Support NeoGAF

[Fulminator]

You actually look worse if you try to do this btw.

for real

 

[kmfdmpig]

10 Tricks to Appear Smart in Meetings

This is great. One thing I've noticed is that dumb people are usually good at outing themselves as dumb during meetings as they like to hear themselves drone on and on without really saying much of anything.

 

[Makai]

my god that op nearly killed me, i can feel my soul trying to leave this earthly body

Yeah, quit your job, OP.

 

[The Awesomest]

Teacher-GAF, report!

 

[Samus4145]

You should message him after this meeting.

You should ping him after this meeting.

 

[Chezzymann]

"Stool" instead of "poop"

I will never accept that stool means shit

 

[dreamcastmaster]

You should message him after this meeting.

You should ping him after this meeting.

Touch base.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

WE NEED TO TRY TO DECIDE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT OP SHOVING WORDS DOWN OUR THROATS.

 

[kmfdmpig]

If you want some particularly dumb examples then:

Let's look at the big picture.
Let's consider the 30,000 foot view on this.

or

This is bad.
This is sub-optimal.

Let's work together.
Let's collaborate.
or
Let's find synergy.

 

[bosseye]

For some reason in my industry instead of "Person X asked me to do job Y" we get a lot of "Person X has tasked me with job Y" which I find an unfeasibly irritating and cunty thing to say

 

[Mr. Lemming]

From the OP, "guidance" is a good alternative and I'm sort of mixed on the "try" vs "attempt" but everything else should not be used as a simple substitution without really understanding why you are doing so.

 

[Oppo]

For some reason in my industry instead of "Person X asked me to do job Y" we get a lot of "Person X has tasked me with job Y" which I find an unfeasibly irritating and cunty thing to say

yeah. and asking if you have "cycles". like a processor.

"human resources" bothers me a bit too.

 

[Darryl M R]

If you want some particularly dumb examples then:

Let's look at the big picture.
Let's consider the 30,000 foot view on this.

or

This is bad.
This is sub-optimal.

Let's work together.
Let's collaborate.
or
Let's find synergy.

God I hate the xxx,xxx foot view one. Since people throw out different numbers and I don't know if 30,000 is suppose to be more detailed than when I was told to consider the 100,000 foot view on another obstacle.

 

[Timeaisis]

I would consider leveraging these metrics to synthesize a paradigm shift. This is a very dynamic topic which I believe we can utilize to create a forward-thinking approach to synergize our communication with value-added core competencies.

 

[Violet_0]

common: "I jiizzed in my pants."
professional: "I ejacuated in my pants."

 

[Akuun]

Do you have some time for this?
Do you have some cycles for this?

 

[Frodo]

I may or may not casually utilize utilize innocently from time to time.

 

[Timeless]

Here is what my college freshman honors writing professor said: "why use a 10 dollar word when you can use a two-center?" (or something along those lines). On this, I agree quite a bit. Who are you trying to fool? Who are you trying to impress? I want to be understood. English is awesome because there are a bunch of words with precise meanings that can be used in place of a more general word, but if you're swapping around generalities, cut the crap.

 

[Permanently A]

If you want some particularly dumb examples then:

Let's look at the big picture.
Let's consider the 30,000 foot view on this.

or

This is bad.
This is sub-optimal.

Let's work together.
Let's collaborate.
or
Let's find synergy.

I refuse to believe the 30000 foot view is something people say. Why wouldn't you just say bird's eye view? Equally dumb but at least it isn't a phrase you pulled from your ass.

 

[DaRealMVP]

I refuse to believe the 30000 foot view is something people say. Why wouldn't you just say bird's eye view? Equally dumb but at least it isn't a phrase you pulled from your ass.

It's real. And like other people say it's often swapped out for 80,000 or 20,000 or whatever.

Side note I'm guilty of using ping a lot.

 

[Reversed]

I expected a boring legalese thread but I'm glad it hit the sweet spot of bs business words.

 

[WiiredShawn]

Here is what my college freshman honors writing professor said: "why use a 10 dollar word when you can use a two-center?" (or something along those lines). On this, I agree quite a bit. Who are you trying to fool? Who are you trying to impress? I want to be understood. English is awesome because there are a bunch of words with precise meanings that can be used in place of a more general word, but if you're swapping around generalities, cut the crap.

I get this logic, and in most day-to-day life, it works fine, but I'm hesitant about applying this capitalistic metaphor to words. There's a strong "layman's bent" that ties strongly into these arguments - like those made by the Food Babe, that if "a third grader can't pronounce it, we shouldn't eat it." It privileges the lowest common denominator, and assumes that anything more sophisticated is deceptive. That's a slippery slope to anti-intellectualism, which is already prevalent in America.

That's not your argument, I understand. But I think a lot of this disdain for BS business buzzwords bleeds over into all forms of formal, esoteric and nuanced language, where people start to assume "larger vocabulary = trying to kill our children and take away our rights". Rather than tear down language to only what is "simple", we should be increasing the general public's literacy levels, so that people can see the value and utility of different kinds of words and speech patterns - and also see through bullshit when it happens.

