Dave Greten's Blog

The Internet Needs an Editor

I pulled this sentence from this article:

"Below are ten social computing technologies that I believe will be actively developing or maturing this year and either worth exploring or otherwise watching closely for 2010 and beyond."

and cut it down to this:

"Ten social computing technologies that are worth watching."

Which one is more effective? Which one did you read?

In the days when information was in short supply, you did the world a favor by writing long. That's when you could pull a Melville and write a 30 page description of the ocean. But now that information is as close to free as it's going to be, you have to go short. Cut your words down mercilessly.

DeJargonator - Tychi Systems

Long dormant, the DeJargonator is my one-man war against lousy, buzzword-filled corporate writing. I haven't written much for it until this absolutely stunning example of horrible introductory text moved me to action.

Here's the offending paragraph. See if you can read the entire thing without zoning out:

Tychi Systems' mission is to bring world-class biometric technology to the consumer. We are the first company to design biometric products specifically for the home and small business owner starting from a clean drawing board. The products are not adapted from military or government experiments, or from complex corporate systems. Starting with knowledge of the most advanced biometric technology, Tychi Systems analyzed needs of the cost-conscious consumer within the home and business environment and applied the technology in a refreshingly simple and functional manner. Having both the technology access afforded by its location in the Boston area and direct connections to the highest quality manufacturing resources in China, Tychi Systems benefits from an optimal combination of global teamwork.

I bet you didn't make it past the first sentence, did you? Don't feel bad, I started dropping out the instant I hit the phrase "world-class." No one, I repeat, no one, has ever used the phrase "world-class" without boring their audience to tears. It's only use is for sarcasm. Using a boxing metaphor, "world-class" is the jab that sets up the "biometric" power fist. Only the most dedicated of readers can endure the "world-class biometric technology" 1-2-3 combination.

And yet there are still so many more sentences to read. Unfortunately, there is no payoff to enduring the entire paragraph. Despite Tychi's use of many multi-syllabic words, we're still no closer to answering the question, "What does your company do?"

I like how Tychi assures me their mystery product(s) will be useful to me as a "homeowner who is starting with a clean drawing board." Did they outsource the writing of this? It sounds like it was written in Chinese and translated using Altavista Babelfish.

But what is most galling about this description is the third sentence explaining what Tychi Systems is not - "The products are not adapted from military or government experiments, or from complex corporate systems." That's good to know, thanks. Whenever I describe things to people, I first tell them what it is not. When I describe an elephant, I say, "It's not a parrot, a hippo, or a zebra." It makes it more fun.

Here's the translated, improved version:

Tychi Systems manufactures a door lock system that unlocks using fingerprinting.

That's about 100% more powerful. Don't dilly-dally when explaining your product. People don't have the time.

DeJargonator - Academic Papers

I came across this article under the headline, "Being rich lowers men's attractiveness to women." Huh, I thought, sounds interesting enough. Totally contradictory to what I was lead to believe, I'd like to read more about that.

This potentially interesting topic was presented as this:

Empirical evidence concerning human mate-choice preferences suggests that females should select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare. Paradoxically, while high levels of both factors should be an attractive combination to females, they might also dissuade females from entering into a relationship with such males since, by definition, they are likely to be highly attractive to other females, and therefore might increase the likelihood that such a male may cheat or desert the relationship. If so, females should be wary of entering into long-term relationships with physically attractive, high status males as compared with males of lower physical attractiveness or status. We asked females to rate a number of different males in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner. Females were presented with attractive, average and unattractive male faces paired with lonely-hearts advertisements implying high, medium or low socio-economic status. Highest ratings were consistently given to attractive males of medium status rather than high status. We suggest that females see physically attractive, high status males as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than parenting strategy. Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.

How far did you make it before you zoned out? I got to "genetic quality." On the second attempt, I made it to "paradoxically." These words are tip-off that this is going to be one long, boring article. It also sounds like the writer is putting on airs to impress their peer group, of which I am not a member. That's awesome, I love that. If there is one thing I want when I'm reading, it is to be alienated.

Let's relive that barnburner of a lead-in one more time:

Empirical evidence concerning human mate-choice preferences suggests that females should select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare.

Seriously, who the hell talks like this? And if there are people who talk like this, who wants to hang out with them? The use of this stilted language is the reason Americans are hostile to intellectuals.

Now, I'm not utterly stupid. I know what "paradoxically" and "dissuade" mean. But to throw "empirical" with "human mate-choice preferences" and "genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources" into the same sentence is to make a soup by throwing every ingredient in the kitchen into the pot.

There are two ends of the spectrum in bad writing, Hollywood hackery and academic hackery. If Hollywood is sometimes guilty of building enormous commercial enterprises around the most vapid of subjects (ex. "The Simple Life", "The Anna Nicole Show"), academia is sometimes guilty of taking potential interesting topics and making them arcane and inaccessible, bleeding them dry, embalming them in a textbook, and sealing them up in an ivory tower. I attack Hollywood hackery by writing movie reviews of movies I have not seen and I attack the obscuration of interesting information here at the DeJargonator.

There is a rule in writing - if you are having fun writing it, more likely than not, it will be fun to read. The reverse of this rule is also true (ie. if it's fun to read, the writer had a good time writing it). Judging by the amount of fun I had reading this article, I would guess the author wrote it while imprisoned at Abu Ghraib with electric shocks being applied continuously to his genitals.

And as far as impressing the scientist's peer group, this kind of tortured prose is completely unnecessary. Richard Feynman was one of the most brilliant physicists in history. The man helped invent the atom bomb and his recorded lectures are still used by physics students everywhere. Here's a key line explaining why he was loved and widely read from his Wikipedia entry:

"Feynman is sometimes called the "Great Explainer"; he took great care when explaining topics to his students, making it a moral point not to make a topic arcane, but instead accessible to others. His principle was that if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not yet fully understood."

Here's my attempt at rewriting the above paragraph. It communicates the same ideas but loses significant Scrabble points:

To most observers, it would appear women select mates based on the genetic qualities the man can pass onto their children (good looks, physical strength, etc.) and the amount of resources he can contribute in raising children. However, it is possible these traits turn away women as these attractive qualities make these men more attractive to more women and consequently raise the likelihood the man will cheat or break off the relationship. If this is true, women should be careful to enter relationships with good looking, high status men (now there's some shocking advice). To test this conjecture, we asked several women to rate a number of different men in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner. The women were presented with attractive, average and unattractive male faces paired with lonely-hearts advertisements implying high, medium or low socio-economic status. Highest ratings were consistently given to attractive males of medium status rather than high status. Based on the results of this experiment, we suggest women see physically attractive, high status men as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than parenting strategy. Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.

Not bad. Still not overly smooth but it's functional. I even used "conjecture" which sounds science-y. To be fair to the original writer, I lifted the last couple sentences from his work verbatim. Those were actually usable. I only discovered them after pushing my way through the muck.

Also, please, as a rule, don't use the word "empirical" as the first word of your essay. Think of the children.