I Don't Mind Being Talked To Like A Child

| | Comments (0)
In Style, Williams writes, "Some argue that the harder we have to work to understand what we read, the more deeply we think and the better we understand.  Everyone should be happy to know that no evidence supports such a foolish claim" (140).

Williams continues by stating the second claim, which says, "Some argue that "clarity" is a device wielded by those in power to mislead us about who really controls our lives.  By speaking and writing in deceptively simple ways, they say, those control the facts dumb them down, rendering us unable to understand the truth about our political and social circumstances" (140)

Wouldn't it be best to have both?  I am never one to choose sides on most situations because I like to explore what could be beneficial on all accounts.  This is one of those situations when I think it would be beneficial to read two different summaries on the same scenerio.  For instance, Williams talks about advanced language keeping us more knowledgeable, but how does that happen when I have no idea what the text says?  It actually makes me feel very stupid, and the latter of these 2 claims, makes me feel smarter.  I don't care if its called "dumbing it down," if it makes things clearer for me then great!  The point is, I would rather read something that states politics simply (since I don't like them in the first place) and then I would be okay to reading the one that is harder to understand, because chances are I'm going to understand it better anyway from reading the more simple version.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.