So on the way home from work today, I heard this story on NPR. It’s part of a series where people talk about three books on a particular subject. The subject was “impostors.” So you got told what the book was and that it was about an imposter.
That’s when the contributor started saying some nonsense:
The [figure of the] imposter shows that, especially in America, identity is up for grabs.
That sentence means nothing. It’s not true. It’s not really even analyzable as true. Sure, we can go like “Identity is up for grabs: yes/no?” But everything in that sentence is so vague, you can hardly get started. You’d have to go “What exactly do you mean by identity; what exactly do you mean by up for grabs; and how could someone’s being located on a particular plot of land (i.e., in America) have anything to do with what you just said?”
And that’s tiresome. So people don’t do it. You nod your head: “Mmhmm. Interesting. Tell us more. You are speaking with a high level of abstraction; so obviously you must (a) be intelligent and (b) have something intelligent to say.”
No. People write like this when they don’t know what they’re talking about. This is the case here.
Takeaway 1: Don’t do this.
Takeaway 2: Know what you’re talking about.
Takeaway 3: Write something intelligible.
Takeaway 4: Be smart. Don’t try to make yourself seem smart.