On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart.
But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.
Informal or conversational tone has always been the gold-standard for most communications. People just piss on it because they like to feel smart.
But, most writing has purpose. And usually fulfilling that purpose requires readers to comprehend what you're writing. Conversational tone is easy to comprehend, and shockingly less ambiguous than you'd think, especially when tailored to the target audience.
>Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.
Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?
> Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human
Except that this signal is now being abused. People add into the prompts requesting a few typos. And requesting an informal style.
There was a guy complaining about AI generated comments on substack, where the guy had noticed the pattern of spelling mistakes in the AI responses. It is common enough now.
But yes, typos do match the writer - you can still notice certain mistakes that a human might make that an AI wouldn't generate. Humans are good at catching certain errors but not others, so there is a large bias in the mistakes they miss. And keyboard typos are different from touch autoincorrection. AI generated typos have their own flavour.
>research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart.
Obviously no errors Vs no obvious errors, in a nutshell.
> On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart.
I often find that to be true. Another important factor is that research skill is correlated with writing skill. Someone who's at the top of their field is likely to be talented in other ways, too, and one such talented is making complex topics easier to understand.
> It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.
But... you know that this moment will be so fleeting as one can trivially generate mistakes to look human.
If this becomes the prevailing inclination amongst most readers, Janan Ganesh (one of my most favorite commentators anywhere) at the Financial Times will have a dim professional future.
A friend of mine (non-native English speaker) said she's been talking to a guy (also non-native) on a dating app. She said he was very articulate and showed me some screenshots.
One sentence he sent was "Family is paramount for you.". I told her "I bet you he's using ChatGPT"..
They are FILLED with jargon (that just as easily could be an ordinary English word instead) ... and giant paragraphs made up of ten sentences all combined into one with semi-colons ... and with all sorts of other butchering of the English language.
Scientific research papers follow their own grammar, which is specific to the research community ... and that grammar is atrocious!
Alternative hypothesis—-efficiency. Executives are very, very busy. As long as you can figure out what they mean, polish doesn’t add much. (Unless it does because it’s an earnings call, board meeting, etc.)
I’m quite convinced in most cases they are not spending time or energy consciously choosing to signal anything about status. They’re just not willing to pay the opportunity cost of keeping their attention on an internal communication any longer than the minimum required. They’re certainly capable of polished communication, but deploy that skill selectively when the return on investment is high.
It’s a classic rookie pitfall to over-index on form instead of content (guilty myself many times). It’s more instructive to pay attention to which questions and ideas powerful people focus on than the forms they use to deliver them (which are not as important, turns out).
The examples in the article are conspicuously unpolished. Autocorrect catches all of this stuff nowadays. Somebody had to make an effort to write that badly.
Signaling happens whether you choose to do it on purpose or bo not. The people who are best at it don't do intentionally.
The busy CEO is signaling status with this form of writing, they're so important and so many people demand their time that they have to skip on polish. That's the definition of status.
> I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here
I live in a wealthy town. It’s less sinister than explicit counter signaling. More that I’ll wear comfortable clothes until they wear out because I have better things to do with my time than shop, and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.
Not having to care is often part of the countersignaling. An honest signal doesn't always take effort. In fact it's the tryhard imitators that have to expend effort emulating this. The real deal is effortless and comes naturally.
The silverback gorilla can come across as scary and formidable even when its just lazing around not trying to look intimidating. It's just big, without spending thought cycles on having to appear big, but the others still recognize it.
"Signaling" is just the information that your visible choices send to those around you, including strangers. That's why it's called "signaling" -- your choices are broadcasting an information signal about you to others.
To not signal, you must make choices that carry little or no information in the context in which they exist. If you make choices in a context in which they are abnormal (e.g., dressing very casually in a context that others can't access in similar clothing), they inherently broadcast unique information about you. In some cases, that information can create a complex side effect in how people perceive you, even if you don't intend it (e.g., "this person put in the absolute bare minimum effort, because they knew we'd have to be nice to them no matter what, which feels disrespectful to me; their lack of optional effort for others signals that they only care about themselves, not us").
Agree, the parent comment leaves no room for nuance so people end up damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I do think thinking through the extremes and motivations and intentions of behavior is worth it. But confident conclusions less so.
