masterspace

I agree with everything you're saying, but even speaking specialist to specialist, or say to a group of specialist colleagues who might not be working on exactly what you're working on, you still often simplify away the technical parts that aren't relevant to the specific conversation you're having, and use specific language on the parts that are, because that inherently helps the listener to focus on the technical aspects you want them to focus on.

If you're communicating with another scientist about the actual work you're doing then sure there are times when you need to be specific.

If you're publishing official documentation on something or writing contracts, then yes, you also need to be extremely speciific.

But if you're just providing a description of your work to a non-specialist then no, there's always a way of simplifying it for the appropriate context. Same thing goes for most of specialist to specialist communication. There are specific sentences and times you use the precision to distinguish between two different things, but if you insist on always speaking in maximum precision and accuracy then it is simply poor communication skills where you are over providing unnecessary detail that detracts from the actual point you're trying to convey.

Their literal entire first paragraph is about scientists doing it.

No, I'm talking about engineers and scientists communicating with project managers, designers, lawyers, business people, and the many many other people who work in the same industry but do not have technical backgrounds.

It is for a white collar job where most people have degrees.

Eh I don't really agree, depending on how simple you're talking. Bags within bags, or dumbing things down to a grade school level, then sure, there are topics that can't be described succinctly.

But if you're talking about simplifying things down to the point that anyone who took a bit of undergrad math/science can understand, then pretty much everything can be described in simple and easy to understand ways.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen many people at the top who can't, but in every case, it's not because of the topics' inherent complexity, but either because they don't actually understand the topics as well as they may seem, or because they lack the social skills (or time / effort / setting) to properly analogize and adjust for the listener.

You're literally just describing this meme.

When you don't know shit you think it should be simpler, when you slightly understand it then you end up using technical terms because you know those terms apply and aren't confident enough to replace them, and then once you know enough you get confident just describing everything as bags within bags.

Like go through IVF so that their children don't have to.

The fact it is so prevalent in the gene pool suggests there may be some benefit we are unaware of. Further study is needed.

No it doesn't. That's not how evolution works. It is not perfect, it does not march towards good, it rolls random die and sees if that leads to having kids or not. If you get old enough to have kids and have them procreate it very much stops caring.

Edit: and it doesn't 'cause', it puts you 'at risk for'.

And I said that the mutation causes massive increases in the rate of breast cancer. Which it does. Read more carefully if you're going to try to be pedantic.

That is what the gene does, the mutation does the opposite and causes massively increased rates of breast and ovarian cancer.

Yes, congratulations. Can you name a benefit of having the BRCA mutation?

If you had it, and you gave it to your daughter, how would you tell them that they have cancer because you thought the idea of using IVF to select against it was icky?

It's already starting to happen and it's not this crazy mass casualty event you make it out to be.

People regularly do IVF and screen out embryos that have inherited horrific genetic diseases, or say, genes that they know make out highly susceptible to cancer.

It doesn't mean it will inherently lead to a slippery slope. This article is literally about how the UK needs to update its laws to prevent people from getting IVF done there but getting the genetic analysis done elsewhere and then ranking their options based on that to avoid the UKs current laws that would prevent a UK clinic from ranking them like that.