Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-98.235.154.24-20130913002452/@comment-11687-20131031200211

ImposterParrotGrass wrote: I think that he's the kind of person who came for the things like the little scenes we wright(see above... way above) not the in depth discussion of Beacons policy in sex ed.

That's perfectly understandable, and I certainly don't fault him or her for it; as the saying goes de gustibus non est disputandum.

What struck me as odd was that the poster was apparently seeking certain minimum amount of time in which this so-called "sophisticated" discussion was not advanced before they felt comfortable posting again. Moreover, they publicly stated that they didn't want to post while it was, which is rather contradictory.

ImposterParrotGrass wrote:

And about your response to my statement above, I'm not trying to reduce the volume of writing(and it is good that you break it into paragraphs), but the overly complicated way you write. I understand that there's a good number of people in favor of this discussion, and that "sophisticated" is a relative term. What I'm trying to say is that a good number of us (myself included) find it hard to understand it all. I get that you're trying to be specific to get your point across, but I think you could do that without using words like 'paradoxically' or 'stipulate' that the average person would need to look up, or justify your statement with research on the human brain.

Maybe you do this in casual speech, but I'm inclined to think that most people don't. I can understand your opinions, but I want this place to be as inclusive as possible, and I think you do too. And while those of us who have yet to take expository english(or don't apply it in life as much) can't understand the complex method of writing, I'm sure that those who do can understand the more simplistic talk.

I don't mean to make a personal attack on you, just to find some common ground between the intellectual discussion and the not so intellectual.

I don't take it as any sort of personal affront, and I am sympathetic to the point you're making. However, I'm of the opinion that terms such as "paradoxical" are sometimes the best (that is, the most precise) method for communicating a particular point.

This is notable in that I do find it to be somewhat paradoxical in that you want these forums to be as inclusive as possible, while at the same time stating that I need to modify my style of interpersonal communication for the comfort of an indeterminate number of nonspecific individuals. This is leaving aside that the request you're making is notably vague in its terms, aside from an apparent call for the reduction of polysyllabic words and less external citations.

That said, the question here is largely between issues of understandability (what I perceive as your main point) versus precision (my main point) in writing. On my end of things, I'm able to directly affect the degree of precision in what I write, via my use of language to that effect - the more specific I am, the better I can eliminate any ambiguity in my posts, even if that does use words that may not come up in "everyday" speech.

By contrast, the issue of understandability is largely one that's outside of my area of direct control. I don't know how much a given individual will or will not be able to understand the terms I'm using. Given that, any attempts to modify my writing in hopes of increasing the general understanding of the readers will be, necessarily, a completely arbitrary endeavor - I have no way of knowing if a particular term or phrase will be something that everyone understands, only some people understand, or nobody understands. At best, I can make guesses, but you've indicated that your standards, and possibly those of others, are so different that this may be an exercise in futility anyway.

As such, I believe that the burden of comprehension is more on the readers than it is on myself. If they can grant that I'm not going to any particular lengths to try and inhibit clarity - and I maintain that I'm not, as I think that ambiguous statements, rather than "sophisticated" language, is the greater barrier to understanding - then they are subsequently the ones who must undertake the requisite effort to understand the language I'm using.

I say the above hesitantly, as I worry that it might come off dismissively - I'm not trying to impugn anyone's intelligence. Rather, I'm attempting to explain my thinking that, given an issue where one of two parties needs to undergo some sort of personal modification in order to resolve a conflict, I believe that in this particular issue that it's more just - and more rational - that the other party (in this case, the readers that you say you're speaking on behalf of) be the one(s) so burdened.

It's an ironic example of the underlying issue for me to say that I hope that makes things clearer.