>> I did enjoy this piece, as I've done others...but let me drift the >> thread straightaway, with something that disturbs me lately. To >> appreciate these articles, one has to be very conversant with a lot of >> extremely precise tems and phrases (eg. "recursive", "embedded >> defaults" instead of "preconceptions", and so on.) > > Why would this disturb you? Any field has its jargon, and precision is > required in order to communicate ideas without confusion. > >> When someone uses English with this level of skill, and expresses >> original ideas, we applaud them as being very smart...what about others, >> who may have the same original ideas, and are not able to express >> themselves thus? > > The way I like to put it: "interestingness" or "thought-provokingness" > of a person or thesis has 3 dimensions: > > * intellectual depth > * erudition - in this context, an awareness of the related work in its > own and related fields > * the ability to be articulate - which implies both conveying the core > ideas; and doing so in a manner that sparks interest in the reader. >
I liked the article, but I really didn't get the phrase "embedded defaults". This is not a question of jargon, NYT article is not meant for niche subject scholars. One can be articulate without being turgid. However the Flesch Reading ease is 64/100 for this article (not bad at all) and Flesch Kincaid grade level is 7.7 (I guess applicable to everybody on this list) (Deepa, it's an American standard, yet again) In case you didn't know about this, check: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk "High-quality learning environments are a necessary precondition for facilitation and enhancement of the ongoing learning process." in other words "Children need good schools if they are to learn properly." -Meera
