I Don't Understand What Anyone Is Saying Anymore

I understand this critique, but I also think there are times where jargon, abstract expressions and acronyms make communication a lot faster and clearer for people who share the same context and domain knowledge.<p>Trouble is, if you don't have the domain knowledge it's really hard to tell if what you're listening to is really condensed, specific info or meaningless blather.<p>A lot of times I might say something like "we did data analysis with Python, NLTK and R. The stack is on EC2 running Django with memcached and varnish serving up json and the frontend uses jQuery, underscore and backbone to render it"<p>To some people, that's a ton of info. To others it probably sounds like gibberish.<p>The same even applies to the "valley-girl" talking. It sounds like meaningless half-sentences to someone listening in, but to people who know all the social relationships being discussed there might be a lot of information going back and forth.

I don't have any trouble understanding people when they say something like "I'm in the sort of sustainability space around kind of bringing synergistic value-add to other people's work around this kind of space." They're simply saying nothing. I remember watching some cartoon where some aliens are watching humans converse and they interrupt by saying "ritual gum flapping time is over". That's all this is: ritual gum flapping. When two people flap their gums at each other for a few minutes, it increases their comfort with each other and that social comfort helps keep society glued together. Sometimes conversations are about exchanging ideas, other times they are purely about socialization. In this case, the conversations aren't about the ideas, they're about having a conversation.<p>It may seem pointless, but a lot of being human is pointless.

I think the author missed one of the motivations behind some of the behaviors: Pure unadulterated bullshitting.<p>Some folks figure out early in life to talk past their listeners, and some listeners will be intimidated. I found this out by simply playing stupid a number of times (it comes quite naturally for me) and making them explain it fully.<p>You will be surprised at the number of charlatans exposed by this tactic.

I've been on a conference call where everyone was banding around acronyms that I didn't know, so I jumped in and asked if they could define a particular TLA that was coming up frequently.<p>It turned out that not a single person on the call knew what it stood for.

I have the same problem. Once I realized that I was not just stupid and the other person was simply not communicating well, I began to try repeating what they just said back to them in "normal language" to ensure I had understood them correctly.<p>When I did this, two things happened: people began to think that I was really smart, and I realized that I could usually repeat whatever I wanted and the person would agree with me.

A part of me wonders if this isn't a factor of people trying to give more importance to the importance of their roles than is, in fact, justified. The doorknob example from the article is a good one in this respect. Instead of calling it a "doorknob", a complicated, important-sounding analog is used. Who's using it? Someone who feels that doorknobs are not that important, and that putting "doorknob salesman" on their resumé won't look nearly as impressive as "residential access tool marketer".<p>Human nature, I suppose. Still, it makes the language less useful.

I'm in the advertising industry where I frequently find myself surrounded by this kind of jargon (the word "media" is a tell that you're about to get an avalanche of bullshit).<p>I've found one trick for turning these conversations about abstract business models into something meaningful; ask "Who writes a check to whom, and for what?" If you get a quick answer, then you have a chance that there's common sense lurking around somewhere; if not, flee.

Here's a real life example I ran into a week ago:<p><a href="http://dev.aol.com/aim" rel="nofollow">http://dev.aol.com/aim</a><p><i>We've made some changes to the Open AIM program to better align with AOL’s new direction and clear focus on our core strategy areas. Going forward, we're shifting our focus to select partnership opportunities that will help us move the needle in the communications space.</i><p>NotSureIfSerious.jpg

<i>Valley Girl 2.0</i><p>Sadly this is me, I hate it, but I know it is true, my mind works far faster than my mouth and when I am excited it comes out as half sentences, joined by "likes" and "you knows". I have to concentrate to focus on pulling myself back and then I worry that I am not getting my thoughts across, but at least I know I am not getting them across when, I am doing it at thought speed.<p>Someone said to me once "Dude you use likes like other people use ums". If there was one thing I could change about my speaking style that would be it. Funny part is I speak at conferences and when I monolog it is not an issue. Q&#38;A is a different story all together.

No discussion on this topic is complete without George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" essay[1]. It shiws this isn't a recent issue, and is systemic throughout the English world.<p>Everybody who wants to communicate well should read this regularly. It is far easier to write abstractly than it is to write concretely, so people who aren't striving to be concrete will trend towards abstraction.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm</a>

Too true. Some guys over at college humor are on to this problem already... Anyone who has spent time in Silicon Valley will find this clip awesome!<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMmdl4VltD4" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMmdl4VltD4</a><p>Enjoy!

For anybody that needs a quick and humorous guide to all the terrible tropes of Business Guy Language, check out <a href="http://unsuck-it.com/browse/" rel="nofollow">http://unsuck-it.com/browse/</a> (warning, some bits may be NSFW). An indispensable dictionary for the common man.

I'm not saying these and other business phrases aren't widely misused or used as a way to sound smart while saying nothing. But in case anyone is interested:<p>Synergy<p>The term comes from M&#38;A and refers to scenarios where the whole (after a merger or acquisition) is worth more than the sum of the parts. For example, a steel foundry which acquires a competitor and can now buy iron at a lower price because it buys in higher volume. The increase in profitability of both foundries from the decreased cost of iron is a "synergy".<p>Value-add<p>Comes from Michael Porter (I think) and refers to the idea that each of the activities a company performs on their inputs before the final output should add value to the final product. If the company is unable to add value through one of those activities it's something they should pass to another party. This leads to phrases like "is our customer service call centre a value-add or should we outsource it?"

