"reductive" isn't an insult. And note the "just" in the parent post. It is an adaptation, but it is more than just that.
What does it give you that "oversimplified" or "simplistic" does not?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r...
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defini...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
That word you dislike means you've violated "But Not Simpler"
This, at any rate, is my usage.
https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/the-literacy-crisis-in-t...
Perhaps we'd do better to cull the amount of words used? To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters? Personally I think that would be double plus ungood, but perhaps I need to brush up on my 'normal people English'.
Look, sarcastic nose tweaking aside, a new word is a gift! When I come across one I add it to a list and count myself richer for having found a more nuanced understanding of how others view the world.
> Perhaps it's new and frightening to you because you're level of literacy is not what it might be?
and you can't spell "your." My level of literacy is most likely much higher than yours.
Using pretentious words in order to sound more educated than you are is the very thing I'm talking about.
> To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters?
(Pun intended there, I guess?) "Reducing" things to their essence is what we do in science and mathematics. It's a good thing.