Off the Map

We can’t see atoms.  We suppose their existence.  That is, the existence of atoms is inferred.

Inference is an important notion in general semantics.  General semantics teaches the difference between fact and inference.  Both facts and inferences are statements we make.  But they are qualitatively different in a very important way.  Let’s look at some statements and see if we can figure out which is fact and which is inference.

‘

Which is fact? Which is inference?
1. John is six feet tall.
2. John is mad.

Now, let’s assume we’re looking at John and we have a ruler with which to measure him.  You probably have guessed right, that statement #1 is fact (assuming it’s true!) and statement #2 is inference.  What is the qualitative difference between the two statements?

You might say that an inference is a guess in order to fill in a hole in a story, while a fact is a verifiable measurement of some sort in order to fill in a story.  That is, an inference is unverified, and once it becomes verified, only then can it be potentially treated as fact.

Note:
Inference : unverified :: Fact : verified

Acceptable methods of verification would ultimately be for another blog post.  Generally speaking, rulers would be acceptable for verifying height.  Reading someone’s facial expression might be acceptable for verifying feelings; however, given that people lie, joke, act, etc., facial expressions aren’t acceptable for verifying feelings.  How we arrive at what’s acceptable or unacceptable is a whole other topic.  I’m choosing now to focus on the idea that the existence of language is not fact, but inference …

Now how on Earth can I say that?  You might say that what you’re reading is definitely language.  You might say it includes sentences, words, punctuation, etc., and by making those observations, you say there’s language.  I see your point, but in my opinion, that’s not acceptable for verifying there’s language if you want to get technical and remain scientific.

If you want to remain scientific, you start with observing phenomena.  When it comes to what you’re suspecting is language, you don’t see language.  Instead, if you’re reading this online, you see pixels emitting light.  That’s what you observe.  You infer that these pixels are communicating something and thus is language.  You are interpreting these pixel emissions as language.

If you’re reading this as a printout, you see toner or some kind of ink.  That’s what you observe.  You infer that this toner or ink is communicating something and thus is language.  You are interpreting these blots as language.

But note that not all language is written, that a lot of language is spoken.  So, again, to remain scientific, you start with observations.  You don’t hear language.  Instead, you detect sound waves.  That’s what you observe.  You infer that those sound waves are communicating something and thus is language.  You are interpreting these sound waves as language.

It may be hard to wrap your head around this understanding that the existence of language is not fact but instead inference.  The challenge, if you’re having trouble accepting it, is for you to produce proof that something is language.  This might be easy for you to do if you’re producing the language.  But it’s not easy for you to prove if I start speaking in the following way:

‘

Ooooeeeeaaaaaa Eeeeeeeeyiyiyiyiyiyi.

Note that that’s a transcription of sounds I hypothetically said.  Because I can transcribe sound, have I spoken language?  Well, if it’s language, what have I said?  You might infer that I have attempted to communicate something.  Then again, you might infer that I have not attempted to communicate something.  You can’t verify it without peering into my head and finding some incontrovertible proof that I’ve spoken language.

What is the value of knowing the existence of language is inference rather than fact?  I’m not sure.  I guess it’s value lies in the understanding’s application.  I can make languagelike sounds that people can try to interpret, which would be a vain endeavor.  Inkblots on a page might not resemble language by they might be interpretable communication.  Human brains probably operate with prejudices that sort out what’s language and what’s not, which can lead to confusions when the opposite is the case.

Anyway, food for thought.  Please post a reply if you have a reaction to these ideas.

COMMENTS

Leave a Comment (0 So Far)

See also: existence, fact, inference, language, science, sound, verification

A recent article that’s hovered on the frontpage of Yahoo! the last few days has upset me in what its headline communicates.  The article is titled “Personality Set for Life By 1st Grade, Study Suggests” and it is by the LiveScience staff.  This is a lesson that headlines need investigation before retelling their stories ..

*

If you just read the headline, life looks pretty bleak.  Your personality is set for life.  The trouble is, the term “personality” is a pretty general term representing various collections of characteristics.  Ask one person what characteristics umbrella under the term “personality” and you get one answer; ask another person, you get another answer.  So just what is “set for life”??

If you read the article, you learn that umbrellaed under the term “personality” in this particular study are just four characteristics:

‘

They examined four personality attributes — talkativeness (called verbal fluency), adaptability (cope well with new situations), impulsiveness and self-minimizing behavior (essentially being humble to the point of minimizing one’s importance).

So to these researchers, your personality is just your talkativeness, your adaptability, your impulsiveness, and your self-minimizing behavior.  Let’s forget about your charm, your generosity, your sense of humor, your nationality, and other things one might think of also as “personality.”

I’m not so much rivaling the definition of “personality” used in this study because the researchers were forced to look at particular aspects of personality in order to make a judgment.  That is, the researchers were forced to “get extensional” in defining their term “personality,” much as a mathematician might define a term by listing the items defined by it.  (E.g., an even number is “0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, …”) Instead of rivaling the definition of “personality,” I’m rivaling the headline, which is much too general and as a result misleading to someone who doesn’t care to read the actual article.

‘

I have images of sitting in background holding when another actor tries to emphatically argue that personality is set in the first grade, without knowing the particular aspects the study said seem “set.”

