3 ms·

You can have a very high level discussion with remarkably simple language. Plato was very good at this, but it's something you see in a lot of good communicato

You can have a very high level discussion with remarkably simple language. Plato was very good at this, but it's something you see in a lot of good communicators. I remember I was struck reading a graduate level physics textbook co-authored by Feynman when I was a student. I was amazed how much clearer the language was than almost anything else I'd read at that level. It wasn't that it only used simple words, but it only used enough of them to be precise where precision was needed, and it took the time to introduce concepts even though they were expected to be known to the reader already, just as a refresher as to exactly what the discussion was about. The clarity comes from the fact while we typically share opinions about what common and simple terms mean, we may have slightly different ideas associated with more complex words, especially with regards to intangible subjects. Plato's treatment of the concept of Justice is a good example of this. We all think we know what the word means, but to actually pin the meaning down is quite a task. But honestly, Plato was dumbing it down, Feynman was dumbing it down, you should dumb it down too. A fundamental truth of communication is that you know the idea in your head better than your audience. You can't treat them as peers that understand what you are trying to say until you've clearly said it. The problem in any communication is to get your idea across as vividly as possible.

0xEF 2y ago
I like your examples, but I disagree. Having also read Plato and many of the speculative writings that address his work, much of it is still up for debate, especially when context is not understood. Feynman, whom I enjoy as well, often said some really nonsensical things that he probably thought had a lot of philosophical depth (I think specifically of The Pleasure of Finding Things Out which is a nice feel-good piece but does not bring much meat to the table afterall). To be fair to him and your example, he did absolutely have a knack for breaking down scientific complexities to terms non-scientists could grasp, which I applaud. Yes, let's do more of that. So, sure, there is a time where simpler language is an exercise in how well you know a thing. Being able to break it down into simpler terms makes sense. But we do have to be careful with the language. It's dynamic, as you mention, often subject to interpretation that could lead to misunderstanding or improper handling of an idea. I did it in my initial reply. That said, one must know one's audience and subject, I think. Am I conveying a concept from physics to non-technical individuals who might not care what I have to say in the first place? Sure, simplify. Am I telling a story about a personal experience or some relatable problem in my field? Expect a detailed and nuanced picture to be painted. Thanks for the comment, it gave me something to think about.

0xEF 2y ago

I like your examples, but I disagree. Having also read Plato and many of the speculative writings that address his work, much of it is still up for debate, especially when context is not understood. Feynman, whom I enjoy as well, often said some really nonsensical things that he probably thought had a lot of philosophical depth (I think specifically of The Pleasure of Finding Things Out which is a nice feel-good piece but does not bring much meat to the table afterall). To be fair to him and your example, he did absolutely have a knack for breaking down scientific complexities to terms non-scientists could grasp, which I applaud. Yes, let's do more of that. So, sure, there is a time where simpler language is an exercise in how well you know a thing. Being able to break it down into simpler terms makes sense. But we do have to be careful with the language. It's dynamic, as you mention, often subject to interpretation that could lead to misunderstanding or improper handling of an idea. I did it in my initial reply. That said, one must know one's audience and subject, I think. Am I conveying a concept from physics to non-technical individuals who might not care what I have to say in the first place? Sure, simplify. Am I telling a story about a personal experience or some relatable problem in my field? Expect a detailed and nuanced picture to be painted. Thanks for the comment, it gave me something to think about.