Jargon
Jargon isn't an impartial term, so I'm sorry for the mild clickbait. I needed a word that started with "J"!
I went to the doctor's recently. The nurse asked me if I had any hobbies because it was a mental health checkup. I said I was "making videos and stuff around ethics in tech" (I'm still workshopping my elevator pitch, can you tell?).
Her: "There are ethical issues in tech?"
Me: "... Yes. There are loads."
The appointment moved on. I thought up and discaredded several different responses. "Medicine must be full of moral dilemmas." "I'm surprised you're surprised. There are big issues." "If anything in the world is neutral, it won't be one of the 'huge category touching every aspect of life' things, like technology and medicine." There's so much I could have said. I smiled and moved on. To be fair to myself, dragging out an NHS appointment always feels like a bad plan! And in any case, what could I say in a few words?
I share this story because I often struggle to say what I want in a concise message. One that doesn't need loads of background reading. One that I can deliver without getting flustered by either my own or other people's gaps in the material. One that I can say without worrying I'm being condescending or assuming too much. I disagree with people who say that you need an expert grasp of whatever concepts to take part in theoretical, ethical, or technical conversations. Whether someone who hasn't "done the reading" gets the absolute "most" out of a discussion is a different issue.
There's an argument that some technical language is necessary to contribute meaningfully to any high-level expert discussion. To be honest, I do agree, with the many caveats throughout this piece notwithstanding. I do think that the "expert discussion" point is too often used as an excuse or as a gatekeeping tactic. Not all conversations are trying to break new ground or share vital information toward a common goal.
Using incorrect terms is a "tell" for being new or inexperienced in an area to many people. Seeming to not have done "the reading" or to not have enough of the terms to have "earned" the right to take part in conversation cuts people off from learning. I learn best when in (comfortable!) dialogue with others, and I doubt I'm the only one.
People outside of the in-groups of every circle often don't have the exact vocabulary needed to discuss things in ways the in-group would consider perfect. Cross-specialization sharing is much harder than it needs to be because of this.
Simpler or more straightforward language can be an access need for disabled people with cognitive impairments or other language and communication-based difficulties. One of the criticisms of lower jargon language is that it can take a long time to get to "the point" of an argument or sentence. Long-winded explanations are unhelpful for anyone, but explaining needed background where possible seems like it could only be a good thing to me1.
When it comes to any issues, the people we're persuading are often the ones who don't know the jargon. In social justice circles, people love to think that if we all read whatever is on our collective "complete and total galaxy-wide justice, peace and prosperity" syllabus, the world would be perfect, or at least much better. Educating the people in ways they can't easily access doesn't seem to have caused any huge changes yet2, so I prefer to meet people where they are.
In discussions, it also depends a lot on people's theories of change and the goal of a conversation. For example, if it's supposed to be the working classes rising up to change the world, à la Marx, conserving time and energy is crucial. Tired, overworked people have neither the time nor the money to spend on reading things that don't bring them joy or reward. Short, entertaining reading, videos, and other media make more sense there, as well as quick explainers for necessary terms.
Even when you do have all the necessary circumstantial elements, in both tech and ethics it can feel boring and thankless to slog through technical discussions. Many hours in front of a computer, a stack of books, or a playlist of videos can have few results, especially when you have no one to discuss with.
When you finally get to ask questions, people telling you to "just search online" can lead to frustration when you end up reading things you've read before and not understood. Even worse, with the state of modern search engines, you could fall down a rabbit hole of AI slop or good old-fashioned misinformation.
I think I'm going to resolve to use less jargon where possible, so here are some principles I'm trying to use for myself...
Stop focusing so much on people having the exact correct phrasing for things; ask more questions if you can. If you can't bear to, that's extremely valid. Not everyone has to reach other people in this way and that's fine! If you're trying to change minds, focus on making things digestible. It's not about simplification; it's about breaking things down into more manageable chunks. What are the key points needed to understand the new concept? Is the jargon helpful, or is it obscuring complexity, misunderstandings, and subtlety?
It all comes down to one question: what is the harm in having less jargon? Slower conversations? Less exact conversations? I agree that some topics are harder to discuss without using certain context-setting cues. Using jargon as shorthand, for example, fallacies in logic in philosophy, seems like it saves time if you can trust everyone is on the same page. If the jargon is necessary to the conversation, try to signpost people to resources they can look at another time. If you aren't sure of resources but would still like to have the conversation, I have always appreciated the times people have ignored me derailing the original topic to get into the weeds! Unless a conversation is time-critical (or you're annoyed by the imposition!), stopping the conversation to explain or introducing a tangent to a conversation with an explanation might increase the number of people who know the term and can use it.
In general, though, if someone arrives at a conversation with curiosity, and the person asked has the patience for it — often a big ask — then the conversation will be helpful for at least the asker3.
Last updated 1 week, 2 days ago
This piece is part of my attempt at Alphabet Superset, a “6-month” creative challenge (I passed a year in September — with a long break! — and the creator of the challenge hasn’t finished yet either). Other posts so far: abolition, bump, boost, culture, discussion, english, formulaic, gone, home and immortality.
Feel free to reach out with burning questions, comments or suggestions!
On the web, I've always liked the idea of nutshell. It's a way of embedding explanations into a webpage so people don't have to jump off the page or open a million tabs. Sadly, I'm not sure it's very accessible to keyboard users. For example, I was expecting to be able to press the Escape key to leave a nutshell and couldn't. On the other hand, maybe the same thing is true of footnotes?↩
I'm pretty sure that agreeing on all the authors, subjects, and titles would be pretty difficult. Also, I have doubts about using equity of education as any serious tactic in today's world given the funding of today's schools, as well as partisan political influence affecting what gets taught in the first place.↩
I know the asker isn't the only person who counts here; hence, the awkward phrasing. If you can't be bothered with a conversation, it's usually better not to force yourself to have it!↩