Anna Koop

One of the toughest things about the thesis I’m writing has been word selection. I am constantly battling jargon and reaching for clarity, trying to find the right mix. Sometimes jargon is good—when the concept you’re trying to explain has a label, it’s clear that it’s a thing rather than a random collection of ideas. And the label gives the reader something to hook on to, a clue to the contribution of the work.
        On the other hand, every bit of jargon is another potential barrier to understanding. “Okay, I have to remember that X means this concept here.” Or “Y . . . now what was that again, something important?”. So it matters, keeping to intuitive language.

        Then throw in the “that does not mean what you think it means” dilemma, combined with discipline- and lab-specific nuance, and it’s enough to make you swear off research.

        My current conundrum: “cognition” vs “mind”. I’m most tempted to talk about cognition, but I have a suspicion that mind is more accessible. Neither are consistently defined, both have baggage, both are in the layperson’s dictionary (but cognition is more likely to need looking up).
        
        “Cognition is the act of making sense of sensorimotor data.”
        Rich’s version: “The mind is an information processor.” Though I am not *quite* comfortable with that. It is lovely and concise (and absolutely loaded with philosophical baggage).
        Potential Anna-twist: “The mind is at the centre of a signal exchange between an agent and an environment.” The problem there—mind, signal, agent and environment are all potential jargon, albeit intuitive jargon.

        I’ll get back to you when I decide.

        Edit: “The mind sends and receives signals, and tries to make sense of them.”
        Edit2: “The mind is that bit of [me/an intelligent agent] that sends and receives signals, trying to influence and [make sense of/understand] them.”

        I have a tendency to pack too much into things.