|
|
#21 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think that a claim like that could use some supporting. Can you please demonstrate where my vocabulary is lacking? For that matter, none of the words he uses are even especially impressive, certainly not the hallmarks of "an exceptional vocabulary" he just overuses everything, and adds words that are completely unnecessary to communicate the ideas he seems to want to communicate.
Communication is, tautologically enough, for communicating. Precision and clarity are more important than demonstrating that you know a lot of words. I could easily stretch a simple statement into an incredibly verbose paragraph, as I recall we had precisely that assignement in elementary school english. As I also recall, doing so was designed to show you the -importance- of clear, concise communication, rather than encourage people to use a thesaurus like a hammer. Last edited by devonin; 09-22-2007 at 07:23 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CNY
Age: 28
Posts: 2,339
|
I concur.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
sideways 8
|
Quote:
Edit - Parenthetical, condescending, pompous, ornate, sociocentric, inhibitions, catalyst, beget, many more. His vocabulary isn't too baffling, but more sophisticated than the average forum-goer. P.S - Expect to see me in ct frequently. Last edited by infinity.; 09-22-2007 at 09:50 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canadia
Posts: 116
|
So let's instead put it into simpler terms.
You made a statement that devonin did not have a good vocabulary. Support that statement, please. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
sideways 8
|
Quote:
I'm saying that if he can't decipher what Coberst is talking about, then he should expand his vocabulary, because its quite clear what the topic is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I'm not saying "I can't understand the words he uses" I'm saying "He is not communicating his ideas nearly as effectively as he could be."
He appears to me to be wordy for the sake of being wordy, as though half the point of his post is to make everyone marvel at his vocabulary and ability to use a thesaurus. When posting a topic for discussion, "deciphering" is not something people should be having to do. If you communicate yourself well (And people with useful vocabularies have myriad possibilities to pick from when deciding which word is the right word) people should simply be able to read, understand, and comprehend what you are getting at. Obscurity is the natural enemy of critical thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Devonin, you're supporting Cob's OP complaint about anti-intellectualism right now so much it's sad and paradoxical because you're not anti-intellectual.
What I have an issue with in Cob's posts is that they don't connect enough. I don't find them needlessly wordy, nor do I find they use big words just for the sake of it. It's like he posts the randomness that floats in his head without fully congealing it for himself. I often have ideas/thoughts which I can't communicate very well, and I've been looked at like I was speaking in tongues before. I honestly think that cob just doesn't understand how people don't 'get' what he's saying. He should learn to communicate better. Take a couple of English courses or something...you'll learn to write coherently if you want decent grades. As to trying to fit your posts to the audience, unless you have reason to believe otherwise, it's best to assume they know very little. I suppose in a way you might consider me anti-intellectual cob, if you knew how I felt about my Dad. He's very intelligent and a pompous, arrogant prick. He's highly critical of errors that anyone makes, and he always makes comments about it-he doesn't keep them to himself. But it's not that I take him as pompous because he's smart-I take him as pompous because he's not nice. Although in public he won't say outright that people are stupid, he says it under his breath, or with friends/family. He can't listen to the radio without making snide remarks about things. Now that I've grown up and am more knowledgeable than him in a few areas, I actually see that sometimes when he makes remarks like those, I disagree with him. It's one thing to be intellectual. It's another thing to not value people because they're not as smart as you, (or you don't think they're as smart as you.) Intellectuals often don't listen to people if they have the impression they're stupid, even if they say something that's not stupid. That and they'll assume the 'why' of the other person's opinion without actually asking 'why'. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
I have to agree with devonin.
