/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4260618]

Is it correct to assume an educated audience (i.e. university educated, if only at the undergrad level) would know the meaning of the following words:

> perennial
> pejorative
> esoteric
> affected
> amorphous
> petulant

I've been called out for using these words around my friends (who mostly have STEM majors), because apparently they are uncommon and no one who doesn't "like study the dictionary" knows what they mean.

Are my friends just dumb or should I try to find more common (although unfortunately less accurate) synonyms? I really don't think the language I use is all that uncommon.

[Anonymous No.4260620]

They're dumb for not knowing them.

Also their dumb for not wanting to grow their vocabulary and just asking what the words mean.

You have shit friends.

[Anonymous No.4260623]

>being friends with STEM majors

[Anonymous No.4260625]

your friends are just dumb.

i mean even if you don't "know" the words, you can easy decipher them by knowing their roots and we're supposed to know roots by like 8th grade.

[Anonymous No.4260635]

>>4260618
Your friends are fucking stupid, OP. This isn't the callous c/lit/ talking, this is the fucking COMMUNITY COLLEGE ATTENDER who commonly hears these words in lectures. Your "friends" are insecure about their idiocy.
>stem majors

[Anonymous No.4260640]

>>4260623
>having friends

[Anonymous No.4260646]

Reminds me of my first job out of university
>Graduate with a BA in History (CS Minor)
>Get a job as a Support Engineer
>Idle conversation with boss
>"Don't use those fancy words, it makes your co-workers and me uncomfortable and you don't need to impress us"

The word was 'malice'.

[Anonymous No.4260681]

Is it pretentious to use "recondite" when you could use "esoteric," arcane," or "abstruse"? I feel like "recondite" is far more recondite than the other three.

[Anonymous No.4260685]

>>4260646
Dat nigga serious yo?

[Anonymous No.4260718]

I'll be honest, I had to look up "amorphous" and "petulant," although I could probably work out the meaning of the former and had vague ideas of the latter implying childishness.

Anyways, thought it would be ideal if university educated folks knew these words, the fact is that many likely don't, and universities have long since stopped giving well rounded educations, at least for STEM folks. I'd say assume these people don't have vocabularies higher than the average high school student, as it's unlikely the university courses they're taking do much to expand their vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.4260727]

>>4260718
>stopped giving well rounded educations, at least for STEM folks
right. because all other majors are so well rounded

[Anonymous No.4260732]

>>4260718
There are no 'well rounded' majors.

[Anonymous No.4260733]

>>4260618

>no one who doesn't "like study the dictionary" knows what they mean.

> affected

[Anonymous No.4260739]

I could imagine more than a few blank stares from my CS undergrad. I wouldn't expect any from my philosophy postgrad.

[Anonymous No.4260775]

>>4260618

Not gonna lie, I had trouble defining in words pejorative and petulant, though I know the general meaning and can guess from context.

[Anonymous No.4260787]

>>4260618
are you playing GTA and saying THIS 'PETULENT NEGRO HAS ILLEGALLY TAKEN MY VEHICLE"

Conversational vocabulary should be kept simple. U sound like a Faget

[Anonymous No.4260837]

since when does well rounded mean you know some arbitrary words not commonly used? this is such a lame circlejerk--yeah you guys are so isolated from others, it must be due to your intelligence!!

[Anonymous No.4260859]

A large vocabulary is only an asset when it enhances and clarifies understanding. When it obscures understanding, you are a pretension douchebag

[Anonymous No.4260884]

STEM undergrad here, knew all of them except perennial which I had to look up.

[Anonymous No.4260893]

I'm an econ major and English isn't even my first language.

I know these:
> perennial
> pejorative
> esoteric
> affected

guessed somewhat correctly:
> petulant

did not know:
> amorphous

[Anonymous No.4260898]

I don't see how any adult could not know what 'petulant' or 'pejorative' mean.
Especially petulant. If you weren't directly called that as a kid, you'd think you'd have been enough of a well behaved dweeb to discover it on your own anyway, how can it slip past you?

'Affected' is just one of those confusing ones that no one's really sure about because of 'effected', but everyone should have a basic idea, I can't see how anyone could have actually not heard it before.

The others I'd say are neither here nor there, not pretentious for someone to use but not unreasonable for someone to need to be given the definition either.

[Anonymous No.4260902]

>>4260898
>'Affected' is just one of those confusing ones that no one's really sure about because of 'effected'

See for me, I just don't know how could anyone be even remotely confused by something like this. It really makes me question a person's intelligence that he is confusing the two terms that look vaguely similar as opposed to not knowing a certain word because he never or rarely heard it.

[Anonymous No.4260906]

do you mean affected as in 'stirred' because i don't see how someone who graduated high-school wouldn't understand affected as in 'acted on'

[Anonymous No.4260908]

>>4260902
So by that, I find not knowing petulant much more reasonable than not knowing affected because you're confusing it with effect. The latter just makes me think wow this person is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4260914]

When would you need to use 'amorphous' in every day conversation?

[Anonymous No.4260915]

>>4260914
When you are trying to expose yourself as a true patrician amongst your friends.