Using real words that made sense would vastly decrease the grandiloquent feeling of self-importance that puffs up these enemies of clear communication.<p>I sentence them all in absentia to ten readings of "The Elements of Style" by Strunk &#38; White.

I call it "biz dev jargon". The corporate hierarchy trains you to speak this way. The people at the top of the org chart have no clue what "we need a REST API for our Hadoop cluster " means or why they should even care, and if you do speak that way to them then they'll nod kindly at you then ask you to surrender your red stapler. You instead have to say "We're providing the customer with automated control over their own data processing." If you don't speak biz dev then the business owners don't understand you.

This reminds me a bit of when I watch a Movie or a TV Show and there is some geek or hacker character who is supposed to be doing something related to computers in order to resolve a plot point.<p>They will often say something like "oh I just.." then spiel of a load of technical phrases some of which I recognize and others which are clearly made up, this is supposed to sound highly complicated and clever but not understandable to the average viewer. Of course if you know anything at all about technology you realize it sounds completely ridiculous.<p>I always wonder why they do this, since it is something viewers are not supposed to be able to understand anyway. Why not at least make it accurate enough to at least give the geeks watching a chuckle (references to nmap in the matrix for example and apache/perl in "the social network" being examples of this) rather than just roll their eyes.

If the presentation is by a technical* person to other technical* people, and you are just sitting in, then its fine. You just don't understand. The techies do. Its just domain knowledge speeding communication.<p>If the presentation is to non-technical people, then its probably jargon intended to bullshit you into thinking the speaker knows what they're talking about, and also a game brinksmanship to dare you to call their bluff. Call them on it. If they do know what they are talking about, you'll learn something (and probably so will everyone who was keeping quiet). If they don't, well, you learned something too.<p>* substitute lawyer, doctor, {domain_professional}

I believe the author wants to let us know that the phenomena of Proof by Intimidation is catching up with most of us.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation</a>

In my experience, its over abstraction that is the real hard nut to crack. I have heard people using very abstract statements which everybody seems to agree on, but most of them understand it differently.

Kind-of tangentially related, but I find that there's a high tendency for people to interrupt other people and speak over others. This often leads to poorly-thought-out discussions, because people are rushing to get a word in edge-wise. At one point, I had to implement a "Lord of the Flies" style conch system to make discussions bearable. Lately, it seems endemic to programming style discussions. I'm not sure why.<p>I find that when everyone slows down, thinks before speaking, and uses deliberate language, understanding improves greatly.

Reminds me of this quote from Aditya Chakrabortty:<p>&#62; One of the best gauges of whether a statement actually means anything is to stick a not in its middle. If the opposite sounds ridiculous, then the chances are the original proposition is mush.<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/economics-happiness-david-cameron" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/economic...</a>

I am extremely bad at this kind of talk. I like it when it's clear. But I am in a middle of preparing a presentation for some employer whom I want to offer some consultancy. What should I do not to give him an impression that hhe can move on without me because the topic is so clear and simple?

I recently interviewed somebody who had previously been an elementary school teacher. Their resume had the following line: "Instructed a diverse group of up to 29 students in a self-contained classroom on a daily basis." I laughed at that bit of buzzword padding for quite a while.

Consider what your audience wants to know, not what you want to say. Try to avoid metaphor or analogy.<p>"We recommend games based on what their friends play. Someday books and movies." = good<p>"Our EC2 based cloud platform combines social dynamics for consuming a range of media types. Like facebook for apps." = bad

Death Sentence (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Death-Sentences-Management-Speak-Strangling-Language/dp/1592401406" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Death-Sentences-Management-Speak-Stran...</a>) by Don Watson is the seminal work on the topic.

Hahah, this is one of the truest articles I've read recently. I think everybody on here knows at least one person who speaks like the latter example in this piece, and the takeaway advice is immediately relevant and usable

This would not typically be appropriate for HN, but it is relevant:<p><a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6507690/hardly-working-start-up-guys" rel="nofollow">http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6507690/hardly-working-sta...</a>

Reminds me of this Finding Nemo quote:<p>Marlin: It's like he's trying to speak to me, I know it. [to Squirt] Marlin: Look, you're really cute, but I can't understand what you're saying. Say the first thing again.

It could be that the techie tendency to not be able to put them(our?)selves in others' shoes makes this kind of communication much more difficult.

Sadly enough that is the kind of talk that gets you hired as a manager in some places.

As a great example, contrast a Mark Zuckerberg interview with a Steve Jobs one.

You should listen to a Geordie for a few minutes. They literally use 'like' as punctuation.

The word "like" - just casually pay attention to the number of times this word is used (abused?) in conversations, especially by teenagers - unbelievable. It is probably the new filler word, in place of "Umm", "Hmm" etc

All I know is, anyone who uses the word "space" in any sense other than the mathematical one of "a set with dimensionality" needs a slap in the face.<p>If they use it in a sentence where it could be substituted for "room" or "place" with no difference in meaning, then they get two slaps in the face.<p>(Just realised this means I now have to slap people at my local hackerspace. So be it.)