Concise writing is usually clear writing (38) – Aaron Clarey

In Chapter 1 of Bachelor Pad Economics, a guide for young men as they leave their parents’ homes and set up their own quarters, Aaron Clarey warns his readers that their elders have told them some pernicious lies:

For example, about college:

“The lies you were fed were that you could ‘follow your heart and the money would follow’ or that ‘it doesn’t matter what you major in, it’s what you do with the degree that matters.’ As long as you went to college, racked up $100,000 in debt, you were doing ‘the right thing.’ Of course, working for $8/hour as a barista to pay off your student loans for your ‘Art History’ degree has taught you otherwise.” (76 words)

For example, about girls and dating:

“There is not one young man alive today who has not suffered immeasurably because of the lies he was told about girls and dating. The ‘wisdom’ his elders gave him was ‘to be the nice guy’ or ‘be a caring, sensitive man.’ Only to find out the drug dealing thug or the philandering athlete was getting all the girls. It wasn’t until hundreds of men compiled notes [via the Internet] and realized the advice they were being given the past 40 years was completely wrong, and set out to rediscover the truth about women. Women like tall, strong, aloof, confident a**holes who ignore them and treat them like sh*t.” (105 words)

Analysis

I don’t know whether you agreed or disagreed with those two opinions, but I’m sure you easily understood what the opinions are. Mr. Clarey states them clearly, using only 76 words and 105 words, respectively. In contrast, the typical Fortune 500 CEO couldn’t be that clear and concise if his life depended on it.*

Please keep in mind that this is a blog about clear writing, not about opinions. When I select text samples for this blog, it is because the writing is especially clear (or especially unclear). I quote people who I disdain, people who I admire, and everything in between.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful diction and the scatterbrain diction (sample here) that besets us every day. The topic you select for your reading doesn’t matter, because you’re reading for style not content. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.
___________________
*Not even if he had the help of an experienced speech writer or corporate writer. Unfortunately, many writers today are as bland, boring, effete and evasive as their CEOs. And even when the writers are not, the CEOs often muck up the writers’drafts. Most CEOs want to avoid being clear, concise, direct and unequivocal. They think and write like shyster lawyers, not like leaders. Do not imitate their language.

See disclaimer.

Emotional reasoning in the National Journal

Recently the National Journal ran an article titled “Ron Paul Is Putin’s New Best Friend,” by staff correspondent Lucia Graves. The article is an example of emotional reasoning, immaturity, subjectivity and misquotation.

On his YouTube channel, Canadian author and philosopher Stefan Molyneux posted an entertaining, instructive video critique (21:18) of the article. In the critique, he proceeds line by line and discusses several examples of the author’s faulty thinking and writing, including:

“blaming America”

“folk wisdom”

“quick to attack”

“pointing fingers”

“conspiracy theories”

“mysteriously”

Although he occasionally indulges in redundancy and histrionics, Mr. Molyneux is a very effective teacher. Especially if you are a beginning writer, I recommend you watch this video critique.

The Takeaway:  As writers, we must develop the habit of reading critically, because many articles today, like “Ron Paul Is Putin’s New Best Friend,” appear to be innocuous gibberish or prattle but are actually deliberate attempts to insinuate or manipulate. Try not to unconsciously absorb and unconsciously imitate that kind of writing.

See disclaimer.

The maniacal use of “issues” (6)

A view of Diversity Plaza, Jackson Heights, Queens, New York

In several posts (for example here), I’ve called attention to the widespread misuse of the word issues. Many people seem determined to misuse the word all day long.

For example, there are four appearances in a brief article, “Diversity Plaza [in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York] Gets Dedicated Police Officers to Address Complaints.” Here they are (emphasis mine):

The reporter uses issues in a paraphrase:

Two police officers have begun patrolling Diversity Plaza in response to complaints about vagrants, loud music and other safety issues, according to the precinct's commander....

The reporter quotes someone using issue:

“It's a serious quality of life issue right now.”

The reporter uses issues in a paraphrase:

“It’s a place to sit and enjoy, eat food,” he said, although he did agree with some of the issues brought up at the meeting.

The reporter uses issue in a paraphrase:

The police can help, but the cleanliness issue requires everyone to step up, he said.

