Words... ... by Bob Nelson
There have been some "interesting conversations" lately, as NT members try to analyze the forum's current position and course, to predict where it is headed. (No, that is not the topic here -- this is not another meta rehash.)
Conversations are "interesting" for various reasons. They may hold fascinating new data -- articles about science or Dowser's attic. "Interesting" may be due to a refreshing or unexpected perspective on an otherwise ordinary topic. Sometimes a person -- intentionally or inadvertently -- gives an "interesting" perception of themselves...
One general rule, during a period of intense meta conversation, is that members are truly trying to "get messages across". There is less "dumb-ass screwing around" than usual. (Well... except for badfish and Robert G, of course...)
People say what they think. But.........
"Saying" is not what they should be doing. They should be "communicating".
I can "say" something even when I am alone. "Communicate" carries the notion of " obtaining comprehension from the other party". If the other party does not understand, then I have not communicated; I have simply made noise .
"Communication", obtaining understanding , is necessarily the responsibility of the speaker . The speaker chooses the words. The listener hears those words, and none other. If the words are well-chosen, then the listener will understand what the speaker intended. If the words are ill-chosen, then the listener does not understand, or understands something unintended: the mis understanding is the speaker's fault.
English can and should be very precise. There are a lot of words in the dictionary, and if a speaker does not have one single word that is appropriate, then there are lots of adjectives and adverbs to ensure precise formulation. I tend to use (too many obscure) polysyllables, when monosyllables and adjectives may be more effective...
Then too, there is sometimes deliberate misuse of words -- abuse of words. The speaker purposefully chooses words that narrow or deform the listener's understanding of the subject, according to the speaker's desire. Caveat emptor! Let the buyer beware! Words are innocent, but speakers may not be...
My point in all this? When posting, and when reading posts, we need to be conscious of the words .
Words have meaning .
Tags
Who is online
512 visitors
If we want the listener to understand...
Oh... sorry... I didn't mean to leave you out.
"(Well... except for badfish and Robert G, and whatsisname, of course...)"
That's OK. It's kinda worthless as a word...
Sometimes there are not just "words" but quotations that can make an intended point. Things that we would like to say have often already been said, perhaps even better than that of which we are capable. Often enough I like to come up with allegories from the classic films, and that way help to establish that "Life imitates art".
"The truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it." (Emile Zola)
Excellent point!
But communication is a two-way street, a favorite quote of mineon the subject illustrates a shortcoming that I am guilty of at times as are many others
Too often, we are listening (or reading comments) with the purpose of resenting a counter point rather than in an effort to understand the speaker's (commenter's) point and message
Great article!
Actually, I would disagree with Mike's
It clearly denotes both feeling and level of agreement.
While it's true that words have specific meaning and it is up to the writer to convey what they mean, there is an elements missing from the written word, and that is inflection and facial expression. Often, without those elements, there can be miscommunication.
Nice point Robert! I have often found that the reply to one of my comments seem to have a predetermined tangent, rather than addressing what I have actually said.
LOL Robert,
That post from you is rather ironic. I have often seen you being quite the wordsmith while trying to hide the fact that there is a subtle message in there that one has to think about.
Correct?
I find Bob's article clear and easy to understand and with merit. Not a class war of better communication skills.
Perrie
I and many others have made and received comments in that manner I am sure
Thanks for the feedback
I didn't realize that there was a backstory to this. Well, the teacher part of me says it's (not its) is important to be able to use the right form of a word (homographs vs homonyms). But from the comprehension standpoint, using the wrong form of a word like, there, their, and they're, can be understood by context. This process is called 'Cloze" and it often used by readers who don't understand a word they have never encountered before, but pick up thecontextualcues.
So yourassertionis that this becomes more about writing as a way of distinguishing between level of education/intelligence, correct?
When so much of your stuff is without even a single meaning, that is really stretching to ask folks to find two ...
I don't think I said I have any "difficulties". Your use of that word, when I did not, is an excellent example of
Thank you, Robert!
Excuse me, Robert, but weren't you the one complaining about small font use? EGAD, I had to zoom in to see it!
I think your comment is linguistic hegemony, in and of itself.
