What I See with Peter Fiorenza: Why some people’s overuse and obsession with acronyms is downright rude

I don’t know about you, but I simply hate acronyms. You know, those groups of letters — an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word. For example, NASA (North American Space Agency), or WACA (Western Australian Cricket Association). Now, I don’t actually hate these per se. I just get annoyed with the overuse of acronyms in modern everyday language. Why? Well, first, it would seem acronyms change their meaning all the time. What I’m saying is one acronym used in one organisation means or represents something else in another setting. For example, AC can mean alternating current or air-conditioning, WA can stand for Western Australia or the position of wing attack in netball And ref can refer to the term reference in an essay, or a soccer referee. Again, it’s not really this that annoys me when it comes to acronyms, rather the way bodies such as education, health and even government institutions are almost obsessed with them. Often, in these arenas, this form of abbreviation is specific to that body and really makes no sense to anybody outside that organisation. Sometimes, even in my own profession of teaching, I’m lost when conversations are overloaded with acronyms. It seems you cannot have a worthwhile conversation unless you drop a couple in here and there. In some cases, you are made to feel out of the loop because you haven’t supported the AMI because the SAG is lacking in substance and, therefore, you have to resort to a KPI. I know, I’m probably being a little silly, but I reckon this style of communication is at times actually downright rude. I liken it to a situation where three people are sitting together at a table and two are speaking in a language the third doesn’t understand. It’s a closed shop. I’m of the belief that people upskilling in the use of acronyms in the workplace, or any other place, are doing themselves a disservice. In trying to become fluent in this type of communication they are, in fact, alienating themselves from the greater conversation — the greater community. In my opinion, they are, perhaps, making themselves feel good, but at the expense of much bigger cross-sectional understanding. With only a select few able to understand the conversation, fewer people are able to take an interest. And without people taking an interest, ideas lose traction, and any progress is therefore limited. I think that makes sense. Peter Fiorenza hosts Sport Shed Saturday between 9am and noon and Fiorenza on Sunday between 10am and noon on Radio MAMA