5 ms·

Stop Being Proud of Complexity

37 points by Fiveplus 6y ago

zwaps 6y ago
I mean, hardly anyone disagrees with the need for clarity. However, when it comes to academic writing, I feel the author doesn't quite capture the complex (heh) reality. First, all academics who get at least some sort of coaching in writing learn more of less the same thing: Write simple and clear sentences and put them in an understandable order. There's a clear consensus on what makes a good paper, and complexity isn't one of them. So, at least some opaque papers are most likely the result of academics who either received little training in writing, or find it difficult. However, the author claims that academics write strategically to obscure their work. This may be true, but it is not a good strategy. What you learn, hopefully during your PhD, is that you do not want to make your reviewers feel stupid. In fact, you do not want to inconvenience them at all if you can help it. The reason is quite simple: In many academic fields, it's not simply your results that guarantee a publication. For most of us, scientific progress is made in small pieces, and we have to convince the reviewers that these small pieces warrant publication. The quickest way to get your paper rejected is to write opaquely. This is probably exactly what lead to the author writing their article. Read something that's meandering, unclear or opaque, and you don't think its "smart" or "deep". That's rarely how English works. Instead, it'll annoy you, and you go and write about it on your blog. Now think what this means if you face anonymous reviewers. That leaves us with a small percentage of people who, indeed, use language to obscure shortcomings of their work. This is very difficult, and risky! Who knows what the reviewers are thinking? Do they see through you and reject your paper? Do they get confused and reject your paper? It can be done, but I wouldn't say it is a good strategy nor something that would be too prevalent. The reality is probably this: Despite having "being a writer" in your implicit job description, most academics are simply bad at writing. Take me, for example. I am not a native English speaker, and I also received my first education on academic writing far too late. If I could write clearer, simpler and better, I would. It would only help me. However, English is a funny language, believe it or not. It's easy to learn, but difficult to master. It lends itself to clarity, and yet makes that same clarity fickle and difficult to achieve. So, dear annoyed native English speakers: We academics apologize.
- airhead969 6y ago
  Yes. I think academic writing style and legal writing are carryovers from when the cognoscenti used Latin. It is elitist, in a sense, to obscure knowledge with an unusual style. Plain, precise, unambiguous language is preferable in all contexts.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Question: Why is hiring an editor and proofreader not an option? It’s a well trodden path to making sure your written text is readable used by professional writers.
  - j7ake 6y ago
    Often the subject is nuanced enough that even editors at scientific journals make blunders when changing words that would make a scientist cringe. Probably the false positive rates of edits from a professional editor does not add enough value to make it worth the effort generally. I imagine if the writer has a very poor command of writing in English, then having an editor would benefit.
  - zwaps 6y ago
    There is no real reason why not. We frequently do this. Sure, you have to find someone who can read and understand the material and knows what good academic writing looks like, but professional copywriters are usually up to the task. However, you iterate a lot on drafts so it usually happens only at a few stages, certainly not before uploading something to a preprint repository. In addition, there's a cultural or institutional blindness. Many are bad writers, but are also blissfully unaware of the issue. Without my advisor, who is an excellent writer and yet hires professional proofreaders, I think I simply would not have known that it is something you can or should do.
j7ake 6y ago
If you read the most influential or celebrated papers in science, I doubt you will see that they are written in an opaque or unclear way relative to average science papers. My point is scientists are absolutely rewarded for writing clearly and succinctly. But it is a difficult art because of the balance of precision and simplicity in describing complex phenomena.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  In the long term they are rewarded for writing about complex things as clearly as possible. But in the short term it can be hard to distinguish between necessary and incidental complexity.
airhead969 6y ago
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. English is a great language for marketing and business, but a terrible language for the exchange of knowledge with accuracy, precision, and unambiguity when there aren't constraints. Apart from domain-specific jargon, perhaps paper writing needs to be formally-specified using an approved dictionary of simple words and according to strict grammar rules? With language standards, papers become easier to parse by humans and computers.
- sidpatil 6y ago
  In fact, what you're suggesting is known as a controlled natural language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language

