Quote from gms:
If you make a direct correlation between what you call 'information density' as it pertains to Jack's posts, its problem being comprehended, and the abilities of a wide varied group of people and the historical record of a range of school systems, then I can't believe in nor have credence in that kind of outlandish stretch as a premise, but that's me.
Speaking of inability to comprehend, I did not write that Jack was 'incomprehensible'. Please understand that what I am writing about is how I see one of the problems with Jack's posts that motivate others to flame. That is, I said he used 'cryptic phrasing', and that his written word did not accurately detail his thoughts and references, and it appears he agrees that this indeed may be a fault, albeit unintended.
Comprehension is not the fault. There is such a thing as writing clearly. Compared to cryptic phrasing, 'regular english' phrasing is desirable to be understood clearly. To make a reader work at understanding is to not effectively communicate ideas in writing. It is not about brains or intellect. Those that feel they need lord their supposed intellect over others... well, they obviously have a need. I don't think that's the case with Jack. He just needs a good Editor to work with him, if it were practical, which it's not. But some people, notably academics, favor a more convoluted wording because they believe it gives their writings an educated air. They would rather write "let me not preclude elucidation' instead of 'let me make this clear', and it makes them feel superior to do so. Another way some people with a need to feel superior do so is to belittle others' abilities to comprehend or their intelligence. This masks their inabilities, n'cest-ce pas?
