Skip to main content

3 The Three Questions: Do you think you speak pretentiously?

The Three Questions
Question 1 of 3

This is a series of blog posts based on questions I asked my peers and strangers starting summer 2020. I created these questions with Brock and Arvin one day through a string of conversations, and I've been obsessed with them ever since. First Question.

Do you think you speak pretentiously? Do you think I speak pretentiously?

Once when asking this question to an admired graduate student, he responded, "the word 'pretentiously' is pretentious." I was absolutely floored. First, I have asked this question to at least 60 different people at this point, and that's the first time someone's made that remark. Next, that I wouldn't at all considered the word "pretentiously" pretentious at all. Fuck. The question isn't designed to reach the entire audience of people I want it to reach.

The problem with pretentious language is that it's not accessible. I can understand the usefulness of, at times, sounding pretentious. I expect a sommelier to sound ostentatious. I expect those who perfect a craft to be almost unreachable with their understanding - in a limited form. They might be trying to sell an image (which I honestly don't think is worth it), or maybe it's an accident. But outside of small doses, purposeful pretentious language is gross

What the fuck is the point of communicating if you want your language to either (1) not be understood to its fullest meaning (2) want to make people feel small by speaking with you? 

So what if someone thinks the way you speak makes you sound smart? People with intelligence have the capability of making their language accessible. Be aware of your language, your audience, and have a productive conversation, one that doesn't have the ulterior ego-stroking motive. Pretentious language lacks clarity and respect and isn't to be admired. If you're so smart that you need to speak in a way that elevates you to others, you can think of ways to communicate more equally - right? Speaking pretentiously is the equivalent of speaking loudly. Yes, it makes people think you know what you're talking about, but they don't like you—honey, over vinegar. 

I'm pretty self-conscious of my speech being inaccessible in this way, and that's where the origin of the question came from, being worried that I sounded pretentious. From observing past interactions, every time someone has thought I was speaking pretentiously, it left them feeling annoyed, hostile, or bad about themselves for not understanding something I have implicitly signaled I expect them to understand (whether that assumption is true or not). The reason the public doesn't value academic efforts in everyday life more is that academic language at times can be very inaccessible. I'm not talking about paywalls and socioeconomic inaccessibility; assume everyone has access to academic literature. 

Can someone use this information in their everyday life? Can they use this information for a special task or occupation? Can they take what is written or spoken and apply that information to a different conversation? If the answer is "no," then you aren't writing an informational piece or having a productive conversation; you're writing a line on your CV. ew, okay, I guess. 

In a later blog post, I'll explain some of the responses people have said about themselves or about me, and spoiler, a large portion of my friends say I do speak pretentiously with the language I use. I'm glad I started asking questions like this, and I try to be mindful of my language. I try to make sure that I'm accessible, and my friends telling me that I need improvement in that area is something I have to work on. But vocabulary is not the only way to sound pretentious, and it's not the most common type of pretentious, uppity speech from what I've observed. And as for my newest mistake, I asked this very complex question, which usually takes a lot of answers in a Twitter poll. Stay tuned. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Overwriting Deleted Files in Windows

 Once a file is deleted, most operating systems will still hold on to the file. The link between the operating system and the file is removed, but the data is still on the disk waiting to be overwritten or used for something else. A common utility seen in the wild is Eraser  but it's a bloated utility that takes a long time. It's a good utility if you really need to overwrite a Windows machine more than 3 times - but the use case for this is minimal.  pause: this article surrounds mostly HDD, as files are recoverable on these drives if not overwritten. For SSDs, this is just going to cause more wear to your drive! An underutilized tool is cipher . In Windows, it displays or alters the encryption of directories and files on NTFS volumes. But, with the option w  it overwrites deleted files and empty space of a drive. You can use it on the same drive the OS is located, external drives, and removable media. It's easy to use! If your OS is installed on C: and you want to remove

My 2021 New Year's Resolutions

  In 2019, I made my New Year's Resolution to not drink in 2020. I had no idea what 2020 had in store, and I made it until RBG died, September 18th 2020, before I drank again. Even after, I hadn't had more than a few drinks at a time since. I still plan on not drinking or getting drunk, but it inspired me to make a ton of New Year's Resolutions for 2021. Resolutions I'm not sure if I'll make any of these come true, but if I could have some success on the last resolution, maybe I can be successful with a few more. I'm not comfortable sharing every goal, but there are a few that I think maybe fun to reflect on later! Two traditional goals, and two wardriving goals!  1) Meatless Mondays 2) No Candy Wednesdays 3) Submit to Wigle every month 4) ....and the Grand Finale: Make an optimized trip half-way across the country in my truck! The first two goals are based on my consumption. I eat way too much candy and I don't have to explain why that's bad -  and I sh

Can you hack a security checkpoint metal detector? Yeah, we already did.

To get straight to the point - walkthrough metal detectors are a security technology to attempt to detect and thus remove weapons and dangerous items from individuals to make a safe space. What if they were much more fallible than expected?  I'm not here to fear-monger either - these problems are preventable with proper use and changed in guidelines. Like many security controls, their exploitation is commonly due to those who implement and monitor them. However, in order to create these changes, more proof-of-concepts and solutions need to be tested. We already have a few to start.  The walkthrough metal detector (WTMD) research was not my original idea. It started out of research projects from  PHSI  and another Garrett 6500i was donated to our lab. This machine was not ours and we did not have permission to modify or conduct digital attacks on the detector. We were supposed to use physical modifications to hide or modify the results of the screening.  One colleague in particular