37 points by Fiveplus 6y ago

I mean, hardly anyone disagrees with the need for clarity. However, when it comes to academic writing, I feel the author doesn't quite capture the complex (heh) reality. First, all academics who get at least some sort of coaching in writing learn more of less the same thing: Write simple and clear sentences and put them in an understandable order. There's a clear consensus on what makes a good paper, and complexity isn't one of them. So, at least some opaque papers are most likely the result of academics who either received little training in writing, or find it difficult. However, the author claims that academics write strategically to obscure their work. This may be true, but it is not a good strategy. What you learn, hopefully during your PhD, is that you do not want to make your reviewers feel stupid. In fact, you do not want to inconvenience them at all if you can help it. The reason is quite simple: In many academic fields, it's not simply your results that guarantee a publication. For most of us, scientific progress is made in small pieces, and we have to convince the reviewers that these small pieces warrant publication. The quickest way to get your paper rejected is to write opaquely. This is probably exactly what lead to the author writing their article. Read something that's meandering, unclear or opaque, and you don't think its "smart" or "deep". That's rarely how English works. Instead, it'll annoy you, and you go and write about it on your blog. Now think what this means if you face anonymous reviewers. That leaves us with a small percentage of people who, indeed, use language to obscure shortcomings of their work. This is very difficult, and risky! Who knows what the reviewers are thinking? Do they see through you and reject your paper? Do they get confused and reject your paper? It can be done, but I wouldn't say it is a good strategy nor something that would be too prevalent. The reality is probably this: Despite having "being a writer" in your implicit job description, most academics are simply bad at writing. Take me, for example. I am not a native English speaker, and I also received my first education on academic writing far too late. If I could write clearer, simpler and better, I would. It would only help me. However, English is a funny language, believe it or not. It's easy to learn, but difficult to master. It lends itself to clarity, and yet makes that same clarity fickle and difficult to achieve. So, dear annoyed native English speakers: We academics apologize.

airhead969 6y ago
Yes. I think academic writing style and legal writing are carryovers from when the cognoscenti used Latin. It is elitist, in a sense, to obscure knowledge with an unusual style. Plain, precise, unambiguous language is preferable in all contexts.
falcolas 6y ago
Question: Why is hiring an editor and proofreader not an option? It’s a well trodden path to making sure your written text is readable used by professional writers.
- j7ake 6y ago
  Often the subject is nuanced enough that even editors at scientific journals make blunders when changing words that would make a scientist cringe. Probably the false positive rates of edits from a professional editor does not add enough value to make it worth the effort generally. I imagine if the writer has a very poor command of writing in English, then having an editor would benefit.
- zwaps 6y ago
  There is no real reason why not. We frequently do this. Sure, you have to find someone who can read and understand the material and knows what good academic writing looks like, but professional copywriters are usually up to the task. However, you iterate a lot on drafts so it usually happens only at a few stages, certainly not before uploading something to a preprint repository. In addition, there's a cultural or institutional blindness. Many are bad writers, but are also blissfully unaware of the issue. Without my advisor, who is an excellent writer and yet hires professional proofreaders, I think I simply would not have known that it is something you can or should do.

j7ake 6y ago

If you read the most influential or celebrated papers in science, I doubt you will see that they are written in an opaque or unclear way relative to average science papers. My point is scientists are absolutely rewarded for writing clearly and succinctly. But it is a difficult art because of the balance of precision and simplicity in describing complex phenomena.

im3w1l 6y ago
In the long term they are rewarded for writing about complex things as clearly as possible. But in the short term it can be hard to distinguish between necessary and incidental complexity.

airhead969 6y ago

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. English is a great language for marketing and business, but a terrible language for the exchange of knowledge with accuracy, precision, and unambiguity when there aren't constraints. Apart from domain-specific jargon, perhaps paper writing needs to be formally-specified using an approved dictionary of simple words and according to strict grammar rules? With language standards, papers become easier to parse by humans and computers.

sidpatil 6y ago
In fact, what you're suggesting is known as a controlled natural language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language