I don’t like the implication that just because something is complex then it must be muddled. ‘Muddled’ sounds like an extremely close synonym of ‘confused’.
I don’t understand the following post, but I bet if I spent a year sharing a room with the author, and the author was very patient, I could understand what they were saying well enough to at least agree or disagree with it: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9fL22eBJMtyCLvL7j/soft-optimization-makes-the-value-target-bigger
The opposite of ‘clear’ is not ‘muddled’; the opposite of ‘clear’ is ‘obscure’.
If ‘muddled’ is the negative-affect way of saying ‘obscure’, I suggest that ‘arcane’ is the positive-affect way of saying it.
So are we looking for “Simple”/”Complex” maybe?
This feels like a 2D space: Clarity = Complexity × Confusion.
How easy it is to understand something is a combination of whether the topic itself is complicated, as well as how muddled the explanation is.
I don’t like the implication that just because something is complex then it must be muddled. ‘Muddled’ sounds like an extremely close synonym of ‘confused’.
I don’t understand the following post, but I bet if I spent a year sharing a room with the author, and the author was very patient, I could understand what they were saying well enough to at least agree or disagree with it: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9fL22eBJMtyCLvL7j/soft-optimization-makes-the-value-target-bigger
The opposite of ‘clear’ is not ‘muddled’; the opposite of ‘clear’ is ‘obscure’.
If ‘muddled’ is the negative-affect way of saying ‘obscure’, I suggest that ‘arcane’ is the positive-affect way of saying it.
So are we looking for “Simple”/”Complex” maybe?
This feels like a 2D space: Clarity = Complexity × Confusion.
How easy it is to understand something is a combination of whether the topic itself is complicated, as well as how muddled the explanation is.