When it comes to writing and fashion, definitely people over-correct to project a status, in both directions. But also there's just the aged realization that people will think what they will think, and you kinda just opt-out of the game.
This isnt perfect. Our household income is probably 500k/yr and growing in a city with an average income of ~100k+.
If I wear nice stuff to the park with the kids, I'm noticed. If I wear raggy gym clothes, I'm ignored.
My best guess is that comfortable clothes are necessary but you also need something high value in addition. New shoes or expensive outerwear that 'your wife bought'.
I used to dress down at work because that's how everyone else dressed and I just wanted to fit in. But at some point I stopped doing that because I was caring way too much about what other people were thinking.
I dress nice because I like it. It makes me feel good about myself, but has nothing to do with compensating.
Everybody is signalling, especially the people who think they aren't. We could sit here all day and game out all the possible interpretations that could be made from anyone's appearance, with respect to who they actually are, and it won't change much.
My take on it all: Programmers and other hot shot types often eschew formalities and conventions for dress and such, as a way of asserting status. "I'm professional and important enough to assert that my preferences supersede the ordinary" is what they want to signal. Of course, some are just childish enough to insist that dress codes don't matter in the slightest, and everyone must put up with their goofy graphic t-shirts. Others are willing to tolerate that stuff because most programmers are not customer-facing. But they still look like adult children when they insist on that crap.
The author does not actually know why people write with poor spelling/grammar nor truly how others would interpret them writing with with poor spelling/grammar.
They have a guess, but there are any number of alternate reasons why someone might write poorly. They could be technologically illiterate, fat fingered, easily frustrated, mirroring their children, need glasses, careless or any other number of reasons. The only way to find out is to ask.
Engaging in mind reading is fraught with danger. You're more likely to project your own own mood, stereotypes, behavior or beliefs on to others than actually guess what someone's thinking.
I think it's less mind-reading than looking for a sociological explanation.
That said, I think a big underlying cause is that Business Idiots [1] are, in fact, idiots. Even so, it's worth looking for a sociological explanation of why Being An Idiot doesn't hurt Business Idiots like it would hurt the rest of us.
- No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.
People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not.
They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.
I find this kind of funny, since you say your not signalling anything, and then in the second half of the sentence describe for us a very signal you claim you aren't sending:
> I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.
Whether you like it or not, whether you meant to or not, you are communicating something here. You don't get to opt out.
"No signaling" would be: "I dress like I always do since forever." Any reference to opinions of others would mean that the person cares for them, even in the form of "I don't care", and thus the dress is also a signal to them.
Using this logic, all of the homeless people are counter signaling then. And there are plenty of executives who wear suits. Also signaling has one l, so thus you are signaling your importance.
Or maybe you just can't assume you know what's going on inside someone else's head.
- Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways
- No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else
- Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here
In old-money settings all three of these things can be true simultaneously, dressing more formally than people outside, just like everyone else inside (in fact expected, to indicate familiarity with the standards of class, and often worn, ratty, old, and comfortable.
I told this story about the old man in his 70s walking through a plant, giving his multi-decades expertise in how to solve our foam problems.
Everyone else wore a polo... This guy genuinely didn't care. He was making $500/hr and didn't really want to be there. He was begged. He did some weird stuff with sticky notes on $100k molds... (and he didn't solve our problem).
I don’t think it’s counter-signaling- I think it’s just millenialism, even if it’s done by people in other generations just mimicking them. As a gen-X, I’d never send a bunch of crying emojis, and agree it’s unprofessional, but my millenial co-workers would do it.
It's not counter signalling. It's just the complete death of high culture. Hoodies aren't some statement about how you're too cool to care, it's just that no one cares to look good.
“Ratty old” and “formal” are not
the only options. I dress mostly in techwear brands like Veilance, Outlier, and ACRNM, which is not ratty and old but is also very much not formal or uncomfortable.
This is an accurate analysis, as in “I’m the boss here and while you have to abide by whatever social norms or internal policies, I don’t because I’m better than all of you”.
There was an episode of Orphan Black where they were going to impersonate a billionaire. The guy turns up in a suit and gets told, 'A billionaire, not a millionaire, go and put some shorts on'
In my line of work we have professionals and lay people in contact with each other often, and I have found I get the best reaction (from all audiences) when I square myself away. Untidy dress isn't immediately disqualifying, but if it's enough to be noticeable it's enough to deserve an explanation.
