[brookst]

I agree, but even in those cases, “in other words” is just throat-clearing. Like “simply put” or “that is to say”, these are noise words that only hurt the clarity of writing.

If two examples help, use two examples. There’s no need to call out that the second one is another example; people will get that.

At least that’s how I see it after a lifetime of trying to stamp out this kind of filler language in my own writing.

[Errancer]

I agree with your description that this is a throat-clearing but I don't see why it hurts the clarity of writing. Dense texts packed with information can often benefit from such breaks. In general I find text which uses artefacts from spoken language more readable. There are limits to this of course but if we remove all redundancy we end up with dry text which sometimes is expected but I am unsure if it is the most readable or clear way to write. One side note is that it might be culture dependent. English speaking countries and Poland, where I am from, expect and teach much different writing style than France or Germany.

[dllthomas]

If it's two examples, it's not the same thing presented again in other words. If you are presenting the same thing twice phrased differently, separating the two presentations is important, and "in other words" is a perfectly reasonable phrase to do that.

[blowski]

Without beating around the bush, what I’m trying to say is, in other words, unless I’m mistaken, it’s perhaps possible that maybe some writing just could be written in fewer words.

[ukuina]

Sir Humphrey Appleby, is that you?