Today, I’ve called this special weekend class to address a serious writing problem: pomposity.

The principle (not rule) is: write to express, not to impress. Your goal is to communicate as clearly as possible. If being artful helps, be artful. But never choose your words with the goal of impressing people with your sophistication, command of the language, or learnedness.

A related principle is, “Prefer the simple to the complex.”

Press briefings by policemen and military personnel always amuse me. They love the word “utilize,” as in, “We will utilize every resource available.” In every other context of their lives, it’s “use.” But put them in front of a microphone, and they apparently feel “utilize” better conveys their authority. I suspect that in the military, promotions have been denied and careers ended because something said “use” instead of “utilize.”

So, don’t write in your bulletin, “Our church utilizes the New International Version.”

Here are other examples–the complex word, followed by the word you should use most of the time.

modify – change
optimum – best
demonstrate – show
terminate – end
magnitude – size
approximately – about
commence – start
facilitate – help
close proximity – near

Can’t you just hear a police commissioner, in a press conference about some tragic event, using nearly all of those more complex words? As an editor, I continually make such changes (not modifications) to people’s writing. Prefer the simpler word, which is usually the one with fewer syllables.

Mark Twain, referring to freelance writing for which you are paid by the words, once wrote, “I never write ‘metropolis’ for seven cents, because I can get the same money for ‘city.’ I never write ‘policeman,’ because I can get the same price for ‘cop.'”

All of this also applies to speaking. To best communicate to your audience, write–and speak–in ordinary language. Don’t broadcast your insecurity by using big words to try to impress people.

That’s it, class. Now, go ye into the world and communicate as simply and clearly as possible. Unless you’re writing an academic paper, in which case it’s permissible, if not requisite, to be a pompous fool.

Today, class, I’d like to discuss exclamation points. You probably use way too many of them. As an editor, I’ve spent untold hours excising unjustified exclamation points.

Your words must be emphatic enough, by themselves, to merit an exclamation point. Don’t write a bland sentence and then, wanting to emphasize your point, stick an exclamation point on the end.

For example: “I’ll see you tomorrow morning!”

That sentence carries no inherent emphasis. Not like this sentence: “I can’t wait to see you tomorrow!”

And don’t think that, by adding multiple exclamation points, a dull sentence will be propelled into the realm of the emphatic. “Your order has shipped!!!!!!!!”

Another example: “I hope you come to our service this Sunday! We have some great things planned! Be sure to bring some friends!”

Three exclamations, none of them merited. This, sadly, is true of much hype-heavy advertising copy. On the other hand, it’s okay here: “The service this week is gonna be awesome! Honest!”

The fact is, when you choose your words well, the emphasis shows WITHOUT using an exclamation point. If the words are not emphatic, adding an exclamation point is just playing dress-up. It’s painting flames on the side of a Ford Focus.

Stop it!!!

Class dismissed.

An utterly fascinating and insightful article in the Pacific Standard about how people respond to political arguments. Clear ramifications for Facebook and probably theology.

People tend to interpret information in ways that confirm their existing beliefs, and when confronted with arguments to the contrary, they may dig in even deeper. Why? It’s all about self-image. If they accept information showing that one of their cherished views is wrong–information showing that global warming is man-caused, that abortion is wrong, that Obama’s birth certificate is valid, that affirmative action is detrimental, that torture is immoral, that gun crime is decreasing–then how many other things are they wrong about?

To preserve their sense of self-worth, people evaluate information to avoid having to admit that a view is wrong. Only very secure people can accept a view contrary to what they have previously espoused, without damaging their self-worth.

One study found that when people are presented with information which contradicts their ideology, those who most strongly identify with the ideology actually intensify their incorrect beliefs. For example, when shown that the Bush tax cuts didn’t increase government revenue, conservatives who held that view became more entrenched in believing that the tax cuts DID increase revenue. That’s one example.

I’m thinking about how this plays out on Facebook. When I present what I think is a killer argument about a certain political view, it just makes people who hold that view cling more stubbornly to that view. Unless they have a strong enough self-image to objectively evaluate the new information. Such people are refreshing to be around, yet sadly rare.

I’m guessing the same thing happens with people regarding theological views and other church-related views. You lay out clearly why the King James Version is outdated and inaccurate, and I’ll cling even more strongly to the KJV as the only valid version.

Then I must ask myself: So, Steve, how’s your sense of self-worth? Are you willing to change your views based on the weight of evidence or argument?

A sign in my less-than-orderly office says, “Creativity is not a pretty sight.” And now I feel validated in being a slob.

A new study published in Psychological Science shows that people are more creative sitting in a messy room. ““Disorderly environments seem to inspire breaking free of tradition, which can produce fresh insights. Orderly environments, in contrast, encourage convention and playing it safe.”

48 university students were asked to come up with 10 unconventional uses for ping-pong balls. Half were situated in a neatly-organized room, half in a messy room. The ideas were scored from “not at all creative” to “very creative.” The two groups came up with as many ideas, but the ideas from the messy-room students were more innovative.

Another study, though, shows that people in neat environments tend to be more thoughtful and more prone to make healthy choices and follow social norms. In other words: Boooring!

I’m wondering: what did Jesus’ carpenter shop look like? My instinct is to picture it as well organized, with every tool in its place and all sawdust swept up. But maybe Jesus didn’t care about neatness–a purely temporal thing. He’d rather spend his time on more important things. Just wondering.

I just caught up with Walter Kirn’s excellent article in the New Republic last January, “What Gun Owners Really Want.” Kirn is a gun owner, but the article takes a very common-sense approach, showing where both sides–the anti-gun people, and the pro-gun people–are sometimes silly and unreasonable. It’s well worth reading.

I was intrigued by one part where he talked about some of the appeal, at least to him, of shooting guns.

“They push back when they’re fired. That’s the elemental fact involved…. They kick at your will in the instant they also project it, reminding you that force is always two-sided. It’s a shock the first time, an insult to the senses, but once you’ve learned to expect it, absorb it, ride it, recoil becomes a source of pleasure. You’re up on your board turning turbulence to flow….

“When I shoot at the range, I don’t feel personally powerful, but like the custodian of something powerful. I feel like a successful disciplinarian of something radically alien and potent….It’s not the gun that the so-called ‘clingers’ cling to and don’t like the thought of anybody screwing with. It’s not even the power of the gun. It’s the power over the power of the gun.”

Obviously, that’s not the only appeal of shooting. But it can be one thing, to at least some people. It resonates a bit with me.

This same principal, I’m guessing, applies to the allure of driving powerful cars, of engaging in extreme sports, of bull-fighting, of white-water rafting, and many other things. It’s the raw thrill of prevailing over something risky, powerful, or dangerous.