I’ve seen an fascinating paper (sorry, lost the url) that expanded on this using game theory: it’s common for “economic stratification” to have on the order of ten to fifteen levels, from abject poverty up to hundred-billionaires.
Look at it this way: there are five orders of magnitude between a “mere” ten-millionaire and the likes of Elon or Bezos!
To most people that’s the “same” level of rich, but each factor of ten is dramatically richer!
However, signals like “purposefully disheveled” and “well manicured” are essentially binary, so… they’re alternated. Each strata layer of factor of ten indicates this by flipping whatever the layer is doing below them. They won’t be confused with “two layers down” because that’s such a gulf that nobody will misunderstand.
I'm just glad ties are gone. I used to have it in my consulting contract that I would wear a tie for a maximum of x hours for the duration of the project, so choose them well. It used to be a point of negotiation, now nobody cares anymore.
What is sad is that these people from the start think of good grammar as an effort to "look professional" (which they can then discard), and not as an effort to be clear, an effort which fits into the basic respect one gives other people.
People are always impressed by how formal and informal tone and relative status is encoded in East Asian languages and how English doesn't have this and is supposedly egalitarian. Here's an example to show how it does exist also in English! Social relations are going to be expressed somehow. It's just how human culture works. The lower status person typically uses longer, more elaborate phrasing, while the higher status person blurts shorter ones. I wouldn't be surprised if equivalents exist in animals too.
That's what's taught in a lot of linguistics and language classes now: rules of spelling and grammar are power games designed to perpetuate one culture while repressing others, rather than tools for clarifying thought. It's fallout from the postmodern search for power dynamics in all things.
A friend recently brought up Orwell's essay on "Politics and the English Language" [0] and the Merriam Webster's Word Matters Podcast episode on it [1]. She had "read" without understanding the former and had listened with credulity to the latter. The podcast savages Orwell for not understanding "how language in general and English in particular actually works" and for his "absolutism" but especially for violating all of his precepts in his essay. Had either my friend or the podcasters bothered to read the essay carefully, they would have found that Orwell explains that he did so deliberately. When I asked my friend to summarize Orwell's essay and distill it to a single thesis, she replied that he was simply prescriptivist and wanted to tell people what to do. That's what the podcast got out of it too. For example, from the podcast:
> A big part of the conversations that we've all had with members of the public or strangers, people who correspond with a dictionary in one way or another, is some kind of membership of a club. "You care about language in the way that I do." There is absolutely a huge moral component that is imposed upon that. We always are judging others by their use of language. We are always judged by our use of language, by the way we spell, by the way we pronounce words. That's just a simple human fact. It's easier for us as professionals to separate that from culture.
The last sentence reminds me of a feedback loop: the "professionals" claim power based on the fact that they see the exercise of power in language rather than on how to use language for communicating clearly. This is how we get to a point where good grammar is a tool for "looking professional" rather than speaking and writing clearly.
I walked my friend back through the actual essay and asked her what Orwell wanted from each point, and she realized that it was, in fact, clarity, not power. Orwell wanted to challenge his readers to think about what they wanted to say before saying it, so that they could say what they meant rather than repeating what they heard commonly said (a note could be made here about large language models and probability).
The hardcore anti-prescriptivism among linguists does drive me a bit nuts as well.
Languages can and do alter because of peoples prescriptivist ideas. They're not just arbitrary rivers of sound changes that people cannot control. English is still full of Inkwell terms, for example. And in my own lifetime I have seen a lot of linguistic changes basically proscribed that everyone falls into line with (a less controversial/political one: no one in NZ called association football "football" at the turn of the century. We all called it "soccer". Then the sporting bodies and media changed what they called it and everyone around me changed it too. "football" used to unambiguously mean "rugby football").
It’s because the higher you are in the chain of corporate command, the less time you have to dedicate to each task. You end up with shorter answers to every note because you wouldn’t have time to reply to all notes and do the strategic things you need to do, otherwise.
