[cole-k]

I don't see why what you're saying and what the blog post says are incompatible. I feel like Graham is not saying "simplify your thoughts," but rather "simplify your words." Think Up Goer 5 (https://xkcd.com/1133/) but maybe not as extreme.

What I understood from your comment is that for complex topics (like quantum mechanics), complex language is necessary. This section of the post clarifies Graham's thoughts on the matter:

> You don't need complex sentences to express complex ideas. When specialists in some abstruse topic talk to one another about ideas in their field, they don't use sentences any more complex than they do when talking about what to have for lunch. They use different words, certainly. But even those they use no more than necessary.

I kind of agree, although I don't know exactly whether I've studied things that y'all might consider "abstruse".

[GeneralMayhem]

> Think Up Goer 5 but maybe not as extreme.

I don't think this proves the point you want it to. Up Goer 5 loses a ton of information for the sake of its stylistic schtick, and is borderline incomprehensible to people who don't already know the information it's attempting to convey. That's not a problem when you're doing it for comedic effect or for its own sake; it's a big problem when you decide that a devotion to simplistic language should trump actual communication in scenarios where the message matters.

[YurgenJurgensen]

Up Goer 5 is a fantastic example of why complex language is necessary. Even in a short example, it already defines clumsy replacements for the words it's trying to use, like "Sky Bag Air" (Hydrogen), "Funny Voice Air" (Helium) and "Breathing Type Air" (Oxygen). Other artificially-simple language projects, like the Simple English Wikipedia* or Toki Pona generally end up in the same place. You get the linguistic equivalent of copy-and-paste coding.

Sure, "don't use more complex language than necessary" sounds like advice, but anyone capable of working out the minimally complex language needed for any given topic likely doesn't need to be told this.

*A quick skim also suggests that in many places, the SEW just gives up on simple vocabulary and uses phrases like "time-independent Schrödinger equation".

[cole-k]

Just so we're on the same page, I agree to the necessity for words like Hydrogen or Helium. And not gonna lie I get a kick out of using fancy words that in today's English-speaking world serve the dual purpose of implying that I'm part of the educated social elite (although I like to imagine this is not the reason why I like using them - I digress).

> but anyone capable of working out the minimally complex language needed for any given topic likely doesn't need to be told this.

This is where I (and I think Graham) disagree with you. In my opinion, this is very not easy. When I write - especially about complex topics - I feel more comfortable complicating my thoughts.

If you don't mind the anecdote, in middle and high school I thought I was hot shit because my classmates would struggle to write enough to meet the page limit and I would struggle to not go over it. As it turns out, this is not because I had more to say. It's because I would use twice the number of words to say it. But it was certainly complex prose that used fancy language - sometimes, I'd argue, parts were even well-written.

I do still think there is an aesthetic to language, but I've grown to believe that simple language possesses beauty too. I can appreciate now how famous writers like Hemingway could agonize for a day over a single sentence. Especially because I look at the four paragraphs I wrote in response and think to myself, "man I bet this is way more complicated and rambly than it needs to be."