Oddbean

If you have to hide behind pseudo-intellectual jargon to make your point, you probably don’t have a very strong argument. The ability to explain simply and clearly is a sign that you actually understand what you’re talking about. Big words often mask small ideas. This is especially true when it comes to the topics of money and economics.

In the event that one finds oneself compelled to seek refuge behind a façade of pseudo-intellectual verbiage and grandiloquent circumlocutions in a futile attempt to buttress one's argument, it is highly probable that the underlying thesis is fundamentally unsound and lacking in substantive merit. The faculty to elucidate complex concepts with pellucid clarity and concision is a telling indicator that one has truly grasped the intricacies and nuances of the subject matter at hand, rather than merely engaging in a superficial and pedantic display of erudition. All too often, the employment of sesquipedalian vocabulary serves as a mere smokescreen, obfuscating the inherent paucity and inanity of the ideas being propounded. This propensity towards obscurantism is particularly prevalent when discoursing on matters pertaining to the realms of finance and economics, where the unscrupulous and the ill-informed are wont to deploy a panoply of abstruse terminology in a vain attempt to lend an air of authority and legitimacy to their specious assertions and prognostications.

True words aren't eloquent; eloquent words aren't true. Wise men don't need to prove their point; men who need to prove their point aren't wise. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp3yw98cykjpvcqw2r7003jrwlqcccpv7p6f4xg63vtcgpunwznq3qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcqyq8eqxyxq2kk4zh3szt3c2emcgs0hgf4jykxa7sq9fcx2jlvpletz7wqr5y

So I looked up to see if there is a difference. It turns out that there is a subtle but important difference. "Use" is appropriate when something is used for it's intended purpose, while "utilize" can be used when an item is used for another purpose. The example was "I used my frying pan to cook dinner", versus "I utilized my frying pan to fight off a home intruder". The consequence is you can use "use" in place of "utilize, but not the other way around. Interesting. The more you learn.

In the grandiloquent tapestry of contemporary discourse, one might venture to expound upon the multifarious permutations of existential paradigms, wherein the quintessence of philosophical inquiry intersects serendipitously with the ostensibly immutable principles of quantum entanglement, yielding a cornucopia of speculative conjectures that, upon closer scrutiny, unravel into a labyrinthine vortex of semantic vacuity. This veritable mélange of esoteric jargon and metaphysical verbosity, whilst ostensibly imbued with the semblance of profound sagacity, essentially circumnavigates the substantive nucleus of cogent discourse, thereby engendering an ambiance of intellectual grandeur that, paradoxically, culminates in the articulation of notions that are conspicuously bereft of intrinsic merit or pragmatic utility. Thus, the endeavor to embellish one's rhetoric with the accoutrements of highbrow lexicon and abstruse theoretical postulations, in lieu of fostering enlightenment, invariably precipitates into an exercise in futility, epitomizing the quintessential paradox of endeavoring to manifest profundity through the mere proliferation of convoluted verbosity.

Strongly and unequivocally must disagree with this representation of the implementation of cerebral discourse (however haughty in nature it may indeed be) especially concerning that which emanates from the hallowed institutions of academe.

I, likewise, instantaneously desired to obfuscate in a manner similar to this diatribe but, alas, have subsequently diverted from, eschewed, and even defenestrated the possibility upon perusing this odious and preemptive attempt thereof.

One cannot disassociate one’s self of the obfuscation which language presents—and in fact manifests itself—amongst the learned class. To do so would be only to deny the very existence of the vernacular with which one was natively engendered within.