Tecnicismi  |
| Fig.1 - foto con cose tecniche |
|
La principale categoria di individui da evitare nella maniera più assoluta sono "gli incomprensibili": quelli che parlano senza farsi capire.
Non mi riferisco a persone (scienziati, ingegneri, sindacalisti, etc.) che nel loro ambiente usano necessari termini tecnici e che quindi risultano incomprensibili ai più, quanto rather to those (CEOs, teachers, trade unionists, etc..) wishing to / should give appropriate explanations about their work or what they mean / want them but they do through words or reasoning unnecessarily complicated.
stated, I speak of "do understand" and not "teach." To teach the technical terminology (if introduced properly) is absolutely necessary. To make it clear, however, just a lot less.
If a driving instructor can make people understand the functioning of the "change-differential" to a seventeen year old emo, it is logical to assume that everything that is real can be explained in terms understandable to anyone.
"You do not really understand something
until you are able to explain to your grandmother."
- Albert Einstein
Obviously, no one will ever earn a degree in physics after reading two Paul Davies books
and emo will never design a differential but this is where the fun between understanding and learning.
No one wants a degree in economics before signing a mortgage, but everyone should have the right to understand how the mortgage that they are signing the employment contract they are signing or the surgery that you are submitting.
Why, then, do not trust the incomprehensible? Is explained by Einstein
ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO EXPLAIN
SOMETHING THAT DID NOT UNDERSTAND
and a person who does not understand something should not be in a position of having to explain it to someone ' more.
"Science, it works, bitches!"
- xkcd
There is also an aggravating factor. Some categories of incomprehensible not understand what they need to explain why talk about a topic
Unreal
like religion, horoscopes, homeopathy or the Centuries of Nostradamus.
All content, as emeritus shit, are incomprehensible to the definition because they have nothing to do with the reality of this universe and should make us immediately cast doubt on the sanity of those who insist on treating them like science and philosophy.
why certain things in the right word is "believe" and not "understand".
You should also have an idea why there are science books that can help you understand how electromagnetism works or what an antiproton, but no theological popular book can provide a shred of explanation about why God should exist.
But if the latter category of charlatans is partially justified because sometimes give vent to his mouth in good faith dictated their ignorance (or dementia), it is not that of
SHOPS
crap that is, those that despite being aware of being in the wrong (producers of the bracelet, "Power Balance", Vittorio Sgarbi, trade unionists, etc..) seek to earn the right to force disorienting the audience with words deliberately garbled or non-capibili immediately.
are people who thrive in environments of deception and financial advice but it fits just as well in politics and in corporate hierarchies.
They range from the most innocuous subjects that put foreign words in their speeches instead of fees in the local language because, they say, "better express the meaning", or experts who can even invent words to almost credible on the fly in their intellectual sbirigude worthy of the best
Kaiser Soze.
you understand where I wanted to get there? No. ..?
I'll explain: Last night I reflected on the fact that I would very much like Luttazzi furnish a valid reason on the reasons which led to "scale" jokes of others. But I want it to do so without using terms such as' allomorphs topological "," arch-isotopy " and "allotopico" (if only because "allomorphs" and "allotopico not exist on my dictionary Garzanti).
If Davies can explain quantum physics without hiding behind a technical dictionary, explaining the basic principles of comedy to my grandmother should be a nonsense to nothing.
