Conceptual complexity

Consider the following opinion about artificial intelligence:

"Empowerment was the pitch. Dependence is the business"

Succinct. Direct. Poignant. It is safe to say that neither the vocabulary nor the grammar in those two sentences are challenging in the least. And yet no child would ever say anything like that. The sophistication of that statement lies in its conceptual complexity. You hear something like that and immediately stop to ponder its veracity. In my view sentences like those exemplify an oft neglected aspect of the advanced level: conceptual sophistication. It is really no use knowing hundreds of high register words if your ideas are basic.

As a longtime C2 examiner, I don't care for statements that include gratuitous vocabulary. Saying "the house was colossal" is not all that different from "the house was very big". Yes. The word colossal belongs to the type of vocabulary that one learns in C1 and C2 classes. And yet... using a fancy term doesn't require much in the way of intellectual sophistication. It's a bit like saying that the name Archibald is "more sophisticated" than Frank. Is it, though? They're just names! Statements, however, contain ideas, which can be simple or complex. Let's look at three different scenarios:

Firstly, sometimes a word can be rich in meaning. The technical term hysteresis, for instance, is complex in itself, but since it is only used in the scientific domain it can't be expected in a C2 classroom. The word desk, though, is simple enough. There's not much to say about it, right? (and yet... I could talk about it for a straight hour). Then we have a tricky category: words that seem simple, but hide multiple or unexpected meanings. Take the iconic scene from The Lord of the Rings (2001) in which Gandalf shout "Fly you fools!" A novice learner might think that the word fly in that scene refers to the fact of moving through the air. Advanced students know that it can also mean "take flight", that is to say, "flee". I think we can agree that "Run, you idiots!" doesn't have the same ring to it. The point I'm trying to make is that words, in themselves, can be simple or rich or both. They can belong to different registers and, therefore, elicit different reactions.

Now, if we take things to the next level, we will soon realize that full sentences can also behave like words. They can be easy or hard to understand. And not necessarily due to the vocabulary in them. If I say that, according to quantum mechanics, "the nature of matter is contextual, not absolute" you might feel the need to scratch your head a little. The words themselves are not intimidating. Still, the meaning is mysterious. And I know exactly what you're thinking right now: That is difficult to comprehend without a context. Fair enough. Here you have the context.

Everything, from light to electrons to even large molecules, behaves as both a particle (a localized "thing") and a wave (a spread-out, probabilistic ripple). Which one you see depends entirely on how you measure it. An electron isn't really a wave or a particle. It's a third, unimaginable quantum object that merely manifests as one or the other depending on the experiment we choose to perform. The nature of matter is therefore contextual, not absolute.

Again. I think the vocabulary in that paragraph is not particularly hard to understand. It is the cognitive content that makes it quite complex. You will probably think that Quantum Mechanics is, in and of itself, a sophisticated branch of Physics. And, of course, you won't be wrong. But that is exactly what I mean. Difficulty is intrinsic to Quantum Mechanics. Even if I try and discuss it in simple terms, comprehension will still be challenging.

Something similar happens in the video below, in which a Buddhist monk expounds his views on the concept of personal identity and the very idea of one's self. If you pay close attention you'll realize that both his vocabulary and his grammar are B1. The cognitive content, though, is obviously C2 material. The sublime irony of it all is that this apparent contradiction feels a little "koan-ish"... but it is not.