[Anonymous No.4260920]

>>4260618
>Are my friends just dumb
probably not, they just like a genuine interest in language

people often blame it on others to justify their ignorance, forgetting that we're all ignorant about something and that such blaming is not necessary

[Anonymous No.4260924]

>>4260640
>even holding an illusion of friendship

[Anonymous No.4260926]

>>4260646
damn, it seems STEMS with a fragile ego are much more common than I thought

[Anonymous No.4260930]

>>4260787
>THIS 'PETULENT NEGRO HAS ILLEGALLY TAKEN MY VEHICLE"
I would love to hear more of this while playing GTA. Would make it all the more fun

[Anonymous No.4260931]

>>4260718
>We need people to pay more money and learn nonrelated and irrelevant things in University solely to be "well rounded"
>This is what professional baristas believe
my sides

[Anonymous No.4260932]

>>4260859
>a pretension douchebag
oh lordy

[Anonymous No.4260933]

>>4260618
The words aren't difficult or obscure, but I am intrigued about how you slip some of them into what I assume is casual conversation. What are you talking about when you use them, and are your friends interested in the conversation?

[Anonymous No.4260934]

>>4260618

A high school graduate should know these terms.

[Anonymous No.4260935]

>>4260898
>I don't see how any adult could not know what 'petulant' or 'pejorative' mean.
you don't talk to many people irl do you?

[Anonymous No.4260939]

>>4260914
when you're talking about something with no specific or defined form and you want to use a word instead of a phrase

[Anonymous No.4260940]

> perennial
> pejorative
> esoteric
> affected
> amorphous
> petulant

Lets try this, I'm from sweden:

>perennial
?
>pejorative
a perspective of sorts
>esoteric
out-of-worldsly, spiritual
>affected
emotional effect
>amorphous
in heat, in love, horny
>petulant
really tidy

[Anonymous No.4260942]

>>4260920
*they just lack

[Anonymous No.4260945]

>>4260940
Well I sucked.. haha

[Anonymous No.4260951]

> perennial
> pejorative
> esoteric
> affected
> amorphous
> petulant

Let's try this, I'm from America

>perennial
a type of flower
>pejorative
an executive russian?
>esoteric
?
>amorphous
ability to morph only once... idk.
>petulant
?

[Anonymous No.4260954]

>>4260902

I will put up my hand and admit I do not understand and will never understand the difference between affect and effect. It's not how they sound, it's that the line between their definitions seems so utterly blurred I just don't even see why there's a distinction, never mind such an obnoxiously vague one.
I understand the difference enough to get by, and I'll understand someone's meaning when they use either one, but I'll avoid using them myself outside of safe common phrases.
It's just one of those weird little things my brain will not accept.

[Anonymous No.4260956]

>>4260935

I do. But we all went to private schools.

[Anonymous No.4260966]

>>4260618
The STEM Majors I've come across are the most arrogant people when it comes to to their intelligence. Generalization here but they think that because of what they're doing they are somehow better or more deserving of success than others and get very annoyed when their intelligence or career prospects are questioned. This is coming from a questionable M.

[Anonymous No.4260977]

>>4260618
Modern STEMs are the sort who enjoy flaunting their anti-intellectualism

[Anonymous No.4260990]

>>4260977
I think they flaunt anti-intellectualism masquerading as superiority, thinking their intelligence in one specific area makes them that much better. It's questionable M again

[Anonymous No.4260993]

>>4260951
Nice try, yuropoor

[Anonymous No.4260995]

>>4260990
>>4260966
Not questionable M, thought M was medicine.

[Anonymous No.4260996]

>>4260954
affect is a verb, effect is a noun, how is this not clear? When you're affecting something, you're leaving an effect

[Anonymous No.4261004]

>>4260996

My head...

[Anonymous No.4261027]

>>4260954
Part of your problem is that 'affected' has two meanings. I was assuming OP meant 'that guy has a really affected air about him', which means acting pretentious. There's no way people could complain about the more common use of 'affected', as in 'that story really affected me'.

[Anonymous No.4261028]

I know what all of those words mean but I don't know wtf STEM is.

Are you hanging out with botanists

[Anonymous No.4261049]

>>4261028
it stands for Science Technology Engineering Math

By the way botany is awesome

[Anonymous No.4261106]

>>4260618
tell your friends that a college dropout who understands and uses all those words called them all a bunch of useless faggots. nothing against homosexuals, but in their case I mean "faggot" as a pejorative lel

[Anonymous No.4261119]

>>4260787
>'taken'
>not 'commandeered'

Do you even flaunt?

[Anonymous No.4261201]

>>4260618
Swede here. I don't know what amorphous and perennial means.
Just a foreign perspective

[Anonymous No.4261208]

>>4260618
> perennial
> pejorative
> esoteric
> affected
> amorphous
> petulant
Those words are quite common in France.

[Anonymous No.4261296]

my friends who mostly didn't even finish high school would be familiar with those words, and when one of us uses a word the others don't understand, we just ask what it means

[Anonymous No.4261313]

>>4260618
>> pejorative
but everyone knows this from britney spears
0/10

[Anonymous No.4261316]

>esoteric
Wow, your typical Facebook mystical black man shaman knows that word.

> petulant

Wow, anyone who's ever had the pleasure with living with a sister should be acquainted with this word.

> affected

Wow, it's like I'm in grade 3.

>perennial

Wow, they've never heard of perennial, all season, grass.

The only two I had to concretely define was
pejorative and amorphous.

[Anonymous No.4261317]

>>4261313
You mean 'prerogative'...

