|
On December 29 2015 23:30 Simberto wrote:
Dunno, i know way to many people who always prefer to use the largest word possible because it makes them feel smarter, that is a sickness that is quite prevalent in college students. It is really good when you want to feel smart, and really bad when you want to communicate. If you want an example of what i am talking about, simply take a look at some posts by people like MoltkeWarding. Obviously their goal is to establish some sort of superiority by using an extended vocabulary, as opposed to actually communicating a point. I find that behaviour incredibly annoying.
It is possible that i just don't get North Korean Humor.
Can be a fine line using larger vocabulary words and not sounding like a prick about it as well. I'd liken it to how some people just cannot curse for the life of them, it just doesn't sound right coming from them. Same thing would be happening for larger vocabulary words.
|
I don't have a problem with using large words. Sometimes it is necessary. However, one should not always choose the largest word one can find, instead one should try to find the simplest word that still conveys the idea one wants to communicate.
Of course i could talk about high-intensity photon radiation with a continuous spectral distribution between 400 and 700nm. Or i could say it's a bright white light.
Using unnecessarily large words doesn't make you smart, it is just stroking your ego. Larger words usually add a bit of accuracy, but if that isn't necessary, it is better to use the words that you are sure everyone understands if your goal is to communicate and idea. If you are at a scientific conference with a lot of people out of a specific field, discussing some intricate detail of that field, you will need to use the exact, large words. If you are explaining the rough idea to your little brother, the usage of smaller words will greatly increase the chance of him understanding what you are talking about. Generally speaking, using the words the people you talk to know makes your job a lot easier, as you don't have to explain what the words mean in addition to the idea that you want to convey.
|
On December 29 2015 23:45 Simberto wrote:
I don't have a problem with using large words. Sometimes it is necessary. However, one should not always choose the largest word one can find, instead one should try to find the simplest word that still conveys the idea one wants to communicate.
Of course i could talk about high-intensity photon radiation with a continuous spectral distribution between 400 and 700nm. Or i could say it's a bright white light.
Using unnecessarily large words doesn't make you smart, it is just stroking your ego. Larger words usually add a bit of accuracy, but if that isn't necessary, it is better to use the words that you are sure everyone understands if your goal is to communicate and idea. If you are at a scientific conference with a lot of people out of a specific field, discussing some intricate detail of that field, you will need to use the exact, large words. If you are explaining the rough idea to your little brother, the usage of smaller words will greatly increase the chance of him understanding what you are talking about. Generally speaking, using the words the people you talk to know makes your job a lot easier, as you don't have to explain what the words mean in addition to the idea that you want to convey.
Or you can use the "complicated" (let's say "exact") word, and explain it to the audience so that they'll expend their vocabulary, which could prove useful for them?
|
Yeah, in a gaming forum where people come from totally diffrent backgrounds and on top of that ~50% are not communicating in their native language. What a great idea!
His example with Moltkewarding is perfect, most of the time I just stop reading what that guy writes after about 1-2 sentences. Its not even that i don't understand it, its that I don't like reading pseudointellectual bullshitspeak when he could bring his point across much easier and shorter.
Constantly talking in "imsosmartspeak" makes you seem like a moron that tries too hard.
You want to use a word that isn't "commonly" known? Make sure it actually shortens your sentence/post or really helps to bring your point across, if it doesn't you are doing more harm than good.
|
Half of medical school is learning the convoluted jargon, lol at "idiopathic" which is just another way of saying idk wtf is wrong with you.
You guys ever seen a lawyer couple argue? Do normal people even argue like that???
I'd just go with if the common layperson can't understand the point you're trying to get across, there's no point and you'd have convinced nobody and wasted both our time *shrug*
|
I would enjoy listening to a lawyer couple argue, where can I find this?
|
On December 30 2015 02:12 Zambrah wrote:
I would enjoy listening to a lawyer couple argue, where can I find this?
Divorce court.
|
Its enough to watch non SC2/Dota/Whatever game players look at you if your into an argument with a friend that is also into it  .
|
Big words are only needed when accuracy is at the heart of the discussion. You don't even need STEM subjects to have big words, just try reading literature theory.
Transparent communication is the goal of all discourse. When subjects and topics are broad, use simple terms. When the subjects have too much overlap, use precise terms. Two surgeons operating on a patient would not just say "that flappy red part" even if that's all a layman would need to know. But should those same surgeons talk to the layman, they would say "it's the flappy red part right below the ____"
Being able to understand what language is needed when is a sign of an intelligent and aware individual.
|
On December 30 2015 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Big words are only needed when accuracy is at the heart of the discussion. You don't even need STEM subjects to have big words, just try reading literature theory.
Transparent communication is the goal of all discourse. When subjects and topics are broad, use simple terms. When the subjects have too much overlap, use precise terms. Two surgeons operating on a patient would not just say "that flappy red part" even if that's all a layman would need to know. But should those same surgeons talk to the layman, they would say "it's the flappy red part right below the ____"
Being able to understand what language is needed when is a sign of an intelligent and aware individual.
But shouldn't the surgeon say to the layman "it's that flappy red part below the ____ ; we call it the XXX"? After all, surgeons and doctors are asked not to have a paternalistic attitude nowadays.
|
That would be kind of fine too, it obviously depends on the situation.
What we were talking about is the doctor going "You have (20 latin words), i recommend (15 latin words)" when the same information would have been "You have a cold, drink some tea and get some sleep."
Doctors aren't the best example of this either, as part of their job is to explain to you what the problem is so you can make informed decisions. They need to tell you both what your problem is called, and what it actually is. Usually they do so reasonably well because they are trained for it.
