In 2026, we need to make clarity our greatest capability so that we stop drowning in the noise. Writing is one of the most effective strategies to turning ambiguity into clear thinking.
Let me start by saying that English is my second language, so I don't assume I write as well as most native speakers. Still, that "constraint" has shaped how I think about clarity: when you can't rely on a vast stock of idioms, vocabulary, and stylistic flourishes, you're forced to choose words that carry real meaning and are generally understood by most people.
I agree with Orwell's point you cite: "insincerity can be an enemy of clear language," but I think many failures of clarity come from motives and constraints that are more ordinary than dishonesty. Too often, people forget who they're writing for and instead write for themselves, even though the audience usually includes readers with very different backgrounds and skill levels. From what I've seen, there are at least six recurring reasons:
1. Guild membership: as you said, complexity signals you belong to a profession or discipline.
2. Status signaling: people write to demonstrate they're "highly educated" or credentialed by elite institutions.
3. Vocabulary limits (including ESL): sometimes writers lack the vocabulary (or confidence) to say something precisely in simple terms, so they retreat into abstraction or borrowed phrasing.
4. Poor training: many were never taught how to write for a reader, or how to revise until the idea becomes clear.
5. Writing mirrors thinking: some people genuinely think in tangled layers; their prose reflects that.
6. Complexity-as-intelligence: Many assume hard-to-read means smart, when mastery usually produces simpler sentences, not foggier ones.
My biggest question is what happens as we outsource more and more writing to AI. Will it affect our ability to think?
I believe it will, because writing isn't just a way to express thought, but it's one of the best ways to form it. Writing forces you to test your claims, notice gaps, define terms, and confront what you actually mean. It turns "first thoughts" into "best thoughts." If we hand that process to machines, we may save time, but we risk losing the discipline that produces clarity in the first place.
Thank you MG, as you said, writing isn't just a way to express thought; it is the process of forming it. When we skip the 'ugly' first draft, we skip the part where we actually confront what we believe. I wholeheartedly agree, with your concern about AI. If we hand the machine the 'test' of our claims, we lose the 'best thoughts' that only arrive through the friction of writing.
Your breakdown of why we fail to be clear is excellent. Reason 2 (status signaling) and 6 (complexity-as-intelligence) are the twin engines of academic and corporate fog, we need to be aware of and try our best to avoid.
I also appreciate your point about English as a second language, thank you for such transparency. I know the challenge in my country of residence, alongside my on going struggles of daily learning french, it is a good challenge to have though, I believe it sharpens our mental muscle.
"Clarity demands that we resist prefabrication. And here is the paradox, and it troubles me. Life rewards opacity". More than that. To resist prefabrication is a near impossibility. I'm reminded of the cliche "there's nothing new under the sun". I have found that I'm incapable of speaking or writing anything original. There's always a previous source that I read, even just a phrase or snippet.
I found this to be the case with art and music as well. Whether it's color theory around the color wheel or the cycle of fifths, the raw material has already existed for centuries, and there are only so many ways to combine them. Seemingly all of which have been done already.
This is equally true with programming. Need a function? It's already been written. A class? It's there. A group of classes that work in conjunction to accomplish a task? Design patterns. All there, ready to copy and paste.
.
"The more technical the vocabulary, the more it signals membership in a guild. I have watched business people learn to translate simple insights into polysyllabic dialect". Marketing lingo is the worst offender of all. "We operate in the FinTech space..." makes me want to heave and triggers an urge to blurt out ribbons of choice expletives.
.
'“Weapons of mass destruction” became a talismanic phrase, repeated until it acquired the solidity of fact. The phrase was clear. The evidence behind it was not.' I'll never forget the embarrassment that I felt when then Secretary of State Colin Powell displayed that satellite snapshot to the U.N. It looked to me like a grainy matchbox cesspool truck, being promoted as a mobile weapons lab. If I were in his shoes, I would have resigned before showing that picture.
.
"Clarity is so rare. It removes the safety net. Without the fog of ‘it's complicated,’ all that's left is your idea, naked and ready to be judged for what it actually is." I can see how that can be terrifying.
Your reaction to 'FinTech space' is the perfect example of what I mean. That kind of 'lingo' is a 'guild' signal, it says 'I belong here' while saying absolutely nothing about the work itself.
The Colin Powell example is heartbreaking for exactly that reason. When the 'grainy snapshot' is all you have, you use 'talismanic phrases' to bridge the gap. That is the ultimate proof that the clearer the sentence, the more the evidence has to be able to catch up to it. If the image is a matchbox truck, no amount of polysyllabic dialect can turn it into a weapons lab.