As an individual contributor on a team, you may have to interface at most with 30 people on a weekly basis. As a second line leader you may have 150 people under your purview, and another 50 outsiders you have to talk to. You can’t scale the amount of time you have, so you scale the amount of time you spend on replies.
Using the example from the article: "K let circle back nxt week bout it . thnks"
I'm not buying your argument. The amount of additional time that it would have taken to write that same message with proper grammar and spelling is minuscule.
Shorter answers don't necessitate terrible grammar. Maybe it's because my mom was a teacher and I had good grammar drilled into me, but I feel like it shows respect for the people you're communicating with.
What I've seen is that leaders often communicate brusquely downward, but formally upward - and the higher the rank, the greater the magnitude (in each direction).
I think it's a consequence of having more and more people asking you things (on the downward side), while being responsible for decisions of more critical importance (on the upward side) as you go further up the chain of command.
Bad grammar is disrespect.
Underlings have to swallow that disrespect. It is just a power game.
The next level is simply to insult everyone, and everyone will still remain submissive.
And if you insult people, and get rewarded by submission, one reaction is to amp up the insults.
After all, you don't know the limits of your power until someone quits. So abuse people, exhibit outlandish public behavior, say racist or otherwise objectionable things...every person who remains on your payroll is a sign of how powerful you are.
This is not a common tactic, but it's a highly visible tactic, and it's not hard to find some notable examples out there right now.
This was a, tongue in cheek, distinction between the language used by the posh and by the aspiring-posh. It's seems analogous to the OP's sense of boss vs non-boss language and diction, which I believe exists.
Informality and bad grammar but otherwise sound decision making is fine, I think everyone's arguments for it here make sense.
But let's not pretend that, at least in the US, that's what it's limited to. Our current and immediate past president are both elderly men with potentially compromised mental states who regularly say crazy nonsense stuff.
I think this isn't quite what "privilege" means, at least these days. People talk about "white privilege" for example, meaning that people who are white can do XYZ or avoid ABC, unlike other people.
In the example the author writes about, the privilege is not "being a bag grammar person", it's being a high-ranking person. The bad grammar is the thing that those people are able to get away with.
IMO, he's confusing the disease with the symptom, so to speak.
Separately, I would say that high-ranking people can definitely get away with short emails, and to some extent brusque emails. Bad grammar is perhaps just the next domino to topple.
Readit News
- Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways
- No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else
- Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here
But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.
But, most writing has purpose. And usually fulfilling that purpose requires readers to comprehend what you're writing. Conversational tone is easy to comprehend, and shockingly less ambiguous than you'd think, especially when tailored to the target audience.
Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?
Except that this signal is now being abused. People add into the prompts requesting a few typos. And requesting an informal style.
There was a guy complaining about AI generated comments on substack, where the guy had noticed the pattern of spelling mistakes in the AI responses. It is common enough now.
But yes, typos do match the writer - you can still notice certain mistakes that a human might make that an AI wouldn't generate. Humans are good at catching certain errors but not others, so there is a large bias in the mistakes they miss. And keyboard typos are different from touch autoincorrection. AI generated typos have their own flavour.
Obviously no errors Vs no obvious errors, in a nutshell.
I often find that to be true. Another important factor is that research skill is correlated with writing skill. Someone who's at the top of their field is likely to be talented in other ways, too, and one such talented is making complex topics easier to understand.
But... you know that this moment will be so fleeting as one can trivially generate mistakes to look human.
One sentence he sent was "Family is paramount for you.". I told her "I bet you he's using ChatGPT"..
They are FILLED with jargon (that just as easily could be an ordinary English word instead) ... and giant paragraphs made up of ten sentences all combined into one with semi-colons ... and with all sorts of other butchering of the English language.
Scientific research papers follow their own grammar, which is specific to the research community ... and that grammar is atrocious!
That's because it's their PhDs that did the actual work...
I’m quite convinced in most cases they are not spending time or energy consciously choosing to signal anything about status. They’re just not willing to pay the opportunity cost of keeping their attention on an internal communication any longer than the minimum required. They’re certainly capable of polished communication, but deploy that skill selectively when the return on investment is high.
It’s a classic rookie pitfall to over-index on form instead of content (guilty myself many times). It’s more instructive to pay attention to which questions and ideas powerful people focus on than the forms they use to deliver them (which are not as important, turns out).
