Justhink: Please do.

[mrblue92]

Shield your eyes upon clicking these links, gentle patron.

I just saw this. I have been scarred.

Now, I have seen him before… normally I would not do a poster the dishonor of aiming a pit thread directly at him or her–but I can take it no longer. Out of what can only be described as either a masochistic urge or deep need to find the root of this abomination, I searched for more of his posts and found another… uh… gem…

I think the problem with using a smaller vocabulary is short-term memory retention and processing speed. The problem IMO is not that the term can/cannot be precisely artiulated. It can be. Computer programmers working in binary know this very well. The issue seems to be that most people can only hold so many ‘recursive calls’ before all the cards come crashing down and they begin forgetting some of the order of operations or the actual content. By hard-coding vast stores of binary into larger and larger symbols (bases); high level symbols provide advantages for those who cannot hold a 100 page sentence in their heads. I would tend to argue that a 100 page sentence will be more transparent for those who can process loads that large in short-term memory, than a condenced symbol which vaguely describes the detail and process of the axioms. People who can comprehend meta-symbols on the binary level are going to be smarter (not dumber) than those who cannot. If a person capable of communicating on that level speaks on that level to anyone in the general population; law of averages assumes that about 99.99999… blah, blah% of the population will consider them thick headed and stupid; unpractical and completely oblivious.
Just the people such an intelligence is seeking to weed out on its quest for a peer…

What is he saying in this ridiculously obfuscated mess? That “intelligent” people speak like he does so as find others who are as “intelligent”.

Allow me to clue you in, sir. Speaking in barely understandable circles does not make you appear intelligent or witty. The ability to run your sentences and paragraphs on for the length of a interstellar expedition does not improve their content or demonstrate your competence. Presenting arguments that prance about painfully like headless chickens is not a display of your shimmering brilliance. A respectable vocabulary does absolutely nothing to improve the presentation of your ideas if you are unable to compose rational, coherent thoughts.

For the love of Cecil (and the rest of the Dopers), learn to write a post that does not look like it came from the first draft of William F. Buckley’s new book entitled, How to Be a Raving Loonie and Pompous Windbag.

Thank you.

[Jack_Batty]

That boy uses more syllables than an Italian take-out menu.

[Hamlet]

If you order now, you too can get a incoherent Pseudo-Intellectual, not for $50, not for $30, heck not even for $20, but for 85 easy monthly payments of just a nickel. Sign up now.

[wring]

I’ll just not worry my pretty little head about it. I’ll justhink about that tomorrow.

[Newton_meter]

Why, I oughtta wring your neck!

[JRDelirious]

Kind of amusing how someone who is so much into “transparency” is at the same time so much into impenetrable prose.

[hansel]

I think he’s saying that, for people capable of holding long-ass sentences in their head, a smaller vocabulary is better because it’s more precise (because complex concepts are built out of simple pieces assembled in understandable ways, like Lego). On the other hand, for us simpletons who limit their sentences to 30 words, a larger vocabulary is more useful because you can express more concepts succinctly (at a cost of using a more complex language).

Believe it or not, he’s got philosophical support–see the opening remarks of Quine’s essay “Two Dogmas Of Empiricism”.

[Jack_Batty]

“Two Dogmas of Impiricism”?

Sounds like a Shakespeare working title.

Two Dogmas of Impiricism?
Nah.
Two Dogs of Italy.
Nope.
Two and half Dudes of A Town Just Outside of Rome?
Damn it, it’ll come to me…

[wring]

*Originally posted by Jack Batty *
**“Two Dogmas of Impiricism”?

Sounds like a Shakespeare working title.

Two Dogmas of Impiricism?
Nah.
Two Dogs of Italy.
Nope.
Two and half Dudes of A Town Just Outside of Rome?
Damn it, it’ll come to me… **

DUDE, where’s my car??

[Chez_Guevara]

Originally posted by hansel

I think he’s saying that, for people capable of holding long-ass sentences in their head, a smaller vocabulary is better because it’s more precise (because complex concepts are built out of simple pieces assembled in understandable ways, like Lego). On the other hand, for us simpletons who limit their sentences to 30 words, a larger vocabulary is more useful because you can express more concepts succinctly (at a cost of using a more complex language).