[Anonymous No.4261321]

Your friends are not dumb, you are just socially retarded and I bet you sound awkward as fuck saying "that petulant man used pejorative language" when the guy at the bar called you a huge faggot. I bet they know those words, but they cringe everytime you use and you are so dumb you don't even realize that and you think the problem is with them or it is a matter of vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.4261335]

>>4261321

"Petulant child", "pejorative term" and "amorphous blob" are all very common phrases.

[Anonymous No.4261347]

I mostly hang around with art students and whilst I do get the occasional "wow you're smart" or "how do you know all this stuff!?" no one ever complains about it rudely. The worst I've ever had were two separate occasions where friends of mine (a philosophy student and a medic) apologising because they didn't understand all the references I was making to various concepts. Sometimes people will ask me what words mean. I have other friends who I have to do the same with; they'll expect me to understand philosophy at the same level as them when I won't necessarily. It's cool though.
I think if one or two people get angry about it, it's because they're thick. If most of your friends tell you you're showing off, then you probably are and need to tone it down.
I think I get away with it because of my naive expectation that whoever I'm talking to knows what I'm talking about. Don't sneer if if turns out they don't - look surprised and worried that you've hurt their feelings.

[Anonymous No.4261348]

>Is it correct to assume an educated audience would know the meaning of the following words

Yes. If your friends are stupid and/or STEM, it's their own fault.

STEM is a disease

[Anonymous No.4261351]

>>4260996
>>4261004
It gets worse: an obscure but accepted definition of effect is as a verb: "to cause", but affect is a verb is "to influence". So you could say that his definitions affected your head, or they effected your confusion.

[Anonymous No.4261362]

>>4260940
>>4260951

>mfw people openly flaunt their idiocy

[Anonymous No.4261370]

>>4260618
lol im a fucking freshman and i think it's a little affected of you to think you're really that esoteric

[Anonymous No.4261382]

I am an undergrad studying English (I know lol heartily), the only one I had to search was 'amorphous', but someone else in the thread said that 'amorphous blob' is a common phrase, and I agree I have heard that many times. It's a real douchey thing to kick off when you don't understand a word to blame the person for being too well informed. I normally go away and attempt to understand a word or phrase if I don't know what it means. I get many people don't care enough, but that doesn't mean they get to act like douches either.

[Anonymous No.4261404]

>>4260954
A-ffect, from Latin 'a'/'ad', meaning 'to'
E-ffect, from Latin 'e'/'ex', meaning 'from' or 'out'
The rest of the word is from 'facere', broadly meaning 'to do'

To a-ffect something is to do to
An e-ffect is something which has been done

[Anonymous No.4261439]

how am I doing /lit/

>perennial
long lasting, returning year after year
>pejorative
hm...
>esoteric
specific, strange, not part of the norm
>affected
emotionally felt
>amorphous
no parts distinguishable from other parts. or maybe unchanging.
>petulant
snotty, defiant

[Anonymous No.4261499]

>>4260618
These are Italian/Latin words, my friend. And I can tell you because I'm Italian.
> perennial
"perennis,e"(Per+annus): it would mean only "which last all the year long", but it is common used for "long-lasting, which it goes onall the year long"
> pejorative
(peius means "worse" in Latin, and "peggio" is Italian): make something worse
> esoteric
That's curious: we can say that an unusual magic rite is "esoteric", which it means that it can be learnt only by pupils of a specific schools(think about Aristotle's "esoteric" works)
> affected
(ad+facio, past participle): something that has been done and that had something changed(I was affected by his speech); maybe "concern"
> amorphous
(Greek: a(privative alpha, it means "non")+morphè(form,shape)): without a specific shape
> petulant
In Italian is used for a person who talks over and over:
"Sei petulante" can be translated with "You're nagging"

[Anonymous No.4261504]

>>4260618
>Are my friends just dumb
Yes

[Anonymous No.4261528]

Lel English is not my native language yet I know these words, step it up

t. Foreign stem major

[Anonymous No.4261532]

>>4261528
Are you from a romance country?

[Anonymous No.4261551]

Anybody past high school age who doesn't know the meaning of these words is an idiot, seriously, what the fuck?

[Anonymous No.4261562]

>>4260618
Petulant sounds pretentious. Pejorative is easily replaced by more common words.
The rest are pretty standard, especially perennial. Amorphous should probably be removed from standard convo unless it's necessary.

[Anonymous No.4261567]

>>4260618
>Is it correct to assume an educated audience (i.e. university educated, if only at the undergrad level) would know the meaning of the following words:
I´m seriously impressed by how much value /lit/ gives to the educational system, especially in this case regarding words knowledge. In my experience the ones with whom you can talk without worrying too much about your choice of words (the problem is that nobody ever ask you about the meaning of the words they don´t know) are simply the people that genuinely like to read, this doesn´t mean people that read a lot but the ones that have always read regularly, maybe less then 5 books per year (they can´t be all shitty ones ofc) and were always genuinely interested in understanding the text. This has nothing to do with your social class or your cv. Plus if you used to read disney comics there are good changes you knew way more words as a kid (but I think in america disney ones aren´t read that much anymore).
Another factor obviously are your parents, if they are intellectuals you are probably going to know many words.

[Anonymous No.4261568]

No they Are just stupid for not knowing those words. However if you speak that way all the time then I think you would come off at least a little pretentious

[Anonymous No.4261617]

> perennial
> pejorative
existing constantly for a long time
> esoteric
hidden, obscured, mysterious
> affected
emotionally touched
> amorphous
shapless
> petulant
childish

how did I do?