Analysis

When people misuse the vague word issues, they are usually being deceptive or just lazy. For example:

Deceptive: The reporter (paraphrasing the police commander) uses “safety issues” as a generic phrase for a class of behavior that includes being vagrant and playing loud music. However, being vagrant and playing loud music are forms of interference with the public’s convenience and enjoyment, not threats to the public’s safety. Of course, it is possible that the “other safety issues” included real threats to safety; but if so, why weren’t those threats mentioned? It may be that the reporter heard about nuisances and wished to exaggerate them to threats, in order to spice up her story . Or the police commander exaggerated them, in order to justify dedicating two officers to fighting nuisances instead of fighting crime.

Just Lazy: A person using the vague phrase “quality of life issue” is just too darn lazy to articulate what he really means (for a long list of similar examples, look here).

The Takeaway: The word issues, like drive and actually, has graduated from fad word to mania word. Before you reach for the handy, vague word issues, ask yourself, “What is a clear way to make my point?” Don’t make your readers guess what you mean; if you do it frequently, your readers may become suspicious of your intentions.

See disclaimer.

Politicians, reporters, and the word “issue”

I’ve discussed the misuse of the word issue in previous posts (example here). Evasive people love the catchall word issue because they can use it to (1) downplay a problem or (2) pretend to be saying something when they are in fact saying nothing.

As you surely know, politicians are big users of evasive language. So are many reporters who mimic the speech patterns of politicians.*

Here, as just one small example, is a recent article in the New Hampshire Union Leader about a temporary local oil shortage. The reporters quote seven people: four are politicians and three are businesspeople. One politician and the reporters call the shortage an issue (instead of a problem, which is what it is).** None of the businesspeople (as quoted) use the word issue.

I’m not citing this one example as proof; it is merely a hot story from my local paper. Every week, the press contains thousands of examples of politicians and their reporters using evasive language.

The Takeaway: The word issue is almost always used evasively. Before you speak or write this word, ask yourself what you mean. Are you using it appropriately (Example: “Don’t dodge the issue.”) or evasively (Example: as a euphemism for problem)?

See disclaimer.

*The main reason many reporters mimic the speech patterns of politicians is that all humans tend to mimic the speech patterns of the group they most want to be accepted by, and many reporters most want to be accepted by politicians. You see, politicians usually supply the bulk of a reporter’s predigested news, making the reporter’s job much easier. This is why most of the articles on the front page of a newspaper are about government.

**And one of the politicians calls the shortage “an emergency situation.” This is another type of evasion popular with politicians: Soften a bold noun such as emergency by changing it into an adjective and using the adjective to modify a wimpy noun such as situation.

Objectivity and The New York Times – an editorial

Economic historian Gary North (pictured), a tireless champion of clear writing and clear speaking, analyzes some evasive language that The New York Times recently used in order to simultaneously display and obfuscate its position on “gun laws.” Dr. North writes, in part:

The New York Times adds this: “Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist.” Let me translate: “We’re liberal. We like gun control laws, so we have decided to announce that anti-gun control sheriffs are in the minority. We will hold to this story until statistics exist to the contrary. We may decide to hold to it even after statistics to the contrary are available. It’s our call. It’s our newspaper. We get to do what we want.”

The Takeaway: Every newspaper has a worldview. Every newspaper. So does every writer: columnist, pundit, professor, consultant, blogger or whatever. It cannot be otherwise. But many writers are more honest than The Times on this point. Gary North is. I hope I am, too. For you, as a reader, the takeaway is to beware of writers who pretend to have total objectivity; that’s nothing but a narcissistic delusion. As you read, remember that the writer has a worldview; it may affect his writing heavily or only slightly. But always try to induce it (infer it from particulars) and then factor it into what you read.

See disclaimer.

More on fallacies

When debating a topic, we often make the mistake of resorting to fallacies. We are especially prone to making this mistake when the topic is controversial. Here’s an example.