Your comic is a great example - Calvin is using academic language haphazardly and thinks no one will notice because, the assumption goes, people don't actually read for content, but impression. Granted, many people do exactly that, but partly because they haven't developed greater literacy skills to separate the form of writing from its actual content. But a good academic isn't teaching other people how to speak and write academically so that they can be deceptive - they're doing it so that they can present content in a form that will resonate with other academics. Vocabulary is only part of literacy, which is an issue that people outside of jargon usually don't get. Hence their hostility toward the words themselves.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Passive voice.
A lot of business speak goes against my training which is always avoid buzzwords and jargon.


The above poster is right.

 

[ghostjoke]

This is mostly directed if you ever dared to use the word verbiage.

Common: Don't use garbage words to appear smart.
Professional: Do not be an affectationist.

 

[Hoo-doo]

This is mostly directed if you ever dared to use the word verbiage.

Common: Don't use garbage words to appear smart.
Professional: Do not be an affectationist.

You do realize that 'verbiage' has a completely separate meaning from the word 'words', right?

If a certain word is used to further specify something, then yes. Use it. I appreciate when certain words are added to give more clarity and specificity as to what the writer/speaker means.

If you're just using as a glorified thesaurus trying to sound smart? Then don't.

 

[Stinkles]

This has been problematic for me because I grew up in Scotland, lived in England before moving to the U.S. and have a fancy vocabulary anyway. So I often say fancy words without intending to.

However I always ask the meaning of obscure terms or acronyms in meetings. It's dumb to sit there not knowing what rppu means.

 

[Kittygirl]

yeah. and asking if you have "cycles". like a processor.

"human resources" bothers me a bit too.

As a woman, every time I hear "cycles" used, "menstrual" comes to mind, and I tune out.

 

[ghostjoke]

You do realize that 'verbiage' has a completely separate meaning from the word 'words', right?

If a certain word is used to further specify something, then yes. Use it. I appreciate when certain words are added to give more clarity and specificity as to what the writer/speaker means.

If you're just using as a glorified thesaurus trying to sound smart? Then don't.

The topic is about alternative words to sound "more professional", not using words correctly, which is the easiest way to create misunderstandings. Throwing out verbiage in this way when it's not what you actually mean is stupid. There is an irony to verbiage being used here, which is why I picked on it.

And if you want to know the source of how i know the word affectation, at least the thing that got it stuck in my head, it was a Father John Misty song. And, yes, i did just want to have a joke.

edit: bleh, misunderstood what you were saying. Basically, yeah, I agree with you. Use words carefully. My beef is with how OP used verbiage.

 

[Sumgi]

From the OP, "guidance" is a good alternative and I'm sort of mixed on the "try" vs "attempt" but everything else should not be used as a simple substitution without really understanding why you are doing so.

As a supervisor, I would be quite impressed if one of my agents, instead of just swapping words out, changed the response entirely.

"I will try/attempt to get this done today."
vs
"I understand my goal is to get this done today."

To me, it shows ownership and we all know goals aren't met 100%. So if it's not, we can set a new goal and reflect on what could have been done or can be done in the future to assure we meet goals.

I may be alone in that thought though...

 

[kmfdmpig]

Do you have the time to do this?
Do you have the bandwidth to accomplish this?

 

[Pau]

The words I find useful for resumes are those that are more concise than their alternatives. Like discuss versus talk about.

 

[gun_haver]

how about:

'Let's make sure the staff know this.'
vs
'Let's cascade this information.'

 

[WiiredShawn]

how about:

'Let's make sure the staff know this.'
vs
'Let's cascade this information.'

The latter certainly has a more poetic quality. Too bad it probably sounds bad coming from a supervisor.

 

[Walter White Walker]

how about:

'Let's make sure the staff know this.'
vs
'Let's cascade this information.'

I cannot sanction this buffoonery. How do people say stuff like that with a straight face?

 

[kmfdmpig]

how about:

'Let's make sure the staff know this.'
vs
'Let's cascade this information.'

Yes. That's a good example.
I've never been a fan of corporate speak, but this thread makes me realize how silly and unnecessary it is.

 

[evilromero]

Before you get too wordy, I'll say in a real professional/corporate environment, brevity and clarity trumps all.

Assume that clients, staff and supervisors sift through lots of emails on a regular basis. You need to make sure you get to the point and don't beat around the bush more than being concerned with word choice (though that can be related).

From experience with working with tons of projector managers, engineers, etc. they may only read a fraction of your email even if you put it in bullet point format with bolded/highlighted keywords.

 

[Kieli]

Verbiage sounds obnoxious. I'm also ambivalent to "attempt" and "leverage". Leverage sounds like another one of those useless marketing words.

 

[Brakke]

We need to better leverage our core competencies for more customer impact or else we'll never synergize our buuuuuuuuuullshit.

 

[WiiredShawn]

Verbiage sounds obnoxious. I'm also ambivalent to "attempt" and "leverage". Leverage sounds like another one of those useless marketing words.

