10 ms·

Language is a tool that humans use to interact with each other, if you can't use it for this very purpose, then you're the problematic one. In written language

by gkya 11y ago

Language is a tool that humans use to interact with each other, if you can't use it for this very purpose, then you're the problematic one. In written language the product can be revised and rephrased many times to arrive at a mostly unambiguous result, but with the spoken language, the product is produced and consumed contemporaneously and spontaneously. Ambiguity is in the nature of it: nobody has the mental capability to construct non-context-dependent, logically-completely-unambiguous sentences in the context of a casual conversation. You have to learn to differentiate among various linguistic contexts and registers.

oxplot 11y ago
Sure, spoken language is fairly raw unprocessed output, but what I have a problem with, speaking with the general population, is that when they're asked to confirm/rephrase/clarify their imprecise output, they don't think of it as such. That I find unbearable. I say a lot of illogical/emotional things too, but I'm the first to notice it and correct it.
- gkya 11y ago
  People have similar, but different mental capabilities, and different attitude. I have a superficial knowledge of linguistics and philosophy of language, and am also interested in philosophy, history and literature, so I'll be more able at forming rather more coherent, more logical and lenghtier sentences, but not everybody is like me, and they won't be able to phrase complex and/or ambiguous concepts as clearly as I do. What I do is that I adjust myself to my interlocutor(s), I try to be comprehensible and relevant to him, from whatever background he shall be. Because however much I know a language, and however much I be good at speaking it, if I cannot use it for its very fundamental purpose of communication, then all my knowledge and all my quality is useless: better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease.
  - oxplot 11y ago
    > better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease I actually think the opposite: the more knowledgeable you are in any area, the higher your standards and your interest in details, things that people with lower level of knowledge are not appreciative of and hence not interested in. As for case of language, I wasn't referring to everyday casual chit chat at lunch or at a party but half serious discussion with people about a mutual area of interest.
    - gkya 11y ago
      Discussions with people with lower level of knowledge is an educating thing: you have to communicate your knowledge in a simpler, more open way. It gives you the ability to better understand what you know, for one can know things without understanding them.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  I think feel I the same way sometimes. I tend to "think out loud" and say something when I've given it <5 seconds thought. I think some people feel I'm fully behind my idea, just because I've voiced it, using less-than thoughtfull wording. It seems to throw them off when I immediately switch sides, saying why my idea is good, and also bad.
cname 11y ago
Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? As far as I can tell, the person you're responding to hasn't said anything offensive nor criticized anyone, so I can't understand why you're responding with insults and criticism. And further, it sounds like they understand the situation pretty well, and I doubt your "explanation" is going to help anyone negotiate social interactions more easily by "getting with the program" or whatever.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  I think you're overreacting quite substantially here. They used the word "problematic" once, and you're calling that "responding with insults and criticism". Also no one mentioned anything about anyone being non-neurotypical before you.
  - gkya 11y ago
    Well, I may have used that word mistakenly. I meant "source of the problem". If that's an insult, then there are no other in my comments, I do actively refrain from insulting both online and in person. As for criticism, yes, my comment is a criticism, and tries to be a constructive one. I spot the problem, I suggest a solution, I may well be mistaken, but there are no insults. And I comment on the situation, not ad hominem.
- moistgorilla 11y ago
  >Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? I'm sorry but this is a huge overreaction. The op clearly stated he had a problem with talking to people because of their vagueness implying that the other person was "problematic". By stating the op is problematic instead of the "normal" person he is just stating that he is the source of the problem, not the normal person. Anyway, there's a slight irony considering we are talking about people taking words to literally.
- ianamartin 11y ago
  @moistgorilla: nothing I said came anywhere close to implying that I think other people are problematic. Read the words. Especially the ones where I specifically indicated that I come from many backgrounds that value specificity so highly. I said that communication is a problem between me and people who have different backgrounds. Not one single thing about that statement implies that I think it's other people who are problematic. In fact, a two-sided situation can be problematic without either individual side actually being problematic. And in realistic terms, sometimes situations arise that are completely okay, even though both sides are equally problematic. @aninhumer, it was an insulting use of the word, and I took it as both a misreading of my words and and intentions as well as a personal attack. So I don't think cname was overreacting. @gkya, I think you are putting some very severe and artificial constraints on the purpose and definition of language. In my opinion language is quite a lot more than a tool for communication. It is, for some examples, a means of mis-communication (sarcasm), a way to communicate nothing (some types of modern abstract poetry), or even a way to talk about itself in ways that no one can possibly understand, i.e. anti-communication (literary criticism comes to minds here.) But in all seriousness, language can be a lot of different things at different time, just the same way that sometimes paint is just a tool to protect your house from the weather but other times paint is used to creat a work of art. Music works the same way. Sometimes music is just there as a tool the department store is using to psychologically induce you to buy more things and get out faster. Sometimes music is used to create some of the greatest and most meaningful works of art mankind has ever seen. Any medium that can be used as "a tool for communication" can be used as something else entirely. And it doesn't necessarily involve communication. In my opinion, your comment was the least likely interpretation of what I said about my ability to interact with other people. You might want to try reading what I wrote again because, as I mention in my post, I tend to be quite specific about what I say. In case I need to clarify that, when either speaking or writing, I do my best to make sure that no one needs to try to infer anything from what I say. This is the last I will say on this thread. I didn't mean for it to be about me. I meant to affirm the thoughts and fears of the original article and to add my own thoughts and perspective because the article resonated with me. That's all.
aninhumer 11y ago
The problem isn't necessarily that they haven't learned any disambiguating language cues. The problem is more that they've learned a different set of language cues to most people, because of the social group they frequent.
WalterBright 11y ago
What's awful is being interviewed and taped, and then reading a transcript of the tape. You think you're saying witty and clever things, but the reality of the transcript can be shocking. Edit: There's a reason why top politicians never say unscripted comments.