The Denver Post reported that Richard Lamm, a former governor of Colorado, had said that blacks and Latinos lack the drive and ambition of Asians and Jews. Six people spoke to the Post about Mr. Lamm’s assertion, but none of them (insofar as they were quoted by the Post) directly stated whether the assertion was true or false. Instead, they used fallacies:

“Dick Lamm is out of control. [Argumentum ad Hominem] We are not victims [Straw Man], and to take our culture and our way of living and our whole being and try to turn us into something else devalues who we are as Latinos and as blacks. [Straw Man] He goes around wanting to make people think he is Mary Poppins [Straw Man], when the reality is that he is a hard-core racist.” [Argumentum ad Hominem]

“I can’t account for statements that seem to condone sophisticated kinds of racial profiling and racial characterization.” [Red Herring]

“To say that in the face of César Chávez and Martin Luther King [Red Herring] and some of the other pioneers from the minority community is appalling.” [Appeal to Emotion]

The type of generalizations Lamm made “are not constructive to finding solutions.” [Appeal to Consequences]

“To me, cultural criticism is the opposite of racism. Racial characterizations are not chosen, but culture is. If the data suggests that some cultural attitudes are working more than others, why not make the change? [Appeal to Consequences] For there to be this thought police crackdown against a Dick Lamm to punish him for raising this issue, it’s a disservice [Red Herring] to people who find themselves at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder in America. They need all the encouragement and the tough love to help them climb that ladder.” [Appeal to Pity]

“I reject those sentiments [Appeal to Emotion], I do not share them [Appeal to Emotion], and I think to make that suggestion is flat-out wrong.” [Appeal to Emotion]

The Takeaway: Be careful to avoid fallacies in your writing and speech; instead, use direct, clear and rational language. In situations where you are afraid to use direct, clear and rational language, don’t write or say anything – resorting to fallacies makes you sound shifty and evasive.

Disclaimer: I do not know or care whether Mr. Lamm’s assertion is true or false. My purpose in this post is to point out examples of invalid argument: six people who presumably do care a lot about whether the assertion is true or false avoided that question as if it were poison. Please remember, I do not choose examples for the ideas they express. I choose examples for their value as illustrations of especially bad (sometimes especially good) writing and speaking. Also see my general disclaimer.

The value of logic – an editorial

In 2002, Steven Yates, a former professor of logic, wrote an interesting article (“Can Logic Be Taught on Campus?”) on the place of logic courses in college curricula. He wondered whether logic was “at odds with the major campus tendencies.” For example:

Once we take [logic] seriously, we have to throw out a lot of what passes for scholarship today – and very possibly, a lot of teaching as well, to the extent that it has come to express the teacher’s feelings or attempt to elicit feelings from students instead of address facts of reality. (Italics in original.)

And from the conclusion of the article:

Carried out properly, a course in logic can greatly improve a college student’s ability to think independently, as an individual and not simply a herd-member, and not be taken to the cleaners by every fashion to come along. It can be used to show that many beliefs currently held dear on campuses simply don’t make any sense when held up to the light of close, logical scrutiny. It is thus a highly politically incorrect subject. It probably belongs in the core of any good college or university curriculum, but definitely doesn’t fit into an arena where emotions reign, where intimidation is the preferred method of enforcing conformity, or where “truth” and “right” are determined by the collective will (or sexual fetishes) of agitators-in-training – which is why the pronouncements of the latter offer such a gold mine of examples of horrid reasoning.

The Takeaway: Especially if you have never studied logic, I recommend you read the article. It will introduce you to powerful ideas that can help you think and write more clearly. You may be inspired to read a book on logic or take a course in logic. At the college I attended, logic was a required course. It was difficult for me, but it has paid off year after year, over my four-decade writing career. Have a go at logic.

See disclaimer.

A fallacy festival

Here’s a video that shows a speaker (U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, pictured) using ten fallacies in a row while answering a question. The video is ten minutes long, but it is worth watching; it will improve your ability to spot fallacies in others’ (or your) speech and writing.

According to the narrator of the video, the speaker uses these fallacies in her answer:

Straw Man
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Accomplishment
Appeal to Emotion
Straw Man (also an Appeal to Pity)
Red Herring
Straw Man
Mind Control
False Analogy
False Analogy

The Takeaway: Don’t talk or write like a politician. Talking or writing like a politician makes you sound shifty.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this post is not a legal opinion. It is not an argument for or against restrictions on gun ownership; it is a commentary on diction and logic. Also see my general disclaimer.

