The false belief that using complicated words conveys intelligence

“Leveraging cross-functional synergies” usually means two teams should talk. The extra syllables are security staff posted around a very ordinary thought.

Writers use complexity to display the effort they spent, then invoice the reader for decoding it. Product copy “facilitates optimised workflows” because naming the actual task might expose how little changes. Policy emails grow forests of abstract nouns until nobody knows what to do, which is marvellous protection against being proved wrong. Technical terms deserve a defence: sometimes one specialist word carries a distinction that ten friendly words would blur. Keep it. Explain it when the audience needs help. The enemy is decorative difficulty—the language chosen because clarity feels insufficiently senior. Replace it with a familiar word only when meaning survives. Then ask what concrete action, object or decision each abstraction has concealed. If the sentence cannot answer, the vocabulary is performing smoke generation.

Clear writing is commercially brave because people can inspect the claim. They can disagree, test it and notice when nothing was said. Obscurity makes weak thinking look deep—then somebody asks for an example and the magnificent intellectual soufflé hits the plate like porridge.

Intelligence that cannot survive plain English may be intelligence in the witness-protection programme. Stop bloody hiding it.

Behavioural principles

Behavioural ideas at play in this post

Short, plain-English explanations of the principles behind this post, with links to related books and examples in the archive.