I write as I speak-- and yes, like everyone here, I've not communicated as clearly as I would have liked, at times. There are few words that I use here that aren't the same words I use as I am speaking... However, if you'd like me to "dumb" it down for you, I'd be glad to.
in general, it is annoying to me to jumped upon for a comment that someone has automatically assumed means one thing-- when I meant something different-- only because of a preconceived notion they may have about my point of view.
How on earth did you notice?? Do you mean to say that you do not confound erudition with smarts? Damn! I've been getting away with that for sixty years...
Well, I certainly agree with that! We have no idea if the person behind the screen is smiling or frowning or looking speculatively, and sheepish, etc.
Perrie and Dowser,
As a result... there is no immediate feedback loop. In a real-world conversation, we have the other person's body language reacting in real time, and we can often detect a misapprehension, and correct it, before any harm is done. Online, the same misapprehension can fester for a while, getting nastier and nastier, before it is even known to the speaker.
I think this is why online disagreements spiral out of control so quickly.
I would say that it contributes, certainly! Another reason is that the individual doesn't realize that they are basing their "fight or flight" response on an assumption.
The best word I can find to describe that photo is astonishing.
Total agree with you Dowser.
I have to agree with that Bob.
Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation, and disrespect for human dignity, ones own and that of other people. -Leon Trotsky
Well, what I would have to say about that, is that when one decides to use language to abuse, it says more about them, than it does about the people it's used on. When one tends to overly swear, it says more about their lack of communication skills.
As a point, I tend not to swear, but that I do by choice. I am not nor have ever been a big fan of banning words, unless there is a level of absurd abuse, as a way of shutting down a discussion as opposed to actually having a meaningful one.
Kinda pretentious of you, I'd say... Do you often broadcast your (unsupported) fantsies of what is going on in someone else's head?
Just stick with snark, Robert. No one will take notice of you.
You're still haunted by that affair, aren't you? Well... You should be.
:-))))
Bob ,
Are you aware that by putting certain member's names in your article that you have violated the CoC ? Even worse by making them the subject they can say anything they want as a comment and you have no right to demand comment removal .
Gosh!
Wow! You mean that badfish, Robert, and Mike won't have to show their habitual reticence?
I cringe!
Robert!
Please! It's embarrassing to let others know that you "analyze" my d***ck...
Let's keep these things private, shall we?
So I guess you're alright if someone posts an article with your name being featured ...
Communication takes at least two beings: One to transmit an idea and another to receive the idea. As such, both parties are responsible for the communication being successful, and both parties may be responsible for miscommunication. That is, understanding is not only incumbent on the party sending the communication, it is the responsibility of all parties to make sure that they have an adequate understanding of the communication.
Kinda depends on what is said, no?
Hey! The soft-porn merchant! Mind your own business. Robert and I are discreet... usually...
If there's a rapid feedback loop, yes. The slower the feedback, the greater the speaker's responsibility.
There is no injunction against the use of personal names or handles in articles in the COC.
Robert,
Where?
I disagree. The slower the feedback, the more that both parties need to make sure that the communication was sent and received. Computers do this all the time. People should be able to, also.
The points that Perrie and Dowser have brought up about preconception are very cogent: If you think you know what someone is saying and respond to what you hear, who's responsibility is that?
From the Wiki page on Communication :
Thanks, Brolly!
I was so-o-o-o worried!
If you were moist I could call you a moist trollette ...
I guess you are too overwhelmed to comment there ... Feronia earned what I said on another of my articles .
Ummm... People??
Let's not get unpleasant...
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
Coprolalia
Of course we're really not talking about this here, are we?
After the way you screwed up anther of my articles [on climatology] the least you could do is comment on my current one on the same topic ...
Thanks for your comments Feronia even if they were infantile ... I guess you can't help yourself you trollette .
Good one Robert. Most people wouldn't have a clue that Trotsky was assassinated on Stalin's orders in Mexico in 1940. Then again, most wouldn't even have a clue who Trotsky was. Here is the actual weapon used to "moderate" Leon Trotsky:
Denotative or connotative?
Both, of course. But connotation is less standardized, and therefore carries more risk of misunderstanding.
What are the connotations of the word "faith", for example? IMNAAHO, it is better not to try to depend on connotation.