"The language of evasion"

 
Economic historian Gary North, for decades a champion of clear writing and clear speaking, analyzes the evasive language used by Kathleen Sebelius (pictured), a politician who spent $70 million to build a non-functional web site.

The Takeaway: Read the article by Dr. North. And remember, whenever you write or talk like a politician, intelligent readers or listeners will suspect that you are hiding something, even if you are not. If you are an honest person and are working in the free market (politicians call it “the private sector”), do not write or talk like a politician; use clear, straightforward language.

See disclaimer.

If you write “the equation,” state the equation (2)

Last year I published a post about people who like to write about “the equation” but never state the equation they’re presumably writing about. Here are four more examples, from a few minutes of Googling:

The web site of a research company called “Equation Research” does not appear to state any equations. (Source)

A web site called “Lori-in-the-equation” does not state the equation, so far as I can see. At one point, Lori mentions “the center of the equation.” At another point Lori suggests that she has left it up to the reader to “define what being in your equation really means.” The web site appears to be about women losing weight. (Source)

A blog called “The Equation: A blog on independent science + practical solutions,” purportedly written by scientists, does not appear to state the equation. As of the time (8/3/2013 1:02 PM EDST) I looked at the blog, most of the recent posts seemed to be about politics, not science. (Source)

A newspaper article with “Critical Latino Vote has Changed the Equation” in the headline does not state what the equation was or what the “critical Latino vote” changed it to. (Source)

The Takeaway: Writing about an equation without stating the equation is flimflam. Write like an honest, intelligent grown-up: If you mean situation, write “situation,” not “equation.” If you mean rules, write “rules,” not “equation.” Whatever you mean, write the word for it; don’t write “equation.” If you don’t know what an equation is, don’t sabotage your credibility by using the word equation.

Update, 8/9/2013 8:47 AM: I removed an example; a reader had pointed out that the equation had indeed been stated.

See disclaimer.

Never try to fool your readers

If you are ever tempted to try to sneak by with a false, misleading, incomplete or illogical assertion, remember this: It takes only one intelligent reader to spot your offense and publicly humiliate you. Here’s a well-known example.

In the early news coverage of the criminal case against security guard George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, a tape recording revealed that a police dispatcher had told Mr. Zimmerman not to continue following Mr. Martin. Many reporters in the mainstream media broadcast that part of the tape recording but deliberately hid Mr. Zimmerman’s reply, which was “O.K.”

One intelligent reader, the economist Thomas Sowell (pictured), commented:

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn’t.

Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world.

...

[Also, many news reports made] references to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic.” Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a “white African”?

The Takeaway: Yes, you can easily fool the average reader; he’s not very bright. But you cannot easily fool the intelligent reader. So unless you are writing, say, a romance novel or a grant application and can safely assume that all your readers are stupid, be sure to aim your writing at the intelligent reader. Keep your language honest, logical and clear.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (16) – Tracy McMillan

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can make us more aware of the evasive diction that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

In 2011, Tracy McMillan (pictured), a relationship author, television writer (Mad Men), and matchmaker (Ready for Love), wrote a now-famous hard-hitting article to women in their 30s. The article appeared in The Huffington Post under the title, “Why You’re Not Married.” It is as straight as straight talk can be.

For example, Ms. McMillan cites six possible reasons why the reader is still not married:

You’re a Bitch.

You’re Shallow.

You’re a Slut.

You’re a Liar.

You’re Selfish.

You’re Not Good Enough.

She explains how each of these traits impedes marriage. For example, in the “You’re a Bitch” section, she writes:

“...most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here’s what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn’t think so. You’ve seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man’s fear and insecurity in order to get married – but actually, it’s perfect, since working around a man’s fear and insecurity is big part of what you’ll be doing as a wife.” (Link added) (Flesch Reading Ease score 70.3)

Analysis

Some readers will agree with Ms. McMillan’s opinions; some will disagree. But no sane, literate adult reader could possibly misunderstand those opinions as stated. And that’s the whole point of straight talk: Make it so clear that no one could possibly misunderstand you.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to euphemistical, effete, evasive diction (sample here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction. Start by reading Ms. McMillan’s article in full. It is a masterpiece of straight talk; if we all wrote like this, we would be a lot closer to world peace.

See disclaimer.

