Can contractions make you sound more intelligent? Hear me out!

[Darine]

Okay, this might sound counterintuitive, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. We're always told that contractions make writing less formal, and therefore less "smart" in academic contexts. But what if the opposite is true? When I read dense philosophical texts that avoid contractions, I often have to re-read sentences multiple times just to parse the basic meaning. The cognitive load is huge! But when an author uses contractions, the barrier lowers, and I can actually focus on the complexity of the ideas instead of struggling with the sentence structure. For example: "It is not that the phenomenon does not exist, but rather that we cannot perceive it directly" versus "It's not that the phenomenon doesn't exist, but rather that we can't perceive it directly." The second one is just so much cleaner! By removing the verbal clutter, the idea itself shines brighter. So maybe, just maybe, strategic use of contractions is actually a sign of an intelligent writer who prioritizes clarity over pomp. Am I onto something here?

 

[BenFoller]

The goal of writing isn't to sound impressive—it's to communicate ideas. When you strip away unnecessary formality, the ideas themselves have room to breathe. Your two examples prove the point. "It's not that the phenomenon doesn't exist" flows. The other version makes me work. And if I'm working harder to parse your sentences, I have less brain power left to grapple with your actual arguments. That said, context matters. In a legal brief or scientific paper, you might need the formality. But for most academic writing, the priority should be clarity. If contractions help, use them.