While brevity may often be the most efficient way of conveying an idea, some concepts are better served by fuller exposition For example, there is the classic question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer “Yes” or “No.”’ If one answers ‘Yes’, then obviously he used to beat his wife. The implication of the answer ‘No’ is that he has been beating his wife, and is continuing to do so. Of course, ‘No’ would be correct if the man does not beat his wife and never has beaten his wife; he cannot stop beating her if he never started. Thus, a brief answer will not suffice for the innocent man. He needs to explain, against the instructions by the querent, that he has never beaten his wife.
Additionally, many statements require background information in order to be understood, or not misunderstood. A person may observe behaviour amongst a certain group, which he does not observe in other groups. If his enquiry is brief, such as ‘Why do [these people] do [this]?’, then others will certainly chime in with examples that the person has not observed. They may point out that some members of the specified group do engage in the given activity, but that members of the group as a whole do not. It behooves the questioner to give some context to his query. For example, ‘I have noticed that some members of [this group] engage in [this activity]. By no means do I suggest that all or most [members of this group] do this. It occurred to me that this behaviour is something engaged in by some members of a subset of this group, as I have not seen it amongst members who appear to be from a different demographic. Could this be a cultural behaviour by this subset; behaviour which I have not seen amongst people who are not [members of this group]?’ To be sure, more background information or various disclaimers may be needed to ensure that one’s intentions are not misconstrued; but it’s better than the simple question as to why [Group X] engages in a certain activity.
There is a concept of ‘simple answers for simple people’, which can lead to people believing that there are easy answers to very complex issues. We have seen, for example, how this adversely affects our political system. If we, as a group, tend to be somewhat verbose, it is only because we wish to provide context for our statements and arguments.
I never really noticed the verbosity myself. Rather I find a distinct conglomerate of eclectic personas expounding viewpoints on diverse focus areas that titillate my inquisitiveness and occasionally have me re-examine my default postulation.
ETA: Damned you Johnny!
I go for the real unintellectual posturing, myself. Same number of words, but dumber.
As for your pathetic request for gentleness based on a newbitude that exists only in your mind, it can only be decided in the same manner as the All-England Summarize Proust Competition, which will require proof.
ETA: On second thought, I’ll take your word for it.
I actually think an extensive vocabulary makes things more concise, not less.
I could see how for some that would incite some cognitive dissonance.
For others, that could induce a feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs.
For others still, sometimes when things don’t happen the way they should and then what happens isn’t what someone was expecting to begin with, it’s really confusing, or something.