[Anonymous No.4261646]

Egad! good question OP

usually when I would drop bigger words and flex my wordsmith prowess, I would also define them.

"That was a perplexing and dumbfounding experience; it left me feeling confused and amazed"

"I was impressed by his munificence, his generosity exceeded all others"

Force your friends to keep up with your vocab though, don't dumb it down

[Anonymous No.4261649]

>>4261646
le master trole

[Anonymous No.4261659]

STEM major here. I didn't know what perennial meant, English isn't my native language though.

And if a stem major doesn't know what 'amorphous' means, he/she is an idiot on more levels than just one. Amorphousness is a very commonly discussed property of materials in physics and engineering.

[Anonymous No.4261671]

> perennial
-
> pejorative
-
> esoteric
+
> affected
+
> amorphous
+
> petulant
-

I am not native english speaker, however.

[Anonymous No.4261678]

STEM major here, your friends are just retards

[Anonymous No.4261727]

>>4261362

>trying to define english words even though first language is swedish
>flaunting idiocy

ya ok. Don't see you deciphering Cyrillic on the fly there, Sammy.

[Anonymous No.4261735]

>>4261671
>pejorative

sounds similar to pegiore.

>tfw i speak 4 languages

[Anonymous No.4261757]

>>4261727
Since when do swedes use Cyrillic?

ёб твою мать, сука

[Anonymous No.4261772]

>>4260618

I knew about 5/6 of these words (petulant?) It's funny that you use the word "esoteric" so much because you are fucking esoteric.

[Anonymous No.4261797]

>>4260618
why do people use big words?

both in writing and speech? shouldn't your intent be to be understood by the most amount of people?

why try to make things harder?

[Anonymous No.4261808]

>>4261735
>speaks 4 languages
>thinks "pegiore" is a word in any language
kek

[Anonymous No.4261833]

>>4261797
I think the intent is actually the opposite. If I use some two-dollar word in everyday conversation it's because it has a more specific meaning that more acutely conveys what I'm trying to say. That's what words are for.

[Anonymous No.4261835]

>>4261797

Because 'big words' can often be more specific, evocative and even simple compared to a string of small ones. It's a lot easier to just say "that's esoteric" than "that's something only certain people would understand".
And people who have a larger vocabulary in their back pocket will find using big words very natural and instinctive. They're not TRYING to make things harder, that's just the way they speak. It can be just as hard to understand what someone's trying to communicate when they have a limited vocabulary.

Same with metaphors and idioms - some people might not have any idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't mean you should be as simplistic and literal as possible all the time. Part of the fun of language is finding new and interesting ways to express more complex ideas.

[Anonymous No.4261842]

>>4261833
> acute
Why not use accurate or accurately?

It means the same thing in that context you fedora.

[Anonymous No.4261843]

>>4260618
I've a NEET who's never even been to college and I know the meaning of all those words. I do read a lot though.

[Anonymous No.4261851]

>>4261842
>marked by keen discernment or intellectual perception especially of subtle distinctions

That's why I used it instead of "accurate" you pleb

[Anonymous No.4261865]

This is why I hate writing, because people who read it go "HURR DURR YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO SOUND SMART BY USING BIG WORDS," when really I'm not, although they are fun to use. They're the only way I know how to communicate my thoughts, and I don't just throw words in my writing without knowing what they mean first.

Then they just call me a pompous asshole for insinuating that they're anti-intellectual bastards. Even saying that reeks of pretense, too. Oh god, what is our culture coming to?

[Anonymous No.4261868]

your friends arent dumb they just have shitty vocabs
but thats not unexpected as stem majors
(happy I knew all of them though!)

[Anonymous No.4261874]

>>4261865
American society be bipolar as fuck, yo.

[Anonymous No.4261879]

Children,
Burping leads to farting.
Hugging leads to kissing.

[Anonymous No.4261892]

What is so bad about casually showing off a decent aptitude or even talent?

Why does the majority have to kneel to the lowest common denominator? Why can I not be my own? Vocabulary should *ONLY* be regulated by practical limitations in information exchanges, not whether or not one feels arbitrarily envious of superior verbal fluency.

[Anonymous No.4261895]

>>4261835
9 times out of 10, a more accessible word can be used.
When speaking to people whom you think are smart, use fancy words to impress them and show them that you're learned too! Sometimes it's fun to use patrician vernacular though.

Since you are so intelligent, I would assume that you have a mastery of the language and can control the words you use to communicate.

[Anonymous No.4261896]

>>4261892
It's not a talent. It's not even decent.

[Anonymous No.4261900]

>>4261892
>practical limitations in information exchange

Talkin' out your ass there, m8.

[Anonymous No.4261897]

>>4261851
No, in that context they mean the same thing.

[Anonymous No.4261902]

>>4261896
>>4261896

>verbal ability and accumulated knowledge

>not desirable

[Anonymous No.4261908]

>>4260618
No. I'm a junior who has just met a senior who didn't know what "irreverent" meant. Honestly, fucking America.

[Anonymous No.4261911]

Talking is perverted. Sometimes i speak gibberish and masturbate, then I feel really guilty afterward.

[Anonymous No.4261916]

>>4261900
lol it's funny because you use all caps and asterisks to express emphasis in your writing instead of changing your sentence rhythm.

It's silly for you, or most people, to use these words because these words are a hallmark of intellectualism. If you are not capable of expressing emphasis in other ways besides all caps and asterisks then I don't think you're licensed to use that kind of language--it's above your means.