I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but I haven't posted in here for some time. I'll get to the main reason for that later, but for now I'll just focus on how coberst fits into it. While I can understand coberst's posts well enough, their wordiness just leads me to avoid them. I don't want to have to sit through paragraphs of words I have to think to understand, when the -exact same point- could have been made in a much simpler form. The point of vocabulary is to have an arsenal of words to pick from that match your meaning, while remaining easy to understand. As a general rule, using the simplest word (or sentence structure, etc.) that retains your point is the best choice, because it lessens possible confusion. As an analogy, I'll use web site development. You want the simplest type of code that keeps what you're trying to do. You wouldn't create a JavaScript that checks for resolution, then calls a specific CSS class based on the resolution to center the words on a page; you can just use the <center> tag. The only reason to use a more complex style would be to make something happen that can't be done with a simpler style. Back to vocabulary, that means you should only use more complex words if simpler words don't convey your meaning to within the specificity you want, provided your goal is to communicate as effectively as possible. I'll use devonin's post as an example: Quote:
At the same time however, he keeps the sentence "When posting a topic for discussion, 'deciphering' is not something people should be having to do." This could be changed to something like "When developing a topic upon which to confer, elucidation is an undesirable action which participants should not be obliged to take part in," but that only says the exact same thing in unnecessarily-complex wording. In short, if you can get your point across equally well with two words, one more complex than the other, it's best to choose the simpler one for the sake of effective communication. (Oh, and I said earlier I'd talk about why I haven't been posting. In short, it's because there haven't been any topics I have any experience with or can form an opinion on, since it's mostly been philosophy, and I'm not a particular fan of debating such things) EDIT: I might as well show what I mean. What I'm going to do now is edit coberst's OP (in a quote) to say the exact same thing as it currently means, but with simpler wording: Quote:
Last edited by Relambrien; 09-22-2007 at 11:47 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Well, let's go paragraph by paragraph through the OP
First paragraph = thesis statement. Second paragraph = "Non-verbal cues -> Most communication" Third paragraph = "Communication is ideally tailored to the recipient & This process is based on utilizing observable criteria & the internet makes it difficult to discern such criteria" Fourth paragraph = Elaboration of third paragraph Fifth paragraph = Elaboration on tailoring by special case Sixth = Elaboration on third paragraph Seventh = " 'intellectual' forms of communication are largely disliked" Eighth = Elaboration on seven. "intellectual" remains undefined. Thus by the eighth paragraph we should be aware the entire post is completely without substance. Communication is selectively effective, based on stuff. Yeah, great insight there Coberst. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
I'm saying "The reason people are bothered by your posts is that you are wordy for no good reason, and that you seem to go out of your way to communicate poorly when every indication shows you should be bright enough to communicate quite clearly and concisely." Quote:
I'm really amused by his whole "How do I write, when I have 12, 18 and 30 year olds listening to me? It seems no matter what I do, someone will get pissed off" when in fact, the problem with his posts has nothing to do with the age group it appears to be written for. Last edited by devonin; 09-23-2007 at 12:47 AM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Besides, the whole thing was just a demonstration to show that two paragraphs can have identical meanings even if one is much simpler-worded than the other; others have done similar things in this thread. I just decided to go further by doing it to his own post, as opposed to (as an example) Chrissi's "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." EDIT: As per devonin's first reply in the thread, who's up for a CT Panel? Last edited by Relambrien; 09-23-2007 at 01:03 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
The following is a comment one reader made:
I noticed this a lot with my daughter's high schools. She went through 3 ... and in two of them, it was incredibly cool to be stupid. There was a very strong bias against intellectuals. This carried over into our home life where she ridiculed her mother and me for being "smart." (Note: She is now 25 and barely making it on minimum wages). Her junior year, we transferred her to one of the best schools in the region ... and suddenly it wasn't cool to be stupid anymore. She floundered horribly for 2 years, but never could quite make it work. Unfortunately, stupid had taken root. The American culture is all about golf, sports, fashion, partying, and being cool and such. Not much room for intellect. Oh well I guess the Indians and Asians can take over from the USA as the center of technological achievement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
See? Explain to me how in any way shape or form this post is relevant to the turn the discussion has taken?
He's quoting someone else from another forum entirely, to the point where I'm wondering if he actually read any of this before responding, or if it was simply time for some modified blogger software to insert a response he hoped would still be relevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Our vocabulary is our intellectual tool-box. The person with the largest vocabulary dies as the winner. Imagine the difference in what is discovered about reality for the individual with microscope, caliper, micrometer, plump-bob, and level in his intellectual tool-box versus he who has only a hammer, pliers, and yard-stick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Imagine trying to measure the distance from here to twenty miles hence when you refuse to use anything except the microscope because it is the "best" tool.
You use a yard-stick when a yard-stick is called for, and a micrometer when a micrometer is called for. To do otherwise is the height of folly. Be careful up there in that ivory tower. I think the thin air is getting to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
FFR Player
|
I am now convinced that coberst writes these essays while on drugs.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Age: 30
Posts: 680
|
Grandiloquence! :l
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |||
|
FFR Player
|
Normally I'd condemn such a response in a CT topic, but I think it fits quite well here. Anyway...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
Vocabulary is a tool whose sole purpose is to make thoughts and ideas easier to convey. Nonetheless, with the usage of increasingly precise words comes a certain degree of assertion, which is sometimes raised to the point of coercion. Consequently, vocabulary is too often turned against its purpose and made into a weapon. It's also important to bear in mind that vocabulary's degree of improvement upon communication is strictly limited to the comprehension of the audience. Overstepping that boundary results in an actual decrease of communicative efficiency... ...unless, of course, you're addressing a room of English scholars or something of the like. : ) Agreed, and in today's society, intellectualism is sadly becoming a medium for manipulation. Then again, such a statement is difficult (or rather, contradictory) to say, since those with true intelligence (and once more, even that is subjectively defined) should be capable of resisting corruption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|