4 ms·

> The whole point of jargon is to have precise definitions Well, not always. Per Webster: 1: the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special ac

• ffsm8 2y ago
  These 1 and 2 are pretty much always apply at the same time. Wherever 1 or 2 applies just depends on how used you're to the usage of said jargon.
• monitorlizard 2y ago
  Jargon feels like 1 for the ingroup and 2 for the outgroup.
• mrtksn 2y ago
  These are some effects of a jargon but the reason for its existence is precision. You learn it in an institution and then you are on the same page and there's no ambiguity over its meaning. Using jargon with a layperson is useless and could be stupid or pretentious.
  • jonahx 2y ago
    > but the reason for its existence is precision In some cases yes, but the majority of the time jargon is primarily used as a shibboleth to establish group identity, camaraderie, and a sense of exclusivity.
    • mrtksn 2y ago
      I don't know why is this obsession over jargon. I know the cliche, it's not true at all except when you misuse it. Maybe can be used as part of a fraud or some power move or something like that but its intended use case is a shortcut to predefined ideas. It may have side effects but that doesn't mean that those side effects are the reason to exist.
      • jonahx 2y ago
        I am making an empirical statement. The majority of its actual use in life is to achieve social/political ends, not to improve communication. If you want to say the majority of its use is misuse, fine. But the misuse is intentional.
        • mrtksn 2y ago
          I disagree entirely, jargon use is to help us from keeping defining things so we can move on to the next problem. How do you even use "unsprung weight" or "distributed cache" for social or political ends? Maybe it can be used at some cringe encounter with layperson but that's not at all what jargon is used for.
          • jonahx 2y ago
            Something like "distributed cache" is valid jargon. I already conceded that it can be useful. But the majority of it (by raw numbers) is the kind of stuff of the OP is lampooning -- business and office jargon. Of course there is plenty of scientific and mathematical jargon that's legitimate shorthand. Even there, however, the line blurs. That is, you have terms with legitimate use that were poorly chosen. Sometimes the poor choice is historical accident, but often it's motivated by a desire to sound more impressive and complicated that it is. Something like "applicative functor" might fall into this category.
        • kelnos 2y ago
          I absolutely agree that some people use jargon as a gatekeeping device or an in-group detector, and that's lame. But jargon does have value in communication where you know the person you're talking to understands it at the level you do. Jargon, when used well, can let you be simultaneously more precise and more terse. Think about times you've sent email or even just chat messages to different professional audiences. You're probably going to use different language when talking to a manager vs. a sales person vs. an engineer. I'm not talking about level of formality; the actual language you use to describe the topic at hand will change. Some of that will be a matter of the level of detail you provide, but some of it will likely include jargon (when you're conversing with someone in the same "group" as you), and you might not even realize it.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]