Late to reply here. I don't disagree with you, but I think you may have misunderstood me. Which is my error for leaving my opinion so open to wide interpretati

Late to reply here. I don't disagree with you, but I think you may have misunderstood me. Which is my error for leaving my opinion so open to wide interpretation. For clarity: 1. In any given field, there is a tendency to write in domain-specific language. (Heck, I just did it by using the term "domain-specific language".) To master any field you have to be willing to read that kind of stuff. 100%. But I still say it's lazy to write in domain-specific language. If it's in any way possible to express an idea in such a way that anyone can understand it, that's the better way to do it. There may be times when that's impossible. But I choose to assume that any time I fail to write simply, the failure is my own. 2. I'm not advocating limiting yourself to reading simply-written things. I'm advocating limiting yourself to writing simply. And I'm saying that writing simply is the harder thing to do. For example, I tend to use various readability software to scan my writing. My first draft tends to score a university-level score. I then work very hard to find ways to say everything I wanted to say in such a way that I score a grade 9 level or lower. 3. Finally, back to my original point: Choosing what to read based on how easy or difficult it is to read is silly. It doesn't prove whether the writer has something worth saying. Plenty of difficult-to-read stuff is total garbage. Plenty of easy-to-read stuff is gold. The opposite is also true.