That's debatable. Buzzwords or vapor words are usually not useful. Most of the time other legacy words exist to express yourself. Buzzwords (not to be confused with technical terms) are created to sell books or consulting services. It appears to be working.
"clowd", purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, his wrong usage of the word competent (the article I think you submitted), the dip, lens, etc
Just because "we think with language" doesn't mean we should make up superfluous words on the fly. I'll admit, it's necessary sometimes, but certainly not at the rate people do it at. The point of language is to communicate. And like I said, it's not like I hate the guy, some of his stuff is great. The rest... He seems to resonate a lot more with you than me, and if his work has helped you do something better all the power to him (and you).
Actually I think that purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, the dip, sheepwalking, etc. are very important ideas. It's just that the words Seth chooses to represent these ideas kind of suck. What Seth calls an ideavirus is the same thing that Dawkins calls a meme, and that's a word we pretty much use every day. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future someone else coined a word that meant the same thing as sheep walking, but was actually usable without sounding daft.
You can express ideas without creating ridiculous buzz words. And like I said, sometimes the creation of a new word (e.g. meme, kool-aid) is necessary, but not at the rate consultants and marketers do it. They're just marketing.
I agree with you to an extent. Seth tends to irritate me a little personally. But he is good at getting his ideas out there. Not just his name, his ideas & concepts. The tool he uses to achieve this is what you call buzzwords, which by definition are words that resonate to an extent & make it into people's vocabulary & thought processes.
'Meme' vs 'ideavirus' will suffice as an example. 'Meme' will not be used by the same people to have the same thoughts as 'ideavirus'. I hope we can agree on that (the discussion would be cumbersome). It flat wouldn't. The words have different connotations & usages even if they can be defined exactly the same way in a dictionary. Just like your usage of 'buzzword' has a different connotation to 'vogue word' & 'technical term' has a different connotation to 'jargon'. Ergo, it is a powerful tool for communication.
Inserting words into people's vocabulary changes the way they think. It is useful even if there is already an existing word with the same formalised meaning.
As I said I agree with you to an extent. There is nothing worse then watching marketing attempts to create a lexicon flop. It is something that can become polluted very quickly.
"clowd", purple cow, meatball sundae, ideavirus, his wrong usage of the word competent (the article I think you submitted), the dip, lens, etc
Just because "we think with language" doesn't mean we should make up superfluous words on the fly. I'll admit, it's necessary sometimes, but certainly not at the rate people do it at. The point of language is to communicate. And like I said, it's not like I hate the guy, some of his stuff is great. The rest... He seems to resonate a lot more with you than me, and if his work has helped you do something better all the power to him (and you).