I work with an assumption: Someone who understands concepts at higher levels can handle imperfect analogizing to lower levels.

Well, I dunno how fitting I am. I purposely keep my language simple in a manner that I could explain something to a middle school kid. I’m a bridge-person. I understand the heavy stuff but never speak its language. Even in IT, I never used the acronyms of the IT dept ’cause I was a bridge between IT and business. I knew enough of both worlds but not enough to immerse into either.

So, I’m an oddball who speaks strangely. I rarely speak of something without analogizing it to a common system. Some people in the past have found it strange or even become offended when I do that or consider me dumb and naive. I’m ok with that. But let me know if I’m dumbing down or should build up my lingo a bit. I *can*, I just choose not to most of the time.

I work with an assumption: Someone who understands concepts at higher levels can handle imperfect analogizing to lower levels. But sometimes my assumption is quite wrong. Anyway, let me know ’cause this style you see ^ is my general writing style and I’m ok with just observing.

==

Just to check myself:
“Readability Formula Grade
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 5.8
Gunning-Fog Score 8.7
Coleman-Liau Index 7.9
SMOG Index 6.4
Automated Readability Index 4.2
Average Grade Level 6.6″

There. A C student in the middle of 6th grade (11 yrs old) could read what I wrote.

A higher level 5th grader (10) could as well. I still got it tongue emoticon

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 × = fifteen

Leave a Reply