Usually the problem occurs either with people who have very little contact to people outside of their specific field, or people who begin to get into something and want to look more informed than they actually are. So it can be a problem of communication competence (If the person knows what they are talking about, but not what kind of problem a layman might have in understanding the subject), or a problem of obnoxiousness (If the persons main goal is not to communicate any idea except for "I am really smart, i know lots of large words that you don't")
I notice the first problem quite often in some my college professors. I am studying to become a teacher, while they are mostly scientists who have to teach a few courses on the side, and it is often very obvious in their answers to students questions that they are very bad at actually determining what problem the student does have in understanding the idea, because it is often a simple lack of a good understanding of what a word means, while the professors answer is a large tangent on an actually complicated problem that they can imagine being a problem because the use of the word is simply so ingrained into them that they can't imagine someone not knowing its meaning, thus they determine that the student must have a much more complicated problem.
The second problem can usually be seen in second semester students, who know just enough complicated words to make them feel smarter than the average person about a subject, without knowing enough to talk about it intelligently, and with a large layer of smugness because they are often still used to being the smartest person around (at least in relation to STEM subjects) from their school days, because those are the only people who choose to study something like physics.
|
On December 30 2015 07:25 Simberto wrote:
That would be kind of fine too, it obviously depends on the situation.
What we were talking about is the doctor going "You have (20 latin words), i recommend (15 latin words)" when the same information would have been "You have a cold, drink some tea and get some sleep."
Doctors aren't the best example of this either, as part of their job is to explain to you what the problem is so you can make informed decisions. They need to tell you both what your problem is called, and what it actually is. Usually they do so reasonably well because they are trained for it.
Usually the problem occurs either with people who have very little contact to people outside of their specific field, or people who begin to get into something and want to look more informed than they actually are. So it can be a problem of communication competence (If the person knows what they are talking about, but not what kind of problem a layman might have in understanding the subject), or a problem of obnoxiousness (If the persons main goal is not to communicate any idea except for "I am really smart, i know lots of large words that you don't")
I notice the first problem quite often in some my college professors. I am studying to become a teacher, while they are mostly scientists who have to teach a few courses on the side, and it is often very obvious in their answers to students questions that they are very bad at actually determining what problem the student does have in understanding the idea, because it is often a simple lack of a good understanding of what a word means, while the professors answer is a large tangent on an actually complicated problem that they can imagine being a problem because the use of the word is simply so ingrained into them that they can't imagine someone not knowing its meaning, thus they determine that the student must have a much more complicated problem.
The second problem can usually be seen in second semester students, who know just enough complicated words to make them feel smarter than the average person about a subject, without knowing enough to talk about it intelligently, and with a large layer of smugness because they are often still used to being the smartest person around (at least in relation to STEM subjects) from their school days, because those are the only people who choose to study something like physics.
It's worse in Humanities classes where everything is about restating the same arguments but quoting different dead scholars to make the same dead points.
|
Yeah, it's very important to know your audience, and what point you want to get across. Once you have that sorted, it should be pretty clear what kind of vocabulary you should be using.
Giving a talk at a high school? Keep it simple.
Presenting your project for potential employers in your field? Use technical language. You'll probably give a bad impression if you don't.
On a forum like TL, I'd say that you typically want to keep your vocabulary simple and sentences short. And you don't want too much text in general, just due to limited attention span of forum readers, which I was complaining about loudly in the ZParcraft and double harvest days. 
|
The thing with online forums is nobody knows each others' credentials on any said subject, so it's actually a safe bet to go with the common denominator/layperson in terms of getting a point across as Cascade puts it. Unless, of course, posters themselves bring up/claim their knowledge/expertise of the subject matter, in which case more specific/precise terms could be brought into the discussion. But most would not do that as it just opens themselves up for another venue of attack. Which brings me to another point Simberto brought up:
Obnoxiousness. It's everywhere. Just look at the number of posters opening with an insult/ad hominems during a forum exchange/discourse. It's a pretty common build order. You can be sure trying to convince the other party is the last thing on their minds as they usually have another agenda (make themselves look superior, put down the other guy in order to make him feel bad [lol], or just plain trolling). But I guess if it's used in the Republican debates it could be used anywhere, especially on vidja game forums where the majority constituent are made up of prepubescent boys trying to sound edgy.
I think TL is actually better in that regard. The majority are programmers or interested in computer science, but we have older and knowledgeable people in all different fields (or so they claim), and it's interesting to read their perspectives on things. Best part is we can use starcraft analogies and everyone would understand
|
Do you think the recent surge of true crime media, namely Serial, The Jinx and Making a Murderer has a positive or negative affect on cases they cover?
I was going over this last night with my fiancee and basically wound up on the fence between the people making the show doing a service in informing the public of a potential error in the justice system, but would complicate and/or color the legal proceedings based on the perspective they take generally against the established verdict.
|
So if you go out to eat and get terrible service (no refills, bad attitude, bad food, etc) and then (maybe by listening in on those table tablets they have nowadays) they realize you had a terrible experience and then they offer you a complimentary dessert (to share with your date), what is the appropriate amount to tip?
I know it would of been no or minimal tip if the manager hadn't offered dessert but since he tried to make good (even if it's with something I didn't really want) do I tip as if I got good service (~20-30%) or since despite the dessert, the experience was generally bad, is a reduced tip still appropriate?
|
No tip is appropriate imo
|
Should be a rule to tip a single penny for terrible service.
|
I'd say leave no tip, although I've never had service that bad.
|
On a somewhat related note, when did this become a "salad"?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ps4G0Yy.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