Believe it or not, he’s got philosophical support–see the opening remarks of Quine’s essay “Two Dogmas Of Empiricism”.

Where do the Teletubbies fit into all this?

[The_Mermaid]

I honestly can not figure out what in the fuck he is saying. Period.

I suggested to him in another thread that if what he is trying to say can’t be said in less than 5,000 words or so then there is a high probability that it is incapable of being articulated and he should then just give up. ( or something like that)

I also asked if he would mind changing his name so as not to be confused with our beloved thinksnow. He ignored me. Sigh.

What a waste of bandwidth.

[red_dragon60]

Intelligence is being able to explain complex things in simple terms, not obscuring in a way so that only you, in your masturbatory quest, can understand.

[hansel]

Hit him with the bartender rule: if he can’t get a bartender to understand it in less two drinks, then he doesn’t understand it himself.

[Angel_of_the_Lord]

Y’know, it’s not that I have a problem understanding what he’s saying. I know all the words, and I can follow the sentences. It’s just that what he’s saying isn’t worth the weight of the words he’s using to say it.

Me no like big words :D.

[mrblue92]

*Originally posted by hansel *
**I think he’s saying that, for people capable of holding long-ass sentences in their head, a smaller vocabulary is better because it’s more precise (because complex concepts are built out of simple pieces assembled in understandable ways, like Lego). On the other hand, for us simpletons who limit their sentences to 30 words, a larger vocabulary is more useful because you can express more concepts succinctly (at a cost of using a more complex language).

Believe it or not, he’s got philosophical support–see the opening remarks of Quine’s essay “Two Dogmas Of Empiricism”. **

And here’s Quine:

Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded.

I don’t know… I didn’t have time to read through the whole paper in detail, but that opening doesn’t seem to support his argument very well. Perhaps you were thinking of Carnap?

In any event, I may have jumped to a conclusion on that interpretation–he may not have been arguing so much intelligence as different frames of reference. Even so, I think most of us would agree it is quite difficult to sift through his writing and find meaning in the first place. He neglects one of the primary rules of writing:

Know your audience and write accordingly.

I really don’t wish to be harsh; in a way I feel a little sorry about the OP because I don’t actually want to hurt the guy’s feelings. I just would hope he’d try to communicate succinctly on a common level rather than force us to muddle through a morass of poorly crafted sentences.

(Yea, I’m probably being too gentle for the Pit, but this is still the proper forum last time I checked…)

[Robb]

DUDE, where’s my car??

Jennifer Garner

[hansel]

*Originally posted by mrblue92 ***
And here’s Quine:I don’t know… I didn’t have time to read through the whole paper in detail, but that opening doesn’t seem to support his argument very well. Perhaps you were thinking of Carnap?

**

My mistake: it’s not near the beginning, and it’s a tangential note about a third of the way through. From this copy of “Two Dogmas Of Empiricism”:

In logical and mathematical systems either of two mutually antagonistic types of economy may be striven for, and each has its peculiar practical utility. On the one hand we may seek economy of practical expression: ease and brevity in the statement of multifarious relationships. This sort of economy calls usually for distinctive concise notations for a wealth of concepts. Second, however, and oppositely, we may seek economy in grammar and vocabulary; we may try to find a minimum of basic concepts such that, once a distinctive notation has been appropriated to each of them, it becomes possible to express any desired further concept by mere combination and iteration of our basic notations. This second sort of economy is impractical in one way, since a poverty in basic idioms tends to a necessary lengthening of discourse. But it is practical in another way: it greatly simplifies theoretical discourse about the language, through minimizing the terms and the forms of construction wherein the language consists.

[Newton_meter]

Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage…

Who cares about the other one, that’s all the dogma I need! Yowza, Hume.

[belladonna]

but mrblue, you missed one of my favorites! It’s the CIA man. They’re, like, targeting all the intelli-types by linking marijuana with the blood-drenched worship of great lord satan.

bella–who thinks having a few kooks around livens the place up a bit

[belladonna]

Okay, somehow that gave me TOTALLY the wrong link. Try this one.

[sub]sorry[/sub]