It feels like I'm watching someone use a credit card to go to the movies or something.

[Anonymous No.4261918]

>>4261916
I was meaning to speak to
>>4261892

[Anonymous No.4261920]

I hate the fact that whenever I strain to expand my vocabulary, it's met with harsh criticism.

>>4261908
>Honestly, fucking America.

It's because we're a highly insecure culture, and egotistical as a result. Or maybe it's the other way around.

[Anonymous No.4261923]

>>4260618
That's simply ridiculous. I know them and I'm not even a native english speaker. I guess you guys are american?

[Anonymous No.4261929]

>>4261895
>9 times out of 10, a more accessible word can be used.

Yeah? And if an alternative needed, it can be provided. So what's the problem?

Making a conscious decision to dumb yourself down 24/7 is unnecessary, jarring and condescending as fuck. As I said, people who have a bigger vocabulary will naturally gravitate towards more complicated words, they're not always making a conscious decision to use them in order to impress or intimidate you.

[Anonymous No.4261934]

>>4261929
Although it is a good exercise to find simpler ways of expressing complex ideas. It's helped me develop a more well-rounded style of writing.

[Anonymous No.4261940]

>>4260837
>not commonly used

These words are not obscure. If he were dropping words like "hermeneutic" and "acroamatic" then people would have the right to complain.

[Anonymous No.4261948]

>>4261940
Who the fuck doesn't know what acroamatic means? Plebs.

[Anonymous No.4261954]

People use the label "pretentious" with total abandon when it comes to things they don't understand. Doesn't matter whether it's the topic you're discussing, or the position you're taking, or the words you're using; if they don't understand, they'll call you pretentious.It's the favorite weapon of the ignorant against the educated, because it's their only weapon.

[Anonymous No.4261959]

>>4261954

Pretentious twat.

[Anonymous No.4261964]

>>4261959
Pretentious has become the most pretentious word in the English language.

How ironic, lol!

[Anonymous No.4262271]

>>4260618
The only word I don't know the meaning of is "petulant". Then again, English is my second language.

[Anonymous No.4262279]

>>4262271
I forgot to add: except "petulant" (or maybe it applies to this too), all the words in the list are more or less the same in all civilized (read European) languages.

[Anonymous No.4262284]

>>4261954
Luckily that only happens on the internet.

[Anonymous No.4262415]

>>4261727
That's no excuse. I'm Finnish, my language isn't even included in the same phylum.

t. >>4261362

[Anonymous No.4262556]

Nothing obscure or pretentious about any of these words. I'm sure every one occures in some young adult book or other. And any STEM major will know them and a hundred more escoteric associated with his peculiar interests. Sericaceous, tomentose, appressed, inchoate, sheared, ornithiscial, etc.

[Anonymous No.4262952]

>>4260618
Goddammit these are not particularly obscure words.
English is my second language and I'm in a wannabe-STEM major(economics) yet I understand these words. Maybe it's because I'm a spanish speaker and they're romance words?

[Anonymous No.4262965]

>>4260618

I know the definitions of all of those except pejorative, which is familiar but I can't remember the meaning out of context.

[Anonymous No.4263018]

These are just high school vocabulary words. Your friends are stupid regardless of their majoring in STEM.

[Anonymous No.4263022]

>>4261892
you shouldn't show off
if you aren't fluent in the use of more obscure words, you shouldn't be using them
you didn't even use arbitrarily right

6/10 i responded

[Anonymous No.4263034]

>>4262952
>economics
>STEM
sure buddy

[Anonymous No.4263122]

>>4263034
How can you be so flagrantly stupid?
>>4262952
>wannabe-STEM
This is what I wrote, because I know Economics isn't a STEM, and I know the scientistic pretentions of many economists, and their similar disdain for intellectualism, the humanities, and the other social sciences. How about next time you criticize what I actually wrote?

[Anonymous No.4263138]

Yes, ideally. But a lot STEM majors nowadays seem to treat the fact that they're doing a STEM subject as an excuse to be as illiterate as possible. I went on a date with a Bio-Chem student the other day, and she didn't know what I meant when I said something was 'arduous'.

I still like her though, don't get the wrong idea. I don't judge someone based solely on their vocabulary, I just found it slightly depressing.

[Anonymous No.4263145]

>>4262952
If you've read any of the classics, or indeed any book aimed at someone other than children, you'll understand what all of those words mean. I'm assuming you've done that, hence why you're browsing /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4263165]

>>4263145
Honestly I haven't even read that much of the "classics". I mostly read genre fiction and some "easy" literary fiction (Borges, Garcia Marquez, Paul Auster, Vonnegut, stuff like that).

[Anonymous No.4263170]

>>4263165
That's enough to have a better vocabulary than the average joe.

[Anonymous No.4263177]

>>4263138
Although to be honest many people in the humanities and social sciences recoil when I mention that everyone with an university-level education should at least be able to do basic calculus.

[Anonymous No.4263189]

>>4263177
I'm studying English at University, but I have a massive interesting in the sciences and current affairs, and have a pretty decent knowledge of mathematics. I always have to explain myself when hitting on STEM girls, but usually they're easier to sleep with when they find out I'm an English major who isn't completely vapid.

It makes for a good topic of conversation at the very least.

[Anonymous No.4263350]

>>4261865
>Be colombian
>Share research article in english with friend
>He says "you really dominate english" with ironical tone
>This shit happens every time I correct any of my friends when they miserably fail to use the english language.

captcha: unsatisfac omergia

[Anonymous No.4263357]

>>4263177
I study psychology and I approve of this.