Mr. Chris Redfield made an earnest attempt at gaining some leverage against the boulder. But in the end, a physical altercation proved necessary in order to ameliorate what was undoubtedly a heated situation.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

diction > verbiage

 

[John Kowalski]

I get this logic, and in most day-to-day life, it works fine, but I'm hesitant about applying this capitalistic metaphor to words. There's a strong "layman's bent" that ties strongly into these arguments - like those made by the Food Babe, that if "a third grader can't pronounce it, we shouldn't eat it." It privileges the lowest common denominator, and assumes that anything more sophisticated is deceptive. That's a slippery slope to anti-intellectualism, which is already prevalent in America.

That's not your argument, I understand. But I think a lot of this disdain for BS business buzzwords bleeds over into all forms of formal, esoteric and nuanced language, where people start to assume "larger vocabulary = trying to kill our children and take away our rights". Rather than tear down language to only what is "simple", we should be increasing the general public's literacy levels, so that people can see the value and utility of different kinds of words and speech patterns - and also see through bullshit when it happens.

Your comic is a great example - Calvin is using academic language haphazardly and thinks no one will notice because, the assumption goes, people don't actually read for content, but impression. Granted, many people do exactly that, but partly because they haven't developed greater literacy skills to separate the form of writing from its actual content. But a good academic isn't teaching other people how to speak and write academically so that they can be deceptive - they're doing it so that they can present content in a form that will resonate with other academics. Vocabulary is only part of literacy, which is an issue that people outside of jargon usually don't get. Hence their hostility toward the words themselves.

This is true. Though, and i must preface by admitting this to be a personal appreciation, the particular context specified in this thread puts on this expected diction a kind of value that's in conflict with, uh, the richness of a given text. I don't think folks go to business reunions with the expectation that the conversations had within will be more complex, nuanced, or richer of soul because of corporate speak, much the contrary, they go with the agreed perception that there is a collective fantasy at play and that that fantasy is built upon vain, egotistical words.

My personal stance is that while working i always use the most efficient words. Anything less is a detriment, and often it happens that i shortcut my way to quicker conversations. The only place i will make an effort to expand the experience of speech is when i'm dealing with costumers.

 

[Zombine]

When you are attracted to your coworker, use meeting instead of date:

"Wendy, would you like to go on a date?"
"Wendy, would you like to go on a meeting?"

 

[WiiredShawn]

This is true. Though, and i must preface by admitting this to be a personal appreciation, the particular context specified in this thread puts on this expected diction a kind of value that's in conflict with, uh, the richness of a given text. I don't think folks go to business reunions with the expectation that the conversations had within will be more complex, nuanced, or richer of soul because of corporate speak, much the contrary, they go with the agreed perception that there is a collective fantasy at play and that that fantasy is built upon vain, egotistical words.

My personal stance is that while working i always use the most efficient words. Anything less is a detriment, and often it happens that i shortcut my way to quicker conversations. The only place i will make an effort to expand the experience of speech is when i'm dealing with costumers.

I agree with you. It's just unfortunate that perfectly good words become the victims of egotistical fantasies and corporate-climbing wankery.

</English teacher tears>

 

[tokkun]

But a good academic isn't teaching other people how to speak and write academically so that they can be deceptive - they're doing it so that they can present content in a form that will resonate with other academics.

I would put it a different way: Academics know that it is a shitty way of writing, but there is little risk in conforming, and they are mainly concerned with not giving reviewers any additional reasons to reject their paper. Plus a dash of self-importance.

And the fact that papers consisting of randomly generated jargon continue to get accepted every year does give people some idea that they can obfuscate their way into print if they have weak content.

 

[Quick]

On a personal level, I keep it simple. I do try to use "alternative" words to common ones sometimes, but in the end, I get better feedback by keeping it simple and level with people. I try to get in the right amount of casual in just as much as keeping things professional.

 

[Funyarinpa]

The only thing I am good at is English, so I take pride in using complicated words and sentences while speaking/ writing in English IRL. It's an ego boost.

 

[WiiredShawn]

I would put it a different way: Academics know that it is a shitty way of writing, but there is little risk in conforming, and they are mainly concerned with not giving reviewers any additional reasons to reject their paper. Plus a dash of self-importance.

And the fact that papers consisting of randomly generated jargon continue to get accepted every year does give people some idea that they can obfuscate their way into print if they have weak content.

My question would be: How else should academics write? Undoubtedly, there is a history of elitism and privilege embedded in the standard academic style, but there is also an intent to have a style that is devoid of style, so to speak. A style that is largely technical, standardized and doesn't require writing "talent."

Obviously, there are journals that are bad at distinguishing content from form. But there are plenty of other journals that are very serious about content and expressing it accurately. There are also academics who are invested in their own self-importance and submit cobbled-together papers to bolster their vitae, but then there are plenty of others who do solid research and balance form against function. Thus, these issues strike me as human problems, rather than language problems.

 

[Darryl M R]

"IM me"
"Ping me"

 

[decaf]

I don't like "verbiage," it sounds overly eloquent for that sentence. I'd just use "change how this is phrased."

 

[Phu]

I take people less seriously when they take their word use too seriously.