This thread demonstrates that a lot of academic writing that *looks* like utter nonsense is merely scholars dressing up a useful but mundane point with a ton of unnecessary jargon.https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1051097280030396417 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
1/Well, this is tricky. Some barriers are unavoidable. Methods that have proved useful over time in a particular discipline, may require technical expertise, and there's a whole vocabulary attached to that expertise. What's an algorithm, what's a matrix, what's a derivative,...
2/what's a selection effect? When Romer talks about "mathiness," he's creating his own jargon. My experience in reading Romer was much like what happened when I tried to read Derrida - spend some time on it, and the inevitable conclusion is that you wasted that time trying...
3/to decipher bullshit.
That's the problem with jargon. You can never quite be sure if you're reading bullshit, or you're just not smart enough to understand... ;-)
It's not a matter of who's smart and who's not. Type 1: bad writer. Type 2: good writer. Type 3: seller of snake oil, trying to put one over on you. Type 4: Complicated material. Could be that types 1, 3, and 4 are hard to tell apart. Could be 2 and 3 are hard to tell apart.
But mathiness is not ambiguous, jargon is think about words like hegemony, neolibearlism, social capital, they all mean different things to different people
Yes, though the meaning is much less ambiguous within close-knit academic circles than outside of them.
One of Romer’s key points about mathiness is the words often don’t even match the math.
The real problem isn't jargon, it's that the result is never a surprise. You're never going to read a feminist paper that's like, "Hey the patriarchy did something good." That makes the jargon seem totally ridiculous because you know it wasn't necessary to get to the conclusion.
I taught that a smattering of jargon served to give clients confidence you were a member of the club.
I blame SAGE.
I was thinking of this one @SAGEPublishers.
You have a point. Maybe i should give more consideration to Mein Kampf instead of getting lost in the jargon
I don't think we can take this idea seriously without your theoretical model. 
It's also interesting that in the last 30-50 years academic writing has become notably more 'approachable', less intentionally difficult, but new technology has increased the complex mathiness.
Mathiness in the sciences improves work by forcing clarity leading to progress or exposure of model foolishness. It's interesting how econ differs
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.