How to Spot Corporate Doublespeak

The investor-relations specialist Laura Rittenhouse is a 21st century Orwell, who scours shareholder letters for "cliches, weasel words, jargon, hyperbole, nonsensical statements, and overused words."

In George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, he explored the sinister problem in language we refer to as doublespeak. Totalitarian regimes don't use transparent language. The fictional Oceanian province, which is in a state of perpetual war, uses language as a weapon, distorting meaning in order to make the historical record conform to the Ingsoc party line. 


The investor-relations specialist Laura Rittenhouse is a 21st century Orwell, who scours shareholder letters for "cliches, weasel words, jargon, hyperbole, nonsensical statements, and overused words." These garner point deductions in her Rittenhouse Rankings, a survey that grades 100 big companies based on seemingly unquantifiable metrics relating to corporate culture and candor. 

What would Orwell think of the types of government and corporate communications we see today? 

In a lesson on Big Think Edge, the only forum on YouTube designed to help you get the skills you need to be successful in a rapidly changing world, Rittenhouse explains the ways that language is used to obscure transparency in communications and what this says about a company's integrity. 

Sign up for a free trial subscription on Big Think Edge and watch Rittenhouse's lesson here:

For expert video content to inspire, engage and motivate your employees, visit Big Think Edge

Watch the video below and sign up for your free trial to Big Think Edge today. 

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

Personal Growth

The life choices that had led me to be sitting in a booth underneath a banner that read “Ask a Philosopher" – at the entrance to the New York City subway at 57th and 8th – were perhaps random but inevitable.

Keep reading Show less

Why radicals can't recognize when they're wrong

It's not just ostriches who stick their head in the sand.

Image source: Shutterstock
Mind & Brain
  • Not only does everyone have personal experience with how difficult it can be to change people's minds, but there's also empirical research showing why this is the case.
  • A new study in Current Biology explains why some people seem to be constitutionally incapable of admitting they're wrong.
  • The study shows the underlying mechanism behind being bull-headed, and there may be some ways to get better at recognizing when you're wrong.
Keep reading Show less

'Self is not entirely lost in dementia,' argues new review

The assumption "that without memory, there can be no self" is wrong, say researchers.

Photo credit: Darren Hauck / Getty Images
Mind & Brain

In the past when scholars have reflected on the psychological impact of dementia they have frequently referred to the loss of the "self" in dramatic and devastating terms, using language such as the "unbecoming of the self" or the "disintegration" of the self. In a new review released as a preprint at PsyArXiv, an international team of psychologists led by Muireann Irish at the University of Sydney challenge this bleak picture which they attribute to the common, but mistaken, assumption "that without memory, there can be no self" (as encapsulated by the line from Hume: "Memory alone… 'tis to be considered… as the source of personal identity").

Keep reading Show less