The English that you find on LinkedIn is something else. By now, I have seen enough of it to really see the patterns. So here is my critique of that, using the same language as an example.

I’m a scientist by training, am engineer by profession. In these context especially, but also elsewhere, I value clear and concise language. Trying to explain hard things with easy words, not using opaque language to hide the shallowness.

The domain of business has its own terminology, that is fine. Things like unit economics, marginal costs, or recurring revenue are important concepts. That economists call something marginal that I would call differential is also fine.

What I don’t like is this kind of language that has evolved on LinkedIn. It’s marked by the overuse of hedges, the use of ill-fitting metaphors where concrete words exist. The abuse of nouns as verbs although a better verb exists. Using verbs as nouns. These patterns don’t add value but create a distinct sound.

In the end, this might sound unique and clever, but to me it sounds like the physics descriptions in Star Trek: they use intelligent sounding physics words to hide that it’s all fiction. Stuff like positron based tachyon detector seems clever, but it’s made up on the spot.

To show the kind of language that I mean, here is my critique of LinkedIn English in LinkedIn English:

I’m obsessed1 with my readers and want them to grok2 the unique moat3 without having to ELI54 it to them. My ask5 is to sunset6 load-bearing7 metaphors in LinkedIn English, circle back8 on why we ever used them, double click9 on catapulting off10 run-off-the-mill11 phrasing and really move the needle12 in democratizing13 the wow effect14 of leanings15.

See the footnotes of you’re not fluent in LinkedIn English. Essentially I’m asking to use language that’s easy to understand such that one can convey unique ideas to the audience.

And phrasing it like that doesn’t really add any value to the statement, it just makes it sound like gobbledygook from Star Trek to me.

  1. obsessed: Taking user demands serious before other engineering constraints, realizing that a product is only sustainable when users actually buy it. ↩︎

  2. grok: Understand something. ↩︎

  3. moat: Something unique that a company has compared to the competition. ↩︎

  4. ELI5: “Explain like I’m 5 years old,” asking for an understandable explanation. ↩︎

  5. ask: “Wish” or “demand.” ↩︎

  6. sunset: Retiring or deprecation of a product. ↩︎

  7. load-bearing: Important. ↩︎

  8. circle back: Taking another look. ↩︎

  9. double click: Seriously commit to something. ↩︎

  10. catapulting off: Use something as a basis for a next step. ↩︎

  11. run-off-the-mill: Normal. ↩︎

  12. move the needle: Having a noticeable effect. ↩︎

  13. democratizing: Building a platform that makes a certain thing accessible for everyone while of course taking a fee for all the transactions that people do. ↩︎

  14. wow effect: Something being amazing or mesmerizing, or just plain good. ↩︎

  15. leanings: Lessons. ↩︎