A useful way to understand behavior can be approached at nearly any depth, and usually, no one intentionally chooses the level. Instead, it naturally settles into habits, based on what the audience appears to prefer and what the person can easily access without strain. That last one is more important than it looks. Whatever range you end up having with an idea comes out of the tangled version you sat with before you ever said it cleanly. Someone who has been all the way through that and then cut it down to a plain sentence is carrying the whole climb inside the sentence, though the sentence gives no sign of it. Now picture somebody repeating those exact words who never did any of the work. Out loud, in the moment, you cannot tell the two apart. The difference just sits there, costing nothing, until an awkward case shows up that the plain version was never fitted to, and only one of the speakers has anywhere left to stand.

This is where a superficial understanding of the complicated does its damage, and the damage runs in the opposite direction from what people expect, as the worry is usually that plain language loses detail. Perhaps the more serious problem is that plain language built on an unfinished understanding loses the ability to notice when it is wrong, and a little of knowledge becomes more dangerous than no knowledge at all. Someone who has studied which features of a process are structural and which are incidental can make a description down and still feel the tug when a situation violates it. Someone who never studied the structural from the incidental has nothing to feel the tug with, making this simple account a substitute for having ever had it, and it fails silently, which is the worst way for anything to fail, because silence gets mistaken for result and success.

There is a symmetrical trap on the other side, because a person can hold onto elaboration for its own sake, piling on qualifications and conditions until the account can no longer be pinned to any particular prediction, and this too passes for depth. It even flatters everyone involved, since it looks like rigor and feels like humility before a difficult subject. But an account hedged in enough directions has earned the same immunity the cheap simplifier has. Neither can be shown to be wrong, the elaborate version drowns the testable claim in claims, and the plain version never made one, and from the point of view of anyone trying to find out whether the practitioner actually knows what they are doing, the two are equivalent, because a claim that cannot be found wrong cannot be found right either.

So the honest situation is not that one setting is virtuous and the other lazy, complex or ego-filling. Both settings can be earned, and both can be faked, and the fashion for treating plainness and technicality as if they were positions in a debate about character has done real harm, because it distracts from the only question that carries any weight, which is whether the understanding underneath is finished enough to survive being moved. A person who has knowledge of the complicated can go either way on demand, can compress the full version into something an owner can act on before dinner, and can unfold the plain version back into its structure if a colleague presses on it, and nothing is lost in either move because the same understanding is doing both. On the other side, a person without that knowledge may be confined to one, and the register they happen to be confined to tells you very little about how much they know.

Whitehead’s line was to seek simplicity and then distrust it. Most readers take that as a warning against cutting corners, against dressing a thing up tidier than it really is, but there is a harder reading. The simplicity you arrive at was put there by you. The neatness is something you added when you described it. The thing never had a say. Forget that you were the one who put it there, and you slide into treating your own description as the way the world is actually built. That is where it goes wrong. We reduce something because reduction is what understanding produces, and then, holding the reduced form, we start to believe the thing itself was always that small. That belief is of course comfortable, and it is where questioning goes to stop. It also subtly shows how a whole field can convince itself that certain issues are resolved and straightforward, leaving it unprepared to recognize the one that remains unresolved.

The practical implication is more like a warning about what to trust, that a straightforward account is only as valuable as the complex understanding behind it. If that understanding is limited, a simple explanation isn’t helpful, as it becomes a hazard passed to the listener and, ultimately, to the individual, who faces the results of the account without ever having been exposed to it. The listener cannot check, the nonhuman cannot check, and that is what makes the choice of depth a question of responsibility instead of style, and it is also why the cheapest and most dangerous thing a person can do is take the simplicity they reached for by default and mistake it for the kind that has to be earned.

Comments are not enabled on posts. To discuss an author’s post, you can reply directly to the email you receive if you are subscribed, or contact the author directly by clicking here.