I went to the liquor store last week to pick up a couple of bottles of a dark, red, California blend I enjoy. There was only one bottle left and I asked the store clerk if there were any more in the back. The clerk clicked on his microphone and asked the back, “Do we have any more bottles of Ravage?”
The clerk in the back responded that they didn’t carry Ravage. The clerk motioned for me to give him the bottle I was holding. “I’m holding a bottle of Ravage right here.” “We don’t have any.” “Sir, apparently there is a mix up in the stock room.” “Actually,” I said. “I think the wine’s name is Ravage.”
He looked at the bottle. Printed on the label is a knight wielding a sword riding a sturdy, war horse. “Do we have any Ravage?” “Yeah, we have a few cases back here.” The clerk said, “Apparently, we have more bottles in the back.”
I’m not sure why the clerk created a new pronunciation for the wine. Maybe he thought it was a fancy red. To me, it’s Ravage and it’s only $8.99 a bottle.
Welcome to Swimming in the Flood; a podcast where we develop the resilient leader’s mindset by navigating difficult currents in business. My name is Trent Theroux.
Daniel Oppeneimer addressed this subject in Applied Cognitive Psychology with his paper Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity. Subtitled – Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly. Oppenheimer’s research found that most text on writing style encourage authors to avoid overly-complex words. However, a majority of undergraduates admit to deliberately increasing the complexity of their vocabulary so as to give the impression of intelligence.
Time for an honest assessment. Have you ever done this? My magic mirror shows me
Oppenheimer conducted a study of Stanford University undergraduates. A pretty smart bunch to start with. 86.4% or respondents admitted to having changed words in an academic essay to make the essay sound more valid or intelligent by using complicated language.
Oppenheimer then did an experiment. He found two nearly identical translations of Rene Descartes Mediation IV. One was a 98-word translation written in 1990 and the other was an 82-word translation written in 1993. Students were told that one was actually Descartes and that the other was an unknown author and that they should identify the two. The true difference between the two translations was that the longer on had greater complexity in syntax and sentence structure. (Trent- Work this out.)
I review and sign indemnity agreements every day and it feels like the writer is trying to obfuscate (obfuscate – render unclear or unintelligible) the true meaning. The next passage is the indemnification clause one of my suppliers requires me to sign. I’m going to warn you. This isn’t a short passage. So, to add to your entertainment, I will try to do this in one breath.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the Indemnified Parties from any loss, damage, liability, cost, third party suit, charge, expense or third party cause of action, including the Indemnified Parties’ legal expenses whether unconditionally certain or otherwise, as the exist on the effective date of the Agreement or arise at any time thereafter, (including but not limited to reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel incurred by an Indemnified Party in any action or proceeding between an Indemnified Party and any third party arising out of any damage or injury to property…
Okay, that was only 100 words. The entire section is nearly 1,000 words of that type of gibberish. In my estimation, lawyers epitomize – Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity.
Life hacker – using big words doesn’t always make you sound smarter.
Here is my unscientific, non-peer reviewed, resilient leader theory on understanding how we got where we are. Are you ready? Got your pencils out? Here’s it is. Check Your List. You heard it. Check Your List.
Folks, thank you for listening to Swimming in the Flood. Resilient leaders face challenging currents and it is tough navigating, but with one tack or another we can get there together.