# Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity [[Literature/Literature Notes]] Type: [[⭑ Papers]] ## Tasks ## Notes This paper asserts that the use of unnecessarily obscure/difficult language over overexplanation has the unintendend consequence of lowering an audiences perception of the writer's intelligence. ### Simplicity is key Various style guides and psychological papers have argued that ommitting needless words and using simple, common words is important for conveying a message to a wide audience. > *When it comes to writing, most experts agree that clarity, simplicity and parsimony are ideals that authors should strive for. In their classic manual of style, Strunk and White (1979) encourage authors to ‘omit needless words.’ Daryl Bem’s (1995) guidelines for submission to Psychological Bulletin advise, ‘the first step towards clarity is writing simply.’ Even the APA publication manual (1996) recommends, ‘direct, declarative sentences with simple common words are usually best.’* Often writers, and especially students in academia, believe that the use of difficult words will convey intelligence. While there may be a correlation to intelligence or studiousness (percentage of long words often correlates to high SAT scores), that doesn't mean that the conveyed intent of difficult words has the expected outcome. > *Thus, it is possible that although students using complex vocabularies are objectively very knowledgeable, they might nonetheless be perceived as being less so.* Being unable to convey the meaning of a text in simple words can also display an overall lack of understanding, hence the famous saying, [["if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough"]] > *...it would not be surprising if the lower fluency of overly complex texts caused readers to have negative evaluations of those texts and the associated authors, especially if the complexity was unnecessary and thus surprising readers with the relative disfluency of the text.* ### Conclusion The study concluded that the use or large words, complex vocabulary, or overall complexity of a text does not in fact lead to the perception of a writer's intellgence on the part of the reader. > *The results of Experiment 1 suggest that contrary to prevailing wisdom, increasing the complexity of a text does not cause an essay’s author to seem more intelligent. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Complex texts were less likely than clear texts to lead to acceptance decisions in a simulated admissions review. Simple texts were given higher ratings than moderately complex texts, which were, in turn, given better ratings than highly complex texts. Additionally, this trend was found regardless of the quality of the original essay. Complexity neither disguised the shortcomings of poor essays, nor enhanced the appeal of high-quality essays. Simple texts are viewed more favorably specifically because they're approachable. While complex texts are viewed more infavorably, simple because they are read less, and thus understood less. > *The mediation analysis suggests that the reason that simple texts are viewed more positively than complex texts was due to fluency. Complex texts are difficult to read, which in turn leads to lower ratings. * Over the course of the expiriments the study concludes that this remains true regardless of medium or a reader's prior beliefs about a text's quality. ```ad-example title: Personal Example In my own experience, this could be demonstrated by my negative reaction to philosophical texts like [[{ For Marx|For Marx]] by [[Louis Althusser|Althusser]] or [[{ History and Class Consciousness|History and Class Consciousness]] by [[György Lukács|Lukács]], both of which I had percieved to be very important but felt almost offended by when I was not able to easily discern the meaning amid the philosophical jargon. After some time, at least the latter text has been able to convey more meaning to me, and thus I enjoyed it more. Both might be useful to revisit at some point. ``` ### Limitations of the study The study notes that the conclusion really only accounts for written vocabulary, but is unclear on spoken language. It also notes that there are of course useful times for long words, when they are precise or specific. An opposite effect that may occur is that people's naive theories about the complexity of vocabulary can lead them to incorrect conclusions about what a person is saying. Thus, it's not simply an error of conscious misunderstanding but also incorrect percieved understanding leading leading to false conclusions by the audience. > *However, it seems that people’s na ̈ıve theories of fluency tend to lead them to negatively associate complexity and intelligence.* ## Related ## References [1]: Oppenheimer, Daniel M (2005). *Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly* [2]: Incorrectly attributed to Einstein, this saying is a popularization of another quote, "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid." This likely is attributed to [Lord Rutherford of Nelson](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8742/did-einstein-say-if-you-cant-explain-it-simply-you-dont-understand-it-well-en). *Einstein, the Man and His Achievement*, (1973). Dover Publications. [Google Books]((http://books.google.com/books?id=Bn_6c7SjprYC&q=barmaid#v=snippet&q=barmaid&f=false).)