Grammatical shysterism (3) – McDonald’s

Most writers who make mistakes in grammar do it unintentionally. But some writers do it intentionally, in order to trick people. I call this behavior grammatical shysterism: abusing grammar as a shyster lawyer would abuse it.*

An example of grammatical shysterism

If you stop at the drive-through window at McDonald’s and ask for a Honey Mustard Snack Wrap, the cashier will ask, “grilled or crispy?” Every time, every cashier will ask it the same way: “grilled or crispy?”

And in writing, McDonald’s carefully uses the exact same language: “grilled or crispy.” Such diligent consistency in marketing is one characteristic of large, successful marketers.

However, there is an odd inconsistency within the phrase itself. It is grammatically non-parallel.** Grilled is a past participle referring to a specific method of cooking food. Crispy is an adjective describing food after it has been prepared by an unspecified method of cooking.

In short, McDonald’s uses the word crispy as a way to avoid saying the word fried. But why? 

Don’t speak of the devil

McDonald’s probably knows, from its extensive market research and concept testing, that many customers who believe fried food is unhealthy will buy it if the seller doesn’t actively remind them that the food has been fried. So McDonald’s, by consistently refusing to write or utter the word fried, is cheerfully helping these customers pretend that the chicken has not been fried.

Think I’m making this up? Look at the Honey Mustard Snack Wrap (Crispy) page on the web site. You will see the more-general words cooked and prepared. But not the more-specific word fried. Not even once.

This is egregious, malignant shysterism, reminiscent of U.S. President Bill Clinton’s infamous discussion of what the meaning of is is.

I could be wrong

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumptions. It is possible that the product is not fried. And is possible that all the creative directors, copywriters, editors, proofreaders, supervisors, marketing directors and marketing vice presidents at McDonald’s, the immensely successful global marketer, are just careless writers. Possible but improbable.

The Takeaway: It’s understandable and forgivable to make inadvertent mistakes in grammar; we all do it. But we should always avoid grammatical shysterism. If you’re an honest person, never talk or write like a shyster; people may assume that you are a shyster.

See disclaimer.

*Thanks to Janice L. Brown, a colleague and a clear writer, for coining the term grammatical shysterism.

**A famous example of non-parallelism is the question, “Do you like it better in the city or in the summer?”

Straight talk: an example (15) – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can, by contrast, make us more aware of the evasive diction that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

Here’s a well-known quotation from the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pictured):

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” (Source)

Readers may or may not agree with Mr. Proudhon’s description of government, but they can easily understand it.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have been habituated to euphemistical, effete, evasive diction (sample here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. By contrast, it will help you remain consciously aware of evasiveness – and therefore less likely to unconsciously absorb and imitate evasive diction.

P.S.: Some writers mistakenly think that they should always try to avoid using the passive voice, that passive verbs are always weak. This passage provides a good counterexample; no one would call it weak, even though it contains 66 passive verbs.

See disclaimer.

The five most popular posts

This week is the blog’s fifth anniversary (founded April 20, 2008). I thought I would show you the five all-time most-visited posts. Yes, that’s an obvious thing to do on an anniversary – however, because this is an educational blog, I pay close attention to which topics are attracting readers the most.

Here are the five posts:

“Having said that.” Most writers who use this fad expression confuse and irritate their readers. (October 1, 2008)

The danger of euphemism. How a nurse used a politically correct euphemism in order to increase the self-esteem of an incarcerated serial rapist; the euphemism allowed the rapist to escape. (November 21, 2008)

Empathetic and persuasive writing. Dale Carnegie analyzes a sales letter by telling us – line by line – how he reacts as a reader of the letter. Do this kind of analysis yourself and make your letters (emails, ads, web site) more empathetic and persuasive. (August 30, 2010)

A common fallacy. We writers should diligently strive to avoid using fallacies. One of the more common fallacies is “cherry picking.” (February 7, 2011)

Mixed metaphors. Thomas L. Friedman is a heavy user of mixed metaphors. He appears to be genuinely unaware of how clownish his writing sounds. But with three Pulitzers on his resume, Mr. Friedman can get away with such carelessness. Unfortunately, you and I cannot. (February 25, 2013)

The Takeaway: Thank you for your attention – today and over the years. I welcome your suggestions on topics to cover; please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Best to you.

