Also found in: Thesaurus.


The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.

[French simplisme, from simple, simple, from Old French; see simple.]


(ˈsɪm plɪz əm)

an act or instance of oversimplification, esp. in the analysis of a problem.


the tendency to concentrate on a single part of an argument and to ignore or exclude all complicating factors. — simplistic, adj.
See also: Argumentation
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.simplism - a simplification that goes too far (to the point of misrepresentation)
simplification - an explanation that omits superfluous details and reduces complexity
2.simplism - an act of excessive simplification; the act of making something seem simpler than it really is
simplification - elimination of superfluous details
References in periodicals archive ?
Is anthropology banal [human] simplism and theology the mature expression of [divine] simplicity?
This theme is also a way for Brock to communicate his previous lack of knowledge, simplism, unwarranted emotionality, and the subsequent visibility gained in recovering these values' opposites.
Latvia's social and economic development cannot be held hostage of the simplism of the last 20 years.
Ironically, simplism of this sort produces a very unchildlike result: uninquisitive rather than curious, close-minded rather than absorbent, arrogant rather than humble.
That this is undoubtedly a case of what we call 'good form' might give us pause to reflect on the naivety or simplism of Lyotard's anti-philosophy of the aestheticopolitical event, and the severe limitations of his investments in disarticulating his own libido from any programmatic or representative politics.
When simplism is erected into a state ideology, it is the state lie that dictates politics.
While recognizing the need for considerable changes in development policies and going along with the fundamental transformation that had taken place in the international environment with the onset of globalization, from as early as the late 1980s many experienced observers began criticizing the extreme simplism and ideologism of neo-liberal policies, and foreseeing their probable negative consequences (Griffith-Jones and Sunkel 1986; Bitar 1988; French-Davis 1988; Rosales 1988; Sunkel and Zuleta 1990; ECLAC 1990; Lustig 1991; Sunkel 1991, 1993).
To go down this path (and some reviewers have) leaves us with little else to say about the book other than that it highlights in a readable, fast-paced way the centrally important issue of capitalist exploitation, but is marked by bland derivativeness, simplism and a cavalier approach to conventions of evidence.
Without lapsing into moral or artistic simplism, shoddy craftsmanship, Madison Avenue venality, or either false or real naivete, he nevertheless aspires to a fiction more democratic in its appeal than such late-modernist marvels (by my definition and in my judgment) as Beckett's Stories and Texts for Nothing or Nabokov's Pale Fire.