[Anonymous No.4263361]

>>4263177
>should at least be able to do basic calculus.

Why would it matter? Basic calculus is nothing but remembering derivatives and integrals for special cases. How is that either impressive or important? People are better off learning the theoretical/logical stuff.

[Anonymous No.4263451]

>>4260681
Yes, it is. I'd conjecture that 90% of folks you'll run into don't know what arcane or abstruse mean, 70% don't know esoteric, and 100% don't know recondite. Avoid it unless you're in overtly intellectual or academic situations.

[Anonymous No.4263500]

>>4261808
fine peggiore then

[Anonymous No.4263504]

>>4261865
>They're the only way I know how to communicate my thoughts
poor writer detected

[Anonymous No.4263510]

I used inherently and assuaged in a report one time and all my group members called me out for using words nobody knows... I'm in 4th year university in an actuarial science program... WTF!?!? I was so flabbergasted, i just stuttered in response.

[Anonymous No.4263512]

>>4263145
>implying people on /lit/ read instead of circle-jerk regurgitate opinions they've heard about famous books that they haven't ever opened.

I can modify my language to fit the vernacular of the speaker. A close friend of mine is very working class, no education beyond high school, and there are large swaths of myself that I cannot convey to him. We still get along, but to be honest, he will never know me as well as some other people. My parents can pick up on most of it, and if they don't understand, I define it immediately. I'm cognizant of which words they might not know, and immediately ask if they need me to define it. Same modus operandi with open-minded people and close-friends.

Like I said, I can modify my colloquial speech to the many social situations where my intellectual pretentions are not appreciates, but I prefer to set myself in situations where I don't have to hold back, or can learn from conversing with a more erudite individual. One reason that I do this is because the principle of "use it or lose it" holds rather true with academic/esoteric language just as it does with languages of which you are not a native speaker. If I spend two weeks without reading in Spanish or Mandarin (my two foreign languages) my vocab has to catch up for about a day. If I don't read a good book in English for two weeks, I have the same effect with very esoteric English words, although if I sit and think for a second instead of giving in to the knee-jerk reaction to reach for the smartphone dictionary, then I can usually recall it or discern the meaning from the roots (never had formal training in Latin or Greek, but we studied etymology of English words from those languages pretty rigorously in school). Ultimately, then, my argument is that I don't want to lose my academic English (which loss inhibits my ability to churn through philosophical, technical, and literary texts) just as I don't want to lose my ability to read and speak foreign languages. So I use the "pretentious" English words in my everyday speech with that goal in mind. If somebody is open-minded, I'm happy to define or elaborate, if not, I probably am not going to be talking to them for very long, anyway.

Also, some paranoia about "newspeak" from 1984 becoming a thing still lingers in my mind. Fuck that. Language is beautiful. Let it flourish.

[Anonymous No.4263514]

>>4263361
Fuck you fuxk you fuck you fuxk you.

Calculus is a fucking fundamental skill with it's concepts being applied everywhere all the time in everyday life.

Saying I don't need to know calculus is like saying I don't need to know how to use apostrophes.

[Anonymous No.4263516]

>>4263512
>A close friend of mine is very working class, no education beyond high school, and there are large swaths of myself that I cannot convey to him. We still get along, but to be honest, he will never know me as well as some other people.

This might be the single most fedora thing I've ever read on 4chan and that's saying something.

[Anonymous No.4263518]

There's this sort inverse pretentiousness where people are proud of their ignorance of certain topics. Liberal arts majors will say "I'm terrible at math" and wear it like a badge. In the same way, STEM majors will say "I don't read fiction". I think this kind of behavior is stupid. It's killing rational discourse and interdisciplinary thinking. If you truly have a love for learning, you won't dismiss any topic in this way.

[Anonymous No.4263520]

>>4263510
>Actuarial science
That explains it.

This thread has been taken over by a terrorist STEMcell, as, it seems, has /lit/. I see many many threads recently where posters bemoan the STEM/humanities divide or spit venom at one another across that self-imposed chasm. Inevitably, lots of STEM folks come in and brag about how intelligent and patrician they are (and still have "useful" job prospects), instead of humbly sitting back and learning from humanities specialists who are generally more erudite than them. I propose that we stop giving a fuck what the blasSTEMers say and just have a literary orgy on this board.

[Anonymous No.4263522]

>>4263516
... Don't you have friends from highschool that went straight to work afterwards? Or became a carpenter or something equally blue collar?

I'm not going to discuss books with him or ask what he thinks of the ethics of the nsa spying program... All he wants to know is A) have i banged that red head yet, B) do I have any pics I can show him. So ill have a pitcher, share a J and shoot the shit with him.

[Anonymous No.4263530]

>>4263516
So do you have any substantive response to it or are you just going to drop the term "fedora" (which has, through extreme overuse, evolved into a vaguely defined epithet on par with "asshole" applied to anybody who disagrees with you)?

