational. I got a very interesting view of myself, and Max got the satisfaction (I assume) of giving me that view.

[Willie Lumplump]

when it comes to the point that I . . . need a dictionary to read it then I say well enough - time to move on.

There's nothing wrong with that. You're generally pressed for time. On the other hand, many others have time to improve their vocabularies by using a dictionary--nothing wrong with that either.

I also wonder . . . how do they find so much time to write? What do they do that they can write for hours on end these articles of pragmatic info and still live a successful life?

I think I've already given my two cents. I'm retired, and ordinarily I'm very fast with the written word (something you wouldn't guess by talking to me).

[Willie Lumplump]

I have gotten about five hundred complaints about my misspellings

Just ignore them. In an earlier post I referred to research indicating that bad spelling doesn't necessarily indicate bad thinking.

You have a problem with you over zealous communication skills just like I have a problem with writing proper English.

It seems to me that if you're saying something without being understood, you might as well not be saying anything at all. But when people complain about your writing, what exactly do they complain about? That you don't spell well, or that they can't understand what you write? Again, I'd suggest that you just ignore complains about spelling. On the other hand, if people complain that they don't understand what you write, then you do have a problem.

[shellebelle]

Ahhh retired - that makes it easier!

See I am good with the spoken word. I can converse and in most cases keep up with even the most eloquent of speakers but as true with everything it has to be interesting.

Some of this loses interest due to the wording.

I can understand you, I can understand Jeff - I totally get Mykil (spelling mistakes and all - I have a son and daughter who are almost autism bright but write phonetically) but Frederick - lost - just lost. Like he doesn't want to touch the real world. Ahhh well.

There's nothing wrong with that. You're generally pressed for time. On the other hand, many others have time to improve their vocabularies by using a dictionary--nothing wrong with that either.I think I've already given my two cents. I'm retired, and ordinarily I'm very fast with the written word (something you wouldn't guess by talking to me).

[Frederick M. Dolan]

This strikes me as a very wild assumption. Try talking to some homeless people sometime. About one-third of them are seriously mentally ill. If you think that mentally ill people are rational, then I'd say you don't know what "rational" means.

By "conversing," I meant something like seriously and sincerely trying to communicate and understand, not just babbling.

I don't know about you, but if I'm being irrational, I like to have that pointed out.

I take you to mean that if you are misinformed, uninformed, in error, or being illogical, you like to have that pointed out. If one insists on equating being in error, etc., with being irrational, OK, but it seems awkward insofar as only a rational being would care about error, ignorance, etc.

[Willie Lumplump]

By "conversing," I meant something like seriously and sincerely trying to communicate and understand, not just babbling.

There's nothing wrong with my seriousness or sincerity, and in talking with people who are to some degree mentally ill, I get the feeling (it's no more than that) that they are just as serious and sincere. Red Skelton often played the part of Cauliflower McPug, the punch-drunk prize fighter. McPug's classic line was a shouted "Look out!" followed by the exclamation, "Boy! A flock of 'em sure went over that time!" When a mentally ill person acts like that, he's not being insincere. He really sees a flock of birds just as clearly as you and I see a street sign or a house. But the problem is that he's irrational because he's mentally ill. What he sees bears no correspondence to reality.

I take you to mean that if you are misinformed, uninformed, in error, or being illogical, you like to have that pointed out. If one insists on equating being in error, etc., with being irrational, OK, but it seems awkward insofar as only a rational being would care about error, ignorance, etc.

I see your point. But some people don't seem to care about error, ignorance, etc., and many of those I'd call irrational.