[davi]

"If the goal of communication is having other people understand you, why would you deal in words that are notable precisely because they are difficult to understand?"

Once in a while you meet someone else like yourself and experience pleasure communicating at high baud.

[dissenter]

Really? I take your point to mean that two smart people can communicate better using obscure vocabulary when they are communicating only between themselves. High baud necessarily implies higher average information throughput, so there would have to be a significant number of these words in the communication.

Could you point to some examples of letters between two famous people using this method?

Most notable people seem to prefer simple vocabulary, and in fact, many of them go so far as to recommend it. The people who prefer complex vocabulary (cultural studies journals, intellectuals) do not seem to accomplish anything of value, and indeed they are routinely accused of being obscurantists.

(Ground rule: scientific jargon excepted, since it is not a part of the vocabulary. But, feel free to look at letters by Newton, Einstein, Godel, Hilbert, anyone really.)

[davi]

It has nothing to do with a preference for complex vocabulary.

When I talk to someone I know has a large vocabulary, I am free to use the best word that occurs to me, and if they think I'm up to snuff, they are free to do the same thing. This makes for a more pleasurable conversation. (Assuming we're actually trying to say something to each other. But if the motivation is to show off, or engage in ego jockeying, that's boring.)

I guess it's more accurate to say that baud rate surges transiently when a rare, but exceptionally precise word enters this sort of conversation.

[ChaitanyaSai]

Obscure vocabulary could be divided into two, one containing obscure synonyms of frequent words, and another is the chunking of information, of many words, to give one label. People familiar with the topic may find it easier to anchor their thoughts with these chunked words of phrases.

A lot of philosophy seems really ridiculous to me, and yet there must be a need to chunk concepts and give them labels. When you agree on the basket of concepts tagged with "logical positivism" or "paleo-conservatism" isn't it easier to just use that phrase and not repeatedly invoke all or the topically relevant concepts of that set?

Of course, the problem is when these labels are overburdened and/or so multifaceted that you could be talking about subtly different things and not get anywhere. This is why philosophy should be based not in the fuzzy verbal, but in the concisely mathematical, but that is another topic.

I can't point to any letters to showcase the method, but I'd point to political science as it is a place where verbal philosophy and practicality do coincide.

[jballanc]

Or, more likely, if you are well versed in the vagaries of obscure vocabulary, chances are you'll be better at putting together the less complex words.