See disclaimer.

Academics’ code words

Previously, I have posted amusing lists of journalists’ code words and physicians’ code words. Here’s an amusing list of academics’ code words:

“It has long been known” = I didn’t look up the original reference.

“A definite trend is evident” = These data are practically meaningless.

“While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to the questions” = An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.

“Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study” = The other results didn’t make any sense.

“Typical results are shown” = This is the prettiest graph.

“These results will be in a subsequent report” = I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.

“In my experience” = once.

“In case after case” = twice.

“In a series of cases” = thrice.

“It is believed that” = I think.

“It is generally believed that” = A couple of others think so, too.

“Correct within an order of magnitude” = Wrong.

“According to statistical analysis” = Rumor has it.

“A statistically oriented projection of the significance of these findings” = A wild guess.

“A careful analysis of obtainable data” = Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of pop.

“It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding of this phenomenon occurs” = I don’t understand it.

“After additional study by my colleagues” = They don’t understand it either.

“Thanks are due to Joe Blotz for assistance with the experiment and to Cindy Adams for valuable discussions” = Mr Blotz did the work and Ms Adams explained to me what it meant.

“A highly significant area for exploratory study” = A totally useless topic selected by my committee.

“It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation in this field” = I need more grant money to live off of.

The Takeaway: Have a great day.

See disclaimer.

Thanks to Paul G. Henning for pointing these out.

Politically correct diction is dangerous – an editorial

In a recent editorial, I discussed a tragic story in which a politically correct euphemism led office workers to ignore a death threat against one of their co-workers. I pointed out that political correctness is inherently dangerous: it is a childish belief that the whole world is safe and comfy and cozy. When people use politically correct euphemisms, they are concealing danger – and thereby making the world more dangerous. Below are summaries of five other posts that illustrate the point.

Serial rapist escapes

A serial rapist (pictured) was serving a life sentence in a locked psychiatric ward. Even though the rapist had already escaped once and was therefore high risk, some nurse or doctor lowered the rapist’s risk level to “medium.” Apparently the nurse or doctor wanted to show “sensitivity” to the serial rapist, notwithstanding the rapist’s insensitivity to the women he raped.

When the rapist was being transferred to another location for medical treatment, the security people saw the word “medium” and didn’t bother to handcuff him. The rapist took advantage and escaped again. (Source)

Hospital will encourage more criminals to escape

After the rapist’s escape, hospital management published a report filled with politically correct euphemisms and weasel-words. The report slyly encouraged the staff to continue their “sensitive” behavior. (Source)

FAA spokeswoman muddles the safety of Boeing aircraft

A German reporter wrote an article for Spiegel Online about the reasons for the crash of Air France Flight 447, which killed all 228 people aboard. He interviewed a spokeswoman for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), who abused the word issues in order to muddle the ways in which Boeing parts could cause a crash. Politically correct people constantly use the handy, shifty word issue as a euphemism for problem, threat, risk, danger, difficulty, logic, reality, deception, lie, hypocrisy, and many other words that politically correct people (chiefly women) feel are too “icky” to be said out loud or written down. (Source)

“Health issue” means everything and nothing

And speaking of issue, if you type health issue into Google, Google will report more than 2 billion hits – that alone tells you something is wrong. What precisely is a “health issue”? Is it a disease, a condition, a syndrome, a disorder, or a malaise? A symptom or an indication? A pathogen or an allergen? An epidemic, a pandemic, or a lack of money to purchase medicines?

Or is it poor health in general, sickliness, inability to remember to take medicines as directed, or ignorance that a disease may be preventable? Or is it a localized shortage of doctors or nurses or medicines, or an error in prescribing a medicine? Or is it smoking, indolence, sexual promiscuity, addiction to heroin, or the use of dirty needles? Or something else? (Source)

NH puts positive spin on kids’ deaths
On the government highways in New Hampshire, large signs offer the following advice:

AIRBAGS SAVE LIVES

FOR SAFETY’S SAKE
PLACE CHILDREN IN REAR SEAT

What the government of New Hampshire meant, but was too politically correct to say honestly, is:

AIRBAGS KILL KIDS

FOR SAFETY’S SAKE
PLACE CHILDREN IN REAR SEAT

(Source)

The Takeaway: We hear and read so many politically correct euphemisms every day that we frequently imitate them unconsciously. Please, try to break this habit. Remember that these euphemisms are valid only inside the fantasy world of political correctness. In the real world, they are invalid and dangerous. Avoid using them when you are writing or saying anything that could have real consequences in the real world.

