|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
We've often accused people who use needlessly complicated language of trying to appear intelligent (at the expense of clarity). But according to a leading American university, they may be failing in such an aim.
The Stanford University study says people who use complicated language when simple words will do tend to be viewed as less intelligent than those who use a more basic and understandable vocabulary. The study found this applied even to 'academic' writing such as postgraduate applications, sociology dissertations and translations of the philosopher Descarte's writings.
"I think it's important to point out that this study is not about problems with using long words, it's about problems with using long words needlessly," lead study author Daniel Oppenheimer explained to the Reuters news agency. "If the best way to say something involves using a complex word, then by all means do so. But if there are several equally valid ways of expressing your ideas, you should go with the simpler one."
He added that most writers were unaware that readers judged intelligence in this way. He gave the example of college applicants adding complicated language to application essays to impress the reviewers. If the school rejects their application as a result of the heavy-handed writing, the student may not realize why. "The student might even think that the reason was because he or she didn't obfuscate enough."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
He gave the example of college applicants adding complicated language to application essays to impress the reviewers.
When I get resumes that use "utilized" instead of "used," I take a point off.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 508
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 508 |
"utilized" instead of "used," A man after my own heart! This is one of my pet peeves, but I feel as if I'm swimming against the current. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
I know how you feel FF. It just irks me. I couldn't tell you exactly why but it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
And it's probably way too much trouble to determine whether the applicant really meant utilize: http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/U0155700.htmlWouldn't want to encourage precision in language, would we.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 34
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 34 |
Wouldn't want to encourage precision in language
Agreed, Faldage.
It is always wise to use "utilize" when we want to improve something, not just use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 508
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 508 |
Utilize is especially appropriate in the narrower sense of making something profitable or of finding new and practical uses for it: Waterpower was once widely utilized to generate electricity. Okay. Since I'm among friends, I'll confess that I don't quite get the distinction here.  I would still have used used in this example... Faldage?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Me too, nacyk - whilst adding that it still is widely used for that purpose 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I don't care about perfect precision on a resume. What I want to see is what they have done - in the simplest language they can muster. But not too simple. I have in the past (and occasionally more recently) been blasted for marking of people who simply list the things they "know." A typical excerpt reads:
Languages: C/C , Java, Perl, Pascal, MATLAB.
I give zero points for this, much to the chagrine of the HR people. The applicant could list a thousand such items and would still get zero credit. This is terse, but it tells me nothing of value. I've seen people - many people - put down XYZ on their resumes without any knowledge whatever of it, because they were working on a project where someone ELSE used XYZ. HR sends me many dozens of resumes (sometimes hundreds), the vast majority of which I put into the "No Chance" stack. (I have three stacks: "no," "yes," and "not quite what I'm looking for, but god this person is really cool." I've only ever hired someone from the 3rd stack once.)
"Well, you should call if you're not sure what that experience means!" they say to me. No, I really shouldn't. I call to ask for details when a candidate writes something that looks meritorious: "Wrote java code to search an MS ACCESS database for bad data." This is a typical thing I would expect a qualified intern to have done. Trivial thing really, but it tells me something important. With a few lines like this, I can get a good feel for what the candidate is capable of doing - much better than just knowing where they are in their program.)
Now this is a particular instance of using big words. I confess that I myself use bigger words than I need to on occasion. I don't do this on the job generally. I do it as a matter of course in my life. I want (or wanted) to expand my vocabulary, but I have a critical defect - a really, really bad memory. I compensate for this in several ways: In math, I don't memorize formulae - I derive them from first principles, or just look them up. For spoken material, like poems, I recite what I like over and over until I have it. For vocabulary, I make an effort to use words I take a liking to. Sometimes a single word, while unusual, replaces an entire phrase which can make conversation flow a bit easier once everyone understand the term. Other times, it makes for a nice variance instead of saying the same word over and over.
"Fungible" is an example. I first heard this word sometime in the past year or two. (IIRC, in the other thread this was the wwftd recently, but I think it must have been on some other word of the day thing - either awad or merriam-webster, perhaps.) If I can work the word into a conversation, I'll gradually get more comfortable with it. At first it always seems a little forced, but if I concentrate and keep at it, it will eventually seem natural to me (as a speaker).
There are other things that are analogous to this. When I read something like history, for example, I often try to work it into a conversation, or talk to my friends about it. My best friend is a greek guy with whom I love to discuss these things. We only see each other for a few days a year, but they're always among the best few days of my life. I talk about what I read and he always knows more than the book's author related, so he's correcting me and giving me pointers to other books.
In normal conversation, this might seem a bit showy, perhaps even pretentious or condescending. But I'm past 40 now and this is the way I am. I don't have any intention of changing.
Anyway, I'm not averse to other people using big words, so long as they don't come across as "Slip" Mahoneys. The one exception is technical stuff (to include resumes). I like it when writers keep the language very simple. When I used to teach programming, I always told my students the first day: "There's plenty enough in this field that is inherently difficult without making things more complicated than they need to be."
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,334
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
752
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
