On jargon

So random rant that doesn't have much thought behind it. Is jargon just an excuse to make people feel smarter then other people? I suppose that we create jargon so that people "in the know" know exactly what we are talking about quicker by having a simple term or phrase to describe something rather then describing it each time but I've been thinking of late that a lot of time that just perpetuates several problems. One it increases the need to train newcomers greatly by not only having to explain a process but then explain terms for that process. Then you have to make sure the newcomer correctly associates the right term with the right process. Furthermore whoever is teaching the terms (and presumably there will be many people over a vast distance) must have the same definition or otherwise the term begins to have different meanings causing problems with communications as people mistake common terms' meanings. Now this problem alone can be allievated by having some sort of universal agreement on the meaning of a term. Particularily in areas where the jargon is already set in stone and only rarely are new terms added. I'd hazard philosphy as an example although I am fairly sure new ideas/terms arise on a regular basis, perhaps the fact I cannot think of the example points to impossibility of this idea? Whether its feasible for less "dynamic" areas of life/study some things simply change too quickly to allow for set-in-stone definitions. Take the IT world for instance. Have someone define client/server. Have someone else. I'll bet you get several different definitions albeit they may be fairly similiar. Anything pop culture related would be similiar as jargon changes probably on an almost daily basis if you looked at things as a whole. So basically my point is here that terms are by no means universal and there is no way to keep it that way. Essentially jargon defeats common communication.

My second point in this gigantic run-on sentence filled ramble is that jargon also is a cop out in communicating between people who are in the know and not. If a layperson is discussing/debating an issue it is all too easy for anyone possessing jargon to use it to confuse the debate. In essence instead of tackling the problem they avoid it by forcing one side to concede they haven't a clue and then claim victory. Jargon makes discussion all big words and less common ground and understanding. Furthermore I'd say the onus lays on the person who possesses jargon to spell things out without using the jargon if they want it to be a valid arguement. If you want to prove that you are smarter then saying I know more in Area A then you does not prove anything. Explaining what you know in Area A so that someone else understands it as well as you and allowing them to challenge your ideas on equal footing (and in lay terms) shows not only great intellect and patience but enough confidence that your ideas can stand up on their own and not behind any shields.

Right, that was probably terribly redundant and otherwise non-sensical. Oh well :D