Reading headlines required delayed reactions (symbols reactions).  Without using them, the facts don’t always get through.  In fact, many facts simply don’t.

COMMENTS

Leave a Comment (0 So Far)

See also: delayed-reactions, extensional-orientation, headlines, mathematics, personality, science, symbol-reactions

For quite some time, it has nagged me when I heard people expressing an interest to get into politics.

I have also read within governmental reporting the quotation, disparagingly uttered, “He’s just playing politics.”

It seems to me given these two ideas, that there is no place for politics in government, and that the more proper term for governing is “governing,” not “politics.”  That is, given these ideas, politics is not governing.

So what does the word “politics” mean?  What does it refer to?  I’ve been trying to pay attention to its use for a few years now, and it seems to me what the word “politics” denotes is the taking of sides.

What would political language be then?  Political language would be language that expresses a side.  It is biased language.  It is partial language.

Government, though, is presumably impartial, at least relative to the constitution on which it is founded.  Its language would probably be of the impartial sort–what we might call impartial language.

I moan when I hear people want to get into politics, as if this is a noble endeavor.  They seem to me to be saying, “nobly,” they want to get into a field wherein it is more important to take a side than to govern.  It is this side-taking that often seems to stall the governing process.  That is, government comes to a halt (so to speak) while governors (like congresspeople, et al.) fight for their side.

And worse when politics > governing.  That is, when the goals swap, when politics becomes more important than governing, government gets a bit screwed up.  I see this akin to when teachers forward the business notion that profit > service.  They say things like “Business is about making money.”  This is a short-sighted expression.  Business is about service to some community, and by design, profit is an aid for the delivery of service.  When profit becomes the more important goal, the goal of service suffers, especially in the choice between profit and service.  So the community suffers in the pursuit of profit.

And similarly the community suffers in the pursuit of politics.  When governing is more about aligning with perspectives than doing something about issues, the issues become more problematic.  At least in theory.

Thoughts?  Reply below.

COMMENTS

Leave a Comment (0 So Far)

See also: business, government, partiality, political-language, politics, profit, service, values

Recently over the General Semantics Listserv (subscribe here), Bob Schaffer passed along a defintion of general semantics he heard about the field founded by Alfred Korzybski in 1933.

Bob writes:

‘

I have always liked the first definition that I was ever given (some fifty plus years ago):

GS is the study of the ethical use of language.

I know GSers see this as incomplete and flawed, but I think it says something simple and direct that is appropriate for use in an elevator (especially in an elevator in a two story building).

I might typically balk at the use of the word “ethics” given its hazy meaning, but a recent use of the word in my own book on improv helped me to better understand how to use the term and what it refers to.

In my book, I talk about basic long-form improv principles, loosely referred to as “rules.” When improvisers take foot on the long-form improv stage, typically they agree to accept particular ways of improvising. These basic “rules” are widely considered “right,” whereas their opposites are widely considered “wrong.”

For example, there is the principle of endowing: On the improv stage, you endow your partner. There is also the principle of yes-anding: You accept whatever endowments you receive from your partner, plus you add your own endowments. To go against these by forcing your partner to endow the scene or by rejecting your partner’s endowments, you go against the basic “rules” of long-form improv.

I refer to these “rules” and a few others as “the ethics of long-form improv.” “Ethics” in this context means “the instructions accepted as ‘right.'” “Ethics” is a shorthand word indicating that there is a right way to do something within the perspective or within the context.

Note, though, that the word “ethics” doesn’t explicitly indicate what is considered right; instead, it indicates that something is presumed to be right. With respect to the general semantics definition that Bob Schaffer forwarded on the General Semantics Listserv, defining general semantics as “the study of the ethical use of language” forwards a notion that there is a right way to use language. But that “right way” is left out of the definition. What might be that “right way” to use language?

I quickly think of the map-territory analogy. A lot of discussion in general semantics revolves around the structurally correct use of language. This simply means that if you think of language like a map, and the events it describes like a territory, language should match events accurately. Where language is mismatched to the events it describes, there is a misuse of language and potentially an unethical use of language.

Granted, naïve use of language is different from inimical use of language, so your errs might not equate to a lapse of ethics. That is, you might not know that your language does not accurately describe events, nor might you mistakenly represent events with your language in a cruel way. That we can say there is an ethics in general semantics, we can lay down a direction for the use of language to which to aspire. When we want to evaluate our own language use, we can compare it with the standards that general semantics lays out.

And these standards aren’t hodgepodge. In many respects, they simply mirror the practices of scientists, mathematicians, and their respective mindsets and principles. They use language on the whole in this “ethical” way, intending to describe their worlds in accurate terms.

General semantics as the study of the ethical use of language means that general semantics looks at what we say and what we write and compares it to scientifically accurate statements and mathematically accurate statements, offering criticism where what we say and what we write drift from these standards. The presumption in general semantics is that by aligning what we say and write with these standards, we gradually become less delusional, awaken to the reality before us, and move from relative unsanity to relative sanity.

COMMENTS

Leave a Comment (2 So Far)

See also: alfred-korzybski, definition, ethics, gs-listserv, improv, map-territory-analogy, rightness, sanity, unsanity