I enjoy Paul Graham essays, because even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that he has drawn, the observations made are often thought provoking and i

I enjoy Paul Graham essays, because even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that he has drawn, the observations made are often thought provoking and insightful. I don't personally understand the anti-intellectualism and complaints that his essays often provoke in the comment sections of this website. For example, in this essay I agreed with the main thrust and laughed at the irony of his Italian food example (which is certainly not a universal experience). Simple writing is good. Often. That's it right? There are contexts where we should strive to write more simply, and there are contexts in which we should encourage others to write simply. Does it make sense to qualify these contexts in his essay, or would the essay be any better for it? It would certainly be longer. More accurate perhaps, but better? Surely it would not be any more thought provoking to try and list all of the contexts under which a "write simply" rule ought to apply. If a reader interprets any argument to follow a general rule such as this as literal an absolutist they're doing both the author and themselves a disservice. Personally, I like to use a long word where a short word will do because it's fun. But when I write for the broadest audience it's better to follow this advice.