[yetanotherlogin]

Few things are more tedious than reading science majors endlessly, smugly belittle arts subjects. "Oh ho ho, something I don't understand and haven't done and probably couldn't do, they must be idiots, let's constantly mock them". I saw quite enough of that on slashdot so was very disappointed to see this sort of bilge get so many upvotes here. Thankfully some of the comments, at least, show a more nuanced grasp of reality.

[silverlake]

While studying engineering, I took lots of upper-level classes in history, philosophy, polysci, etc. I aced those classes without much effort. To really "learn to think", you have to push yourself to think about more complex and abstract ideas. Advanced math pushes your brain to its limits. Most liberal arts fields have very low levels of complexity. In most cases, it's just read & regurgitate. In adv. classes you might follow a few levels of indirection. This is trivial for scientists, but difficult for most others.

[yetanotherlogin]

> In most cases, it's just read & regurgitate.

You embody what I am talking about so perfectly here I can only assume this was a clever piece of satire.

[lionhearted]

> I saw quite enough of that on slashdot so was very disappointed to see this sort of bilge get so many upvotes here.

A developed vocabulary is awesome, but you always got to consider who your audience is and why you're writing. If you're trying to persuade a lot of people, it's almost always better to choose the easier and more readable word instead of the bigger or deeper or more obscure word.

I read a hell of a lot, and I had to look bilge up to figure out exactly what you're saying - you could've just said "trash" instead and everyone would've got your meaning. Likewise, "tedious" could be "boring", "smugly belittle" could be "insult", you could drop "endlessly" altogether since it doesn't add any more information. Likewise, "quite enough" doesn't convey more than just the word "enough", "nuanced grasp of reality" could've just been "perspective". Here's how I'd write it:

> Few things are more tedious than reading science majors endlessly, smugly belittle arts subjects. "Oh ho ho, something I don't understand and haven't done and probably couldn't do, they must be idiots, let's constantly mock them". I saw quite enough of that on slashdot so was very disappointed to see this sort of bilge get so many upvotes here. Thankfully some of the comments, at least, show a more nuanced grasp of reality.

...becomes...

> It gets old reading science majors put down the arts. It's easier to mock something than it is to try to understand it. Sheesh, I saw enough of that on slashdot and I'm disappointed to see it here. It's good that at least a few commentors are taking the time to share a perspective from the other side.

So, you write less, it's faster, more people understand you, more are convinced, and you come across less arrogant. Anyways, I been there myself, I grew up reading lots of books and always used to choose the bigger word. Now I choose the simpler more readable way unless the bigger word is really necessary or conveys more.

[yetanotherlogin]

Well, thanks for putting words in my mouth, but your rewriting is not synonymous with what I wrote. If I had wanted to write what you wrote, I would have done so. For example, "a perspective from the other side", implies opposing viewpoints A vs B, whereas "nuance" implies a stance accepting parts of A but balancing or supplementing them with qualifiers drawn from B.

As for "bilge", contrary to your pleasant assumption I am trying to show off how many books I read, I probably chose that word because it was at the top of my head, having been widely in the news here this week: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7608422/Genera...

Ironically, this notion that you can freely swap NEAR-synonyms with no change of implications and associations of what is meant is a rather maths-y perspective. Someone with more of a liberal arts background would be more aware how far from the truth is. Human natural language, English especially, is not like simultaneous equations where terms can be freely reduced with no loss of accuracy. The range of "big words" and "small words" signify similar but not identical concepts... but of course, if you follow the thoughts of my other responder, the work of Saussure, Derrida et al on signifiers and signified didn't involve any abstract thinking, just reading and regurgitation.

I do admit that my initial post was perhaps rather bullishly worded, and in that sense, the downvotes perhaps deserved. However, it is a bit ironic how hostile a reaction from HN members it recieved, considered it was intended as a compliment to HN members. What I was trying to get at was that the linked piece was essentially a very cheap shot - a cheap shot understood by reading the headline alone, at that, with the rest of the text offering little or no further insight or interest. On the other hand, the comments of (for example) cousin_it, jlc, olefoo were far more intelligent.