> is the implication here that some disciplines overtly try to stifle understanding by making things harder to grasp?
That's how I read it. IME with social science academics, it's accurate.
> Why would they do that?
To create a mystique of knowledge or superiority; to obfuscate controversial points; to prevent mainstream scrutiny; to exclude outsiders from giving criticism.
There are times where a Big Word is more precise than a smaller, common one, and the Big Word is preferred to writing 20 small words.
Then there are times where a Big Word is not more precise than a smaller, common one, and may even be less precise -- but it's chosen because it limits who can comprehend the work.
Listen, beyond any of the culture war you find yourself enlisted within, the sooner you can, as simply a human being, separate out "I do not understand this" from "I do not understand this, there must be something wrong with it," the sooner you will gain deeper understandings of things, make better connections, and honestly just be a happier individual. Like, it's fine, I guess, if you want to spend your life fighting huge swaths of intellectual history and human advancement, but you can't just be like overtly anti-intellectual about it! It's just not good for you, you will be sustained in fear and anger forever.
That's how I read it. IME with social science academics, it's accurate.
> Why would they do that?
To create a mystique of knowledge or superiority; to obfuscate controversial points; to prevent mainstream scrutiny; to exclude outsiders from giving criticism.
There are times where a Big Word is more precise than a smaller, common one, and the Big Word is preferred to writing 20 small words.
Then there are times where a Big Word is not more precise than a smaller, common one, and may even be less precise -- but it's chosen because it limits who can comprehend the work.