The busy CEO is signaling status with this form of writing, they're so important and so many people demand their time that they have to skip on polish. That's the definition of status.
I live in a wealthy town. It’s less sinister than explicit counter signaling. More that I’ll wear comfortable clothes until they wear out because I have better things to do with my time than shop, and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.
The silverback gorilla can come across as scary and formidable even when its just lazing around not trying to look intimidating. It's just big, without spending thought cycles on having to appear big, but the others still recognize it.
To not signal, you must make choices that carry little or no information in the context in which they exist. If you make choices in a context in which they are abnormal (e.g., dressing very casually in a context that others can't access in similar clothing), they inherently broadcast unique information about you. In some cases, that information can create a complex side effect in how people perceive you, even if you don't intend it (e.g., "this person put in the absolute bare minimum effort, because they knew we'd have to be nice to them no matter what, which feels disrespectful to me; their lack of optional effort for others signals that they only care about themselves, not us").
The privilege in that, contrasted with the lack of privilege for those in the inverse situation, is what's sinister.
I do think thinking through the extremes and motivations and intentions of behavior is worth it. But confident conclusions less so.
When it comes to writing and fashion, definitely people over-correct to project a status, in both directions. But also there's just the aged realization that people will think what they will think, and you kinda just opt-out of the game.
If I wear nice stuff to the park with the kids, I'm noticed. If I wear raggy gym clothes, I'm ignored.
My best guess is that comfortable clothes are necessary but you also need something high value in addition. New shoes or expensive outerwear that 'your wife bought'.
I dress nice because I like it. It makes me feel good about myself, but has nothing to do with compensating.
My take on it all: Programmers and other hot shot types often eschew formalities and conventions for dress and such, as a way of asserting status. "I'm professional and important enough to assert that my preferences supersede the ordinary" is what they want to signal. Of course, some are just childish enough to insist that dress codes don't matter in the slightest, and everyone must put up with their goofy graphic t-shirts. Others are willing to tolerate that stuff because most programmers are not customer-facing. But they still look like adult children when they insist on that crap.
The author does not actually know why people write with poor spelling/grammar nor truly how others would interpret them writing with with poor spelling/grammar.
They have a guess, but there are any number of alternate reasons why someone might write poorly. They could be technologically illiterate, fat fingered, easily frustrated, mirroring their children, need glasses, careless or any other number of reasons. The only way to find out is to ask.
Engaging in mind reading is fraught with danger. You're more likely to project your own own mood, stereotypes, behavior or beliefs on to others than actually guess what someone's thinking.
That said, I think a big underlying cause is that Business Idiots [1] are, in fact, idiots. Even so, it's worth looking for a sociological explanation of why Being An Idiot doesn't hurt Business Idiots like it would hurt the rest of us.
[1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
- No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.
People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not.
They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.
> I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.
Whether you like it or not, whether you meant to or not, you are communicating something here. You don't get to opt out.
Or maybe you just can't assume you know what's going on inside someone else's head.
congratulations, so far it's the biggest globe I saw a poor owl stretched onto :)
And yes, those plenty of executives are precisely in the "no signaling" category.
Mere executives don't get to countersignal with their clothing in such a visible way. Majority owners do.
- No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else
- Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here
In old-money settings all three of these things can be true simultaneously, dressing more formally than people outside, just like everyone else inside (in fact expected, to indicate familiarity with the standards of class, and often worn, ratty, old, and comfortable.
Everyone else wore a polo... This guy genuinely didn't care. He was making $500/hr and didn't really want to be there. He was begged. He did some weird stuff with sticky notes on $100k molds... (and he didn't solve our problem).
But you knew this guy was an expert.
The article include a picture.
They all dressed like complete slobs. I couldn't understand why they cared about the dress code.
Good riddance.
Did you mean to add where your expensive polyester blend clothing lands on the spectrum they were illustrating?
Look at it this way: there are five orders of magnitude between a “mere” ten-millionaire and the likes of Elon or Bezos!
To most people that’s the “same” level of rich, but each factor of ten is dramatically richer!
