system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Writing is more persuasive when we vocalise it (say it out loud) first.

A curse on business and academic writing is the Myth of Professionalism. This is the belief that to sound like we know what we’re talking about we have to use formal, abstract, high-register language, ie long, fancy words derived from Latin and Greek (think ‘construct’ instead of ‘build’, ‘depart’ vs ‘leave’, ‘request’ vs ‘ask’). High-register language is solemn, emotionless and soulless. I think it makes writing sound more drone than human; it alienates readers and kills personality.

Instead, I think any piece of persuasive writing has more impact (ie clearer, more readable and livelier) when you vocalise what you’re trying to say and use that as your first draft.

 There are three reasons I think vocalisation works: 

1.  Because we use normal, mid-register language (aka ‘plain English’) when we vocalise, as opposed to formal, fancy language, it makes us sound more human and more approachable. So it helps tone of voice. 

2.  For the same reason, it helps us clarify our message; we immediately know when something sounds clear and when it doesn’t. It makes our writing clearer. 

3.  Mid-register language has more emotional energy than high-register language. It gives our writing more energy.

Change my view.
gpt
Interesting topic. A couple of clarifying questions, if you will?

1) How about a non-native speaker, who has learned most of their vocabulary and diction from books and movies (rendering it vastly different from what you refer to as "mid-register language")? Can they not be as persuasive, even if their writing is clear and concise?

2) Why do you think vocalization would be the solution, and not something different, e.g. a diagram of interconnected ideas, a list of bullet-points?

3) Why would "more (emotional) energy" make the text more persuasive? Wouldn't the text then constitute an appeal to emotion more than an appeal to logic? What if the concepts being communicated rely on logic more than emotion? Should you not make the text fit the idea, rather than the other way around?