See disclaimer.

Don’t abuse the conjunction “so”

Many Americans abuse the conjunction so. For example, they use it at the beginning of a response to a question:

Interviewer: Let’s go on to another topic: broad-base tax vs. single tax. What is your position?

Interviewee: So broad-base is fairer and is more conducive to community prosperity.

Analysis

The interviewee is insinuating that he has already presented, or at least mentioned, the evidence on which he bases his position. He resorts to insinuation because he knows that a direct statement would sound ridiculous to the interviewer and to intelligent members of the audience:

Interviewer: Let’s go on to another topic: broad-base tax vs. single tax. What is your position?

Interviewee: That’s why I believe that broad-base is fairer and is more conducive to community prosperity.

In 2012, this usage began to spread rapidly; now you hear it almost every day. It annoys intelligent listeners and makes them suspicious of the speaker's honesty.

The Takeaway: Using the conjunction so to insinuate that you have presented or mentioned evidence is a childish trick. If you wish to be taken seriously by intelligent adults, try to avoid imitating this puerile nonsense.

See disclaimer.

Don’t abuse the adverb “though”

Many Americans abuse the adverb though by gratuitously adding it to a response to a question:

Person A: What’s your son majoring in?

Person B: He’s majoring in electrical engineering. He’s doing really well, though.

Analysis

It’s natural for a proud parent to report, even without direct prompting, that his child is doing well in college. However, B’s addition of though suggests an irrational subtext: B imagines that A asked the question maliciously, in order to set up an opportunity to say that B’s son has chosen too difficult a major for him.

To defend his child against this imagined attack, B uses though to insinuate, “And I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking electrical engineering is a tough major. Well, it is. But in spite of that, he’s doing just fine, Mr. Smarty Pants.”

B senses that such a direct statement would immediately warn A that B is irrational, so B resorts to insinuation in an attempt to somehow make his point without revealing his irrationality.

It seems to me that many Americans, chiefly women, frequently use insinuation to defend themselves against imagined threats, criticisms and disagreements. Intelligent listeners see through the insinuation and head for the exits.

The Takeaway: Many speakers use the adverb though sneakily. It is all too easy to unconsciously absorb and imitate this habit. Always try to think before you speak.

See disclaimer.

When using PowerPoint, think like a writer

Many articles and books have been written about how to deliver better PowerPoint presentations. Recently I saw an unusually fine editorial on this topic. I recommend it to anyone who is not already attracting overflow crowds. It’s a Computerworld editorial by Mike Elgan and it’s titled “Give killer presentations: Think like a writer.”

• Mr. Elgan starts out by saying that most presenters are delivering “soul-killing dreck.” (You and I know he’s right.)

• Then he asks, “Have you ever wondered how good novelists can hold a reader's attention for hours at a time with nothing but words on a page?”

• Then, using fewer than 1,000 words, Mr. Elgan tells you “how to apply skills from the craft of writing to make your presentations enjoyable and unforgettable.”

I’ve been a speechwriter for 38 years. I know that nobody has ever told you what Mike Elgan tells you in this editorial.

Want a sample? Here’s one:

PowerPoint presentations usually involve a lot of pretending. The speaker pretends to be excited. The audience pretends to be interested. Everybody is faking it.

Most collections of slides are packed with fake images – stock photography, clip art and other inherently false imagery.

Here’s another:

Most presenters act like their audience is made up of information-harvesting robots, not human beings.

One more:

(One of the reasons most presentations are so bad is that speakers use euphemism and jargon because they think it sounds “professional.” It doesn’t. It’s amateur-hour communication.)

I rarely say, “You gotta read this one.” But I’m saying it now. Read it here.

The Takeaway: In your PowerPoint presentations, you can use the same attention-getting and attention-holding skills that novelists use. Learn how here.

NOTE: I have no business relationship with Mike Elgan.

See disclaimer.