We get along well. We have a lot of fun in the friend group that we mutually inhabit. But I can't speak with him about a lot of what I do in my research or work because he is unwilling to listen in order to understand, and there is already too large an educational disparity to overcome. That's fine. I'm not looking to be fulfilled or complemented by each and every one of my friends, but it's a sheer fact that he doesn't know what goes on when I'm reading or discussing complex topics or translating foreign languages, which activities both require serious erudition. It's a matter of where we choose to spend our free time. I mostly read, write, or speak/translate foreign languages, and he watches a lot of TV. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.4263534]

>>4263522
that's not related to intelligence. there are plenty of smart and eloquent people who do not give a shit about Tolstoy or ethics of a spying program. just as there are people who are not the brightest who are willing to discuss those things and listen to someone smarter talking about them.

[Anonymous No.4263536]

>>4263522
I'm the guy that the poster you responded too initially insulted. That's exactly it. We drink beer together, go shooting or roading, play or watch basketball, eat ribs, and talk about having sex with women. Fun times, but not a complete picture of me by any stretch of the imagination. I had a very blue collar raising so those activities are still enjoyable to me. In fact, I pity the kids raised by too nerdy or intellectual of parents because they never get to have that stupid, basic, kind of fun that comes from not giving a shit, yelling at sports, and consuming large amounts of intoxicants and protein.

[Anonymous No.4263540]

>>4263530
to say
>he will never know me as well as some other people.

because he lacks your patrician interests and intelligence is stupid and demonstrates your lack of interpersonal communication abilities. it also most likely means you're an incredibly shitty writer.

[Anonymous No.4263546]

>>4263540
As I've elaborated upon in other posts, which you are evidently too lazy to read, he is often unwilling to get into it. I can mold my vernacular very well. I can discretize important elements of a complex topic and explain them in language that is simple to understand. I have been a tutor for ten years so I am pretty damn good at that, in fact. But the fact remains that the is a disparity to be overcome.

That disparity, as I have also indicated in my other posts, has little to do with "intelligence." You'll notice that I never used that specious metric of competence regarding complex topics. What really makes the difference is how much time you have put into any given subject. If you don't read, work, or research in foreign languages, philosophy, ecology, or medical billing, carpentry, firefighting, whatever, you will not be familiar with the foundational concepts involved in that subset of human experience. The only way to make up that disparity is hard work, and time, really. We have dedicated our lives to very different things, and so what I am saying is that he is unable to understand what it is like to do the technical aspects of the work that I do. I can give him a nutshell to munch on, but he is often uninterested, and even if he were, it would not convey the stresses, mental challenges, or complexities of my work. Other friends who work in my field, and have dedicated a similar amount of time as I have to reading, writing, languages, etc. can understand those struggles more viscerally as well as intuitively and thus have a better picture of how my life is experienced.

[Anonymous No.4263551]

>>4263540

Is it a general statement?
You're goddam fuxking right it is.

Is it wrong to generalise?
Nope. Not at all.
I don't know your background, but I've spent alot of time with carpenters, factory workers, plumbers, etc. They went into those professions for a reason... They don't enjoy intellectual topics/conversation.


Is that a bad thing?
Fuck no. But most of them are truly like this, it's a fact.


Diversify yourself. Not everyone is like you.


>>4263536
I know what you mean. Some people were born and raised academics and they missed out on some crucial life experience in their youth.

[Anonymous No.4263560]

>>4263540
not him and I agree that he comes off as a jackass by calling himself an erudite but there's some truth in what he says. sophisticated language is often not gratuitous and even if you can use simpler words to describe "the same thing" the words do not exactly stand for the same thing, thus, you're not actually describing the same thing when you simplify it with people.
The "fault" lies on both sides.
I do agree that more often when someone says that another is not willing to learn, what's really happening is that they are self-centered and don't know how to get someone's attention. Starting simple, relating it with an interest of the person, etc. They just try to explain from their current stage of learning instead of explaining the same things they first learned

[Anonymous No.4263563]

>>4263546
working class and no education was used very pejoratively in your post, maybe I've read it wrong, but it smelled of a superiority complex. I've you simply said you have different interests you'd be much better off, as I suppose you don't know as much about carpentry as he does either, The tone of the post was far from implying anything like that until your last one though.

[Anonymous No.4263567]

>>4263560
My friend cares about 2 things
1) when is his dealer going to respond.
2) when's the next Joe Rogan podcast.


Meet more people, not everyone likes what you like or even cares. This is a fact of life.

[Anonymous No.4263573]

>>4263563

This entire post is about tone and lacks any material evidence... Or real point. It doesn't serve a purpose.
Try again.

[Anonymous No.4263576]

>>4263560
To learn what though? People are not going to have the same interests as you. If you want someone to learn sophisticated language so you're able to communicate with him, well that's just a peculiarity of your character not his. It's certainly not the norm and you'll cut off large portions of population who are both smart and interesting.

[Anonymous No.4263578]

>>4263573
Try again what? It's not my problem if you hold a superiority complex over your friend based on your interests. If you don't, it certainly comes off that way.

[Anonymous No.4263584]

>>4263563
In the earlier posts, I was speaking generally. The issue with that is that the translation of "general group at which I am directing this judgment" to "specific person who identifies with that group" is the same as the translation from "amorphous entity that does not care about my opinion" to "individual who could be hurt by it." Thus, when I was speaking generally, my tone must have seemed more callous. At that point all that I was saying was that I often put myself in situations to meet people who share larger subsets of my total interests so that we have more to do and talk about together, even if our specific opinions differ. That means that I won't make NEW friends as easily with people who are more unlike me than I will with people who are more like me, because I enjoy the music of uninhibited speech. Lyric poetics (my favorite form of poetry and how I try to style my speech because I love the sound of it) is founded upon diversity of expression. This is true even in "low class" music like rap. Just look at Nas. His lyricism is brilliant.