In programming, using a design pattern is efficient. In writing, using a cliché is an escape. The 'near impossibility' of resisting prefabrication is exactly what makes the effort so vital. It’s not about finding a new color, but about refusing to paint by numbers.... if that makes sense...
Wow, thank you for writing this. I used to hide behind the “it’s complicated” stance, unwilling to offer my own opinion, mostly out of fear that I might be wrong. But clarity, as you beautifully puts it, is a DISCIPLINE of courage and integrity. It reminds me of intellectual humility: recognizing that one’s argument may not always be right, yet still having the courage and integrity to contribute to the pursuit of truth. I will remember this as I continue to read, write, and speak. Thank you.
As a school educator, driven by curriculum demands, most of the instruction is focused on keeping student in a pure theory space - or describing theory clearly.
There is scarce little time to work which students on claim, evidence theory and argument construction. When I watch students begin to connect mind and world, I see a whole hoax of decision which need splitting up, discussing and formalising before they will commit on paper.
Hopefully (not hugely confident on this one) curriculum reform will move in a direction where students are being prepared for tertiary education, profession of vocation! Fingers crossed it means students will enter into the next phase of their education with a sense of how one might construct language in a particular setting.
"When I succeed in writing clearly, I feel lighter. The argument stands outside me. It can be tested, attacked, improved. I am no longer hiding in it." Wow, that is exactly how I feel, Colin. After blogging weekly for nearly 19 years, I instinctively know when I am using ambiguous language to obscure my lack of knowledge or hesitation in taking a position. Thank you for such clarity and wisdom.
Such straightforward depth and integrity of analysis.
Thank you Cathie
In 2026, we need to make clarity our greatest capability so that we stop drowning in the noise. Writing is one of the most effective strategies to turning ambiguity into clear thinking.
Interesting post!
Let me start by saying that English is my second language, so I don't assume I write as well as most native speakers. Still, that "constraint" has shaped how I think about clarity: when you can't rely on a vast stock of idioms, vocabulary, and stylistic flourishes, you're forced to choose words that carry real meaning and are generally understood by most people.
I agree with Orwell's point you cite: "insincerity can be an enemy of clear language," but I think many failures of clarity come from motives and constraints that are more ordinary than dishonesty. Too often, people forget who they're writing for and instead write for themselves, even though the audience usually includes readers with very different backgrounds and skill levels. From what I've seen, there are at least six recurring reasons:
1. Guild membership: as you said, complexity signals you belong to a profession or discipline.
2. Status signaling: people write to demonstrate they're "highly educated" or credentialed by elite institutions.
3. Vocabulary limits (including ESL): sometimes writers lack the vocabulary (or confidence) to say something precisely in simple terms, so they retreat into abstraction or borrowed phrasing.
4. Poor training: many were never taught how to write for a reader, or how to revise until the idea becomes clear.
5. Writing mirrors thinking: some people genuinely think in tangled layers; their prose reflects that.
6. Complexity-as-intelligence: Many assume hard-to-read means smart, when mastery usually produces simpler sentences, not foggier ones.
My biggest question is what happens as we outsource more and more writing to AI. Will it affect our ability to think?
I believe it will, because writing isn't just a way to express thought, but it's one of the best ways to form it. Writing forces you to test your claims, notice gaps, define terms, and confront what you actually mean. It turns "first thoughts" into "best thoughts." If we hand that process to machines, we may save time, but we risk losing the discipline that produces clarity in the first place.
Thank you MG, as you said, writing isn't just a way to express thought; it is the process of forming it. When we skip the 'ugly' first draft, we skip the part where we actually confront what we believe. I wholeheartedly agree, with your concern about AI. If we hand the machine the 'test' of our claims, we lose the 'best thoughts' that only arrive through the friction of writing.
Your breakdown of why we fail to be clear is excellent. Reason 2 (status signaling) and 6 (complexity-as-intelligence) are the twin engines of academic and corporate fog, we need to be aware of and try our best to avoid.
I also appreciate your point about English as a second language, thank you for such transparency. I know the challenge in my country of residence, alongside my on going struggles of daily learning french, it is a good challenge to have though, I believe it sharpens our mental muscle.
Right said Fred…
"Both of us together, one each end and steady as we go, Tried to shift it, couldn't even lift it, We was getting nowhere…”
Ahhhh so we all assume we speak the same language. Right?!
For most of us that would be English. Right?
We spent our youth learning the vade mecum of ABC’s. Right?
Where the A goes, then the B and finally the C. Right?
So, it would make sense that we understand each other. Right?
