Flowery vocabulary not so useful

By Preet Anand

What's the difference between vernacular and language? To the common word user, there is no difference, except one is meant to sound impressive. Speaking with a complicated vocabulary is like getting a manicure as a guy -- only a few people can pull it off.

There are those who are insecure about their ability to influence and communicate, so they use words like esoteric, juxtapose and muff while describing simple ideas like a trash can. Probably not muff, actually, but it sounds nice. These people might as well be teenagers using Viagra, because it's overkill.

In my opinion, the only people who can truly impress while utilizing an advanced vocabulary are those whose personalities make you expect that. They impress upon you a quiet confidence. Often, one is already impressed before such people speak, and the delivery is the icing on the cake. Personality and confidence serve as foreplay to the speech.

I believe words are tools.

Remember, the best speakers make simple words carry big meaning, rather than using big words that carry simple meaning.

Worse than people who use complex-sounding words are people who sound like business letters. They will say things like, "In order to begin the initiating process of starting how to plan the design of ..."

They invented the never-ending story. Most often, these are people of the bureaucracy or "staff" that have loosely defined "nodding" jobs. They just sign off on pre-determined decisions or monitor someone else. To them, the word "yes" becomes a long paragraph of cushion words that have been picked randomly off of dictionary.com and have no meaning.

To clarify, I do not think that people who are assistants or secretaries do "nodding" jobs because their work has obviously tangible results and they are quite succinct and efficient.

An example of business people "fluffing" with words can be seen with things like vision statements and mission statements. Here is an example:

"A Real Smoothie Company Not Operated By Bon Appetit Management Inc. begs to fulfill the market-oriented goal of offering liquid consumables designed to create a massively diverse arrangement of options to provide sustained enjoyment of a customer's tasting experience."

For anyone who says that the mission statement is the hardest part, all of the above could have been stated as follows: "A Real Smoothie Company Not Operated By Bon Appetit Management Inc. wants to actually make good smoothies."

It is known that small companies succeed mainly because they don't have many communication barriers and can be flexible enough to chase opportunities. The only difference between these small companies and corporate America is that they don't have "nodders."

Maybe corporate America is doing the greatest community service by employing these company-slowing, over-communicating and infuriating "nodders." Otherwise, unemployment might be a good amount higher.

As Santa Clara and other universities continue to adapt new curricula in response to developing trends, they must remember not to create more "nodders." This world needs leaders, not people that are only "proficient with Microsoft Office."

One day, Microsoft will be beat by the next big thing (which right now looks like Google, but that will change by the time we are 40), and they will be left middle-aged, confused and resentful toward their alma mater.

Teaching people not to think, but to let something else do the thinking for them -- like a computer, for example -- is a crime, because you haven't made them independent, but inherently dependent. Some "nodders" are like this because they were born that way, but more are made because someone affirmed that their wordiness was all right.

Preet Anand is a sophomore bioengineering major.