Aug 2009

Terms I hate

Can we all agree that "quantum electrodynamics" and the "physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium" are pretty complicated, somewhat technical topics?

So there's value in being able to talk about such things in a way that mere mortals can understand, even those who have only a passing knowledge of quantum electrodynamics or liquid helium.

That's why Caltech professor Richard Feynman was such a great story. Feynman was a physicist who did a lot of work in quantum electrodynamics, superfluidity and particle physics. He won the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics and worked on the Manhattan Project with J. Robert Oppenheimer to develop the atomic bomb. He also pioneered the field of quantum computing and the concept of nanotechnology.

Smart guy. And he had a guiding principle: "if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture it was not yet fully understood." A few months back a friend told me Feynman used to say that truly smart people can break down complicated concepts into something more digestible. My friend said he'd heard that even fellow Caltech professors would sometimes sit in on Feynman's lectures because he was so good at doing just that.

Which brings me to two terms common in the tech industry that I despise: "dumbing it down" and "high level."

"Dumbing it down" usually means you don't want to do the work to make it simple and accessible for all of your audience. Like, say, using terms like "quantum electrodynamics" without offering a clarification; a "what that means is" or an example. This term is one of arrogance and condescension to an audience that simply isn't as smart as the speaker or writer (like, maybe, Feynman's audiences).

The fix is simple: start with a clear, simple core message so you reach everyone in the audience. Then, and only then, you can dive into complexity.

"High level" too often means abstract, esoteric and indecipherable. Like, say, expecting an audience to get the "physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium" without a clear translation or good example. "High level" typically means the speaker or writer is communicating using industry-insider language that's extraordinarily difficult for mere mortals like the rest of us to understand.

The fix is simple: illustrate the high level concept with stories and clear, concrete language that describes why your audience will care.

Frankly, most senior executives represent what could be called, "anti-Feynmans." They tend to say things like, "Oh, I don't want to dumb it down" or "I want to keep it high level" because it's easier to use abstractions and jargon than it is to really, truly communicate and deliver a core message with conviction and credibility.

Around 10 years ago I sat through an entire presentation on an arcane software protocol called "OFX." Befuddled. I had no clue what the acronym meant or what the protocol actually did - which was a big problem because I was charged with explaining it to the company's customers. After the meeting I asked an experienced colleague what OFX stood for. She paused, sighed and then said,"I have no idea. But they use it all the time." (I subsequently found out it stood for "Open Financial eXchange." Which makes as much sense today as it did 10 years ago).

So consider this a plea for clarity and "low level" communications. Be specific, be clear, and please, please, please make sure that you're speaking to everyone. If it's possible to explain quantum electrodynamics and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium in terms a college freshman could understand, there's hope for all of us.

Not for nothing was Feynman called the "Great Explainer."