by gkya 11y ago

oxplot 11y ago

Sure, spoken language is fairly raw unprocessed output, but what I have a problem with, speaking with the general population, is that when they're asked to confirm/rephrase/clarify their imprecise output, they don't think of it as such. That I find unbearable. I say a lot of illogical/emotional things too, but I'm the first to notice it and correct it.

gkya 11y ago
People have similar, but different mental capabilities, and different attitude. I have a superficial knowledge of linguistics and philosophy of language, and am also interested in philosophy, history and literature, so I'll be more able at forming rather more coherent, more logical and lenghtier sentences, but not everybody is like me, and they won't be able to phrase complex and/or ambiguous concepts as clearly as I do. What I do is that I adjust myself to my interlocutor(s), I try to be comprehensible and relevant to him, from whatever background he shall be. Because however much I know a language, and however much I be good at speaking it, if I cannot use it for its very fundamental purpose of communication, then all my knowledge and all my quality is useless: better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease.
- oxplot 11y ago
  > better knowledge of a language should expand the amount of people I can communicate to, not decrease I actually think the opposite: the more knowledgeable you are in any area, the higher your standards and your interest in details, things that people with lower level of knowledge are not appreciative of and hence not interested in. As for case of language, I wasn't referring to everyday casual chit chat at lunch or at a party but half serious discussion with people about a mutual area of interest.
  - gkya 11y ago
    Discussions with people with lower level of knowledge is an educating thing: you have to communicate your knowledge in a simpler, more open way. It gives you the ability to better understand what you know, for one can know things without understanding them.
CaptSpify 11y ago
I think feel I the same way sometimes. I tend to "think out loud" and say something when I've given it <5 seconds thought. I think some people feel I'm fully behind my idea, just because I've voiced it, using less-than thoughtfull wording. It seems to throw them off when I immediately switch sides, saying why my idea is good, and also bad.

cname 11y ago

Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? As far as I can tell, the person you're responding to hasn't said anything offensive nor criticized anyone, so I can't understand why you're responding with insults and criticism. And further, it sounds like they understand the situation pretty well, and I doubt your "explanation" is going to help anyone negotiate social interactions more easily by "getting with the program" or whatever.

aninhumer 11y ago
I think you're overreacting quite substantially here. They used the word "problematic" once, and you're calling that "responding with insults and criticism". Also no one mentioned anything about anyone being non-neurotypical before you.
- gkya 11y ago
  Well, I may have used that word mistakenly. I meant "source of the problem". If that's an insult, then there are no other in my comments, I do actively refrain from insulting both online and in person. As for criticism, yes, my comment is a criticism, and tries to be a constructive one. I spot the problem, I suggest a solution, I may well be mistaken, but there are no insults. And I comment on the situation, not ad hominem.
moistgorilla 11y ago
>Why are you calling someone "problematic" for not being neurotypical? Do you really think that's helpful? I'm sorry but this is a huge overreaction. The op clearly stated he had a problem with talking to people because of their vagueness implying that the other person was "problematic". By stating the op is problematic instead of the "normal" person he is just stating that he is the source of the problem, not the normal person. Anyway, there's a slight irony considering we are talking about people taking words to literally.
ianamartin 11y ago
@moistgorilla: nothing I said came anywhere close to implying that I think other people are problematic. Read the words. Especially the ones where I specifically indicated that I come from many backgrounds that value specificity so highly. I said that communication is a problem between me and people who have different backgrounds. Not one single thing about that statement implies that I think it's other people who are problematic. In fact, a two-sided situation can be problematic without either individual side actually being problematic. And in realistic terms, sometimes situations arise that are completely okay, even though both sides are equally problematic. @aninhumer, it was an insulting use of the word, and I took it as both a misreading of my words and and intentions as well as a personal attack. So I don't think cname was overreacting. @gkya, I think you are putting some very severe and artificial constraints on the purpose and definition of language. In my opinion language is quite a lot more than a tool for communication. It is, for some examples, a means of mis-communication (sarcasm), a way to communicate nothing (some types of modern abstract poetry), or even a way to talk about itself in ways that no one can possibly understand, i.e. anti-communication (literary criticism comes to minds here.) But in all seriousness, language can be a lot of different things at different time, just the same way that sometimes paint is just a tool to protect your house from the weather but other times paint is used to creat a work of art. Music works the same way. Sometimes music is just there as a tool the department store is using to psychologically induce you to buy more things and get out faster. Sometimes music is used to create some of the greatest and most meaningful works of art mankind has ever seen. Any medium that can be used as "a tool for communication" can be used as something else entirely. And it doesn't necessarily involve communication. In my opinion, your comment was the least likely interpretation of what I said about my ability to interact with other people. You might want to try reading what I wrote again because, as I mention in my post, I tend to be quite specific about what I say. In case I need to clarify that, when either speaking or writing, I do my best to make sure that no one needs to try to infer anything from what I say. This is the last I will say on this thread. I didn't mean for it to be about me. I meant to affirm the thoughts and fears of the original article and to add my own thoughts and perspective because the article resonated with me. That's all.

aninhumer 11y ago

The problem isn't necessarily that they haven't learned any disambiguating language cues. The problem is more that they've learned a different set of language cues to most people, because of the social group they frequent.

WalterBright 11y ago

What's awful is being interviewed and taped, and then reading a transcript of the tape. You think you're saying witty and clever things, but the reality of the transcript can be shocking. Edit: There's a reason why top politicians never say unscripted comments.