But I got offended, and adopted a more personal tone, when posters attacked me as universally pretentious, and especially when they made blithe assumptions about my relationship with my blue collar friends. I was raised blue collar. My dad is a carpenter. He is the most honorable and hard-working man that I know, so by no means do I disdain the profession or the life, and in fact I lead a very simple and frugal lifestyle (my only luxury purchase is used books). I didn't take on carpentry as a career, but I did learn enough about it to have a healthy respect for it. My friend is an EMT for a fire department, and though I don't know much about it viscerally or personally, my friend is able to explain much of his work.

This is a sensitive topic for me because I came from a blue collar background and went to Stanford, where people of my "ilk" are universally disdained and classed as "low-income" or "scholarship." I met plenty of down-to-earth rich folks, sure, but I was pointlessly ostracized as well. What made it worse was that, returning home, I was disdained at times for being "boogie" (boo-zhy, I've never known how to spell this fucking word) and had to fight my way back to acceptance. This judgment happened before I ever opened my mouth, so my language had nothing to do with it. It's just, I went to Stanford, came back to my blue-collar friends and community, and was permanently tainted for having gone and cavorted with the aristocrats for a while. I dunno, I don't really like either group wholeheartedly.

[Anonymous No.4263589]

>>4263578
Not even that poster. Just didn't see the point in emphasising tone.


Tone is a very, very fuzzy concept and shoukd always be backed up by something more concrete.

[Anonymous No.4263593]

>>4263584
>This is a sensitive topic for me because I came from a blue collar background and went to Stanford, where people of my "ilk" are universally disdained and classed as "low-income" or "scholarship." I met plenty of down-to-earth rich folks, sure, but I was pointlessly ostracized as well.

In some ways you are doing the same thing.

[Anonymous No.4263595]

Shit nigger, American education must be bad, i'm a goddamn highschool droppout and i know those words.

[Anonymous No.4263613]

>>4263593
Fair enough. I can see how it would come off that way, but you've never met me in person so you have no idea. The way that I choose to write (which is completely uninhibited on here) won't convey that I am not actually condescending, but I'll take your critique of my writing in stride and apply it in future.

I'm done with this thread, though. Peace.

[Anonymous No.4263622]

>>4263350
Otro colombiano en /lit/? Que milagraso!
Estos gringos no saben ni hablar su propio idioma!

[Anonymous No.4263624]

It's 230 and I just finished 1.5 L of 500 dullar shiraz fuck yall

[Anonymous No.4263639]

>>4260618
I know all of those except for pejorative, but now I have learned what it means.

I did not go to college. I just enjoy words.

[Anonymous No.4263665]

>>4261678
Also an STEM. Seconded. Less because they didn't know the words and more because they wave about their ignorance like it should be then norm.

[Anonymous No.4263673]

>>4263622
Uno taco y dos burritos, por favor

[Anonymous No.4263677]

>>4261835
I agree. When I use words like this, I'm not intentionally trying to alienate people. It is really distracting, annoying, and frustrating when it does, because this is just how I communicate. I pick the right word for the right situation, because it fits best. Anything else falls short of what I am actually trying to say. I'll explain myself if I have to, but I would rather people understand what I am saying precisely as opposed to approximately.

[Anonymous No.4263681]

>>4261842
Why the fuck should anyone change the default word usage, because you're too fucking stupid to understand them? Accept your ignorance and learn to overcome it. Don't expect things to dumb themselves down so you can understand you entitled prick.

[Anonymous No.4263684]

It seems to me that not many people in here have taken a high school level chem course.

[Anonymous No.4263688]

>>4261335
troo dat

[Anonymous No.4263690]

I'm a bio major and those words are definitely ones that they should know, though in some cases slightly uncommon and mostly not used in technical writing.

Tell them if they take any kind of test coming out of college (like the GRE) they'll have to know much stranger words.

[Anonymous No.4263714]

>>4263673
>Uno taco y dos burritos
>confusing master-race colombian food with shit-tier mexican food
>not knowing the pleasures of empanada, lechona, changua, tamal tolimense, and bocadillo veleño
>being this pleb

[Anonymous No.4263724]

>>4260618
they dumb

[Anonymous No.4263727]

I would say they are esoteric.

[Anonymous No.4263758]

>>4263512
>Also, some paranoia about "newspeak" from 1984 becoming a thing still lingers in my mind. Fuck that. Language is beautiful. Let it flourish.

This anon knows what's up! :^)

[Anonymous No.4263881]

This thread reminds me of a joke.

A sailor took the witness stand in the trial for a murder at high seas. "Would you please tell the court," said the attorney, "if you recognize either the defendant or the plaintiff."

"Beggin' yer pardon, sir," said the sailor, "but I don't know what them fancy words is."

The lawyer turned to the court and chided, "You mean to tell me that you came to testify at a trial and did not even take the time to familiarize yourself with some basic legal terms like 'defendant' or 'plaintiff?!'"

Silence in the court room. The lawyer shook his head, shrugged and continued, "OK. Let's try this then: Where were you when the accused is said to have struck the victim?"

"T'was abaft the binnacle," said the sailor.

"What?! Where is that?" demanded the lawyer.

The sailor cocked an eyebrow and replied "Are you fixin' a tell me thet you came to try a case 'bout a boat and did'n' take th' time to learn where 'abaft the binnacle' be?"