However, signals like “purposefully disheveled” and “well manicured” are essentially binary, so… they’re alternated. Each strata layer of factor of ten indicates this by flipping whatever the layer is doing below them. They won’t be confused with “two layers down” because that’s such a gulf that nobody will misunderstand.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
A friend recently brought up Orwell's essay on "Politics and the English Language" [0] and the Merriam Webster's Word Matters Podcast episode on it [1]. She had "read" without understanding the former and had listened with credulity to the latter. The podcast savages Orwell for not understanding "how language in general and English in particular actually works" and for his "absolutism" but especially for violating all of his precepts in his essay. Had either my friend or the podcasters bothered to read the essay carefully, they would have found that Orwell explains that he did so deliberately. When I asked my friend to summarize Orwell's essay and distill it to a single thesis, she replied that he was simply prescriptivist and wanted to tell people what to do. That's what the podcast got out of it too. For example, from the podcast:
> A big part of the conversations that we've all had with members of the public or strangers, people who correspond with a dictionary in one way or another, is some kind of membership of a club. "You care about language in the way that I do." There is absolutely a huge moral component that is imposed upon that. We always are judging others by their use of language. We are always judged by our use of language, by the way we spell, by the way we pronounce words. That's just a simple human fact. It's easier for us as professionals to separate that from culture.
The last sentence reminds me of a feedback loop: the "professionals" claim power based on the fact that they see the exercise of power in language rather than on how to use language for communicating clearly. This is how we get to a point where good grammar is a tool for "looking professional" rather than speaking and writing clearly.
I walked my friend back through the actual essay and asked her what Orwell wanted from each point, and she realized that it was, in fact, clarity, not power. Orwell wanted to challenge his readers to think about what they wanted to say before saying it, so that they could say what they meant rather than repeating what they heard commonly said (a note could be made here about large language models and probability).
[0] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-matters-podcast/episode...
Languages can and do alter because of peoples prescriptivist ideas. They're not just arbitrary rivers of sound changes that people cannot control. English is still full of Inkwell terms, for example. And in my own lifetime I have seen a lot of linguistic changes basically proscribed that everyone falls into line with (a less controversial/political one: no one in NZ called association football "football" at the turn of the century. We all called it "soccer". Then the sporting bodies and media changed what they called it and everyone around me changed it too. "football" used to unambiguously mean "rugby football").
0. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-ma... 1. https://www.newsweek.com/ceo-dark-personality-success-machia...
As an individual contributor on a team, you may have to interface at most with 30 people on a weekly basis. As a second line leader you may have 150 people under your purview, and another 50 outsiders you have to talk to. You can’t scale the amount of time you have, so you scale the amount of time you spend on replies.
I'm not buying your argument. The amount of additional time that it would have taken to write that same message with proper grammar and spelling is minuscule.
That is exactly why executive grammar is so bad.
Deleted Comment
I think it's a consequence of having more and more people asking you things (on the downward side), while being responsible for decisions of more critical importance (on the upward side) as you go further up the chain of command.
After all, you don't know the limits of your power until someone quits. So abuse people, exhibit outlandish public behavior, say racist or otherwise objectionable things...every person who remains on your payroll is a sign of how powerful you are.
This is not a common tactic, but it's a highly visible tactic, and it's not hard to find some notable examples out there right now.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English
This was a, tongue in cheek, distinction between the language used by the posh and by the aspiring-posh. It's seems analogous to the OP's sense of boss vs non-boss language and diction, which I believe exists.
But let's not pretend that, at least in the US, that's what it's limited to. Our current and immediate past president are both elderly men with potentially compromised mental states who regularly say crazy nonsense stuff.
Try watching this (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=455169079910588) or this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZsdlULgqvA) and then watch the literal crowds of people who are saying "you just don't understand! You're not parsing it right! You're not paying enough attention to their genius!"
It's wild that we make excuses like this for people. One has to ask where the line is.
This almost certainly happens in business, too - it's just not as obvious because those folks don't have to constantly do it in public.
In the example the author writes about, the privilege is not "being a bag grammar person", it's being a high-ranking person. The bad grammar is the thing that those people are able to get away with.
IMO, he's confusing the disease with the symptom, so to speak.
Separately, I would say that high-ranking people can definitely get away with short emails, and to some extent brusque emails. Bad grammar is perhaps just the next domino to topple.