But take a moment to truly listen.
Slow down we move too fast we’ve got to make that morning last…
Pay attention…
Truly…
Take a deep breath.
We are but solitary life buoys floating about in a sea of noise.
Listen, do you want to know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? Come closer let me whisper in your ear…
A sea of strange sounds.
There’s legalese, medicalese, taxese not taxis, computerese, professionalese, politicalese, rah-dee-ohese, TVese, Filmese, policese, schoolese not schoolies, universitese, philosophese, sciencese, literaryese, newspaperese, musicese, sportese, AI-ese…
All easing into our lives…
Supposedly to make it all easy…
Easey Peasey…
NO.
We are like the Scots. Who have four hundred words for snow.
We are like the Inuit. Who have a hundred words for snow.
The Beatles sang…all you need is love…
What is love?
"Clarity demands that we resist prefabrication. And here is the paradox, and it troubles me. Life rewards opacity". More than that. To resist prefabrication is a near impossibility. I'm reminded of the cliche "there's nothing new under the sun". I have found that I'm incapable of speaking or writing anything original. There's always a previous source that I read, even just a phrase or snippet.
I found this to be the case with art and music as well. Whether it's color theory around the color wheel or the cycle of fifths, the raw material has already existed for centuries, and there are only so many ways to combine them. Seemingly all of which have been done already.
This is equally true with programming. Need a function? It's already been written. A class? It's there. A group of classes that work in conjunction to accomplish a task? Design patterns. All there, ready to copy and paste.
.
"The more technical the vocabulary, the more it signals membership in a guild. I have watched business people learn to translate simple insights into polysyllabic dialect". Marketing lingo is the worst offender of all. "We operate in the FinTech space..." makes me want to heave and triggers an urge to blurt out ribbons of choice expletives.
.
'“Weapons of mass destruction” became a talismanic phrase, repeated until it acquired the solidity of fact. The phrase was clear. The evidence behind it was not.' I'll never forget the embarrassment that I felt when then Secretary of State Colin Powell displayed that satellite snapshot to the U.N. It looked to me like a grainy matchbox cesspool truck, being promoted as a mobile weapons lab. If I were in his shoes, I would have resigned before showing that picture.
.
"Clarity is so rare. It removes the safety net. Without the fog of ‘it's complicated,’ all that's left is your idea, naked and ready to be judged for what it actually is." I can see how that can be terrifying.
Your reaction to 'FinTech space' is the perfect example of what I mean. That kind of 'lingo' is a 'guild' signal, it says 'I belong here' while saying absolutely nothing about the work itself.
The Colin Powell example is heartbreaking for exactly that reason. When the 'grainy snapshot' is all you have, you use 'talismanic phrases' to bridge the gap. That is the ultimate proof that the clearer the sentence, the more the evidence has to be able to catch up to it. If the image is a matchbox truck, no amount of polysyllabic dialect can turn it into a weapons lab.
In programming, using a design pattern is efficient. In writing, using a cliché is an escape. The 'near impossibility' of resisting prefabrication is exactly what makes the effort so vital. It’s not about finding a new color, but about refusing to paint by numbers.... if that makes sense...
It does make sense. I still can't imagine writing an original sentence though. After all, if I didn't read, I wouldn't know how to write at all.
Wow, thank you for writing this. I used to hide behind the “it’s complicated” stance, unwilling to offer my own opinion, mostly out of fear that I might be wrong. But clarity, as you beautifully puts it, is a DISCIPLINE of courage and integrity. It reminds me of intellectual humility: recognizing that one’s argument may not always be right, yet still having the courage and integrity to contribute to the pursuit of truth. I will remember this as I continue to read, write, and speak. Thank you.
Well done! What a great post.
As a school educator, driven by curriculum demands, most of the instruction is focused on keeping student in a pure theory space - or describing theory clearly.
There is scarce little time to work which students on claim, evidence theory and argument construction. When I watch students begin to connect mind and world, I see a whole hoax of decision which need splitting up, discussing and formalising before they will commit on paper.
Hopefully (not hugely confident on this one) curriculum reform will move in a direction where students are being prepared for tertiary education, profession of vocation! Fingers crossed it means students will enter into the next phase of their education with a sense of how one might construct language in a particular setting.
"When I succeed in writing clearly, I feel lighter. The argument stands outside me. It can be tested, attacked, improved. I am no longer hiding in it." Wow, that is exactly how I feel, Colin. After blogging weekly for nearly 19 years, I instinctively know when I am using ambiguous language to obscure my lack of knowledge or hesitation in taking a position. Thank you for such clarity and wisdom.