why the SCA being 'the middle ages as it was *supposed* to be' includes more than sanitation issues

[boogieshoes]

i've been having, off an on, an on-going conversation with various friends about my ability to 'translate' the way i think into the way everybody else thinks in order to have clear, meaningful conversations.  

i usually assume i've got a couple of stumbling blocks that i myself have to work though - that being that i'm 1) not particularly empathetic, and that 2) i assume people by default use precision language, like i myself prefer too.  but even when i work particularly hard to make sure that i have been as clear and concise as possible, i am still often the subject of what i term the 'swahili effect' - which is to say, i'm writing in english, and then i hit the 'post' button, and somewhere on some south african server, my perfectly good english is translated to not so good swahili, and upon arriving at it's destination, my post is translated *back* into english - but it's evidently reprehensibly terrible.  i've had people confirm that other people's reactions are completely out of sync with what i've written, so i know it's not just me.  granted, there are a number of reasons such misunderstandings could happen, but i like giving people the benefit of the doubt. so:swahili. 

one of the side-discussions i've had with various said friends is whether or not i'm expecting other people to have specialized knowledge of language, and that i expect a static language whereas it's obvious that language is a changing thing.  cue discussion of the word 'chivalry.'  chivalry is an historical concept and code of conduct, that many, many people today say they subscribe to.  but i doubt the truth of that, and that's not a bad thing.  if you go back and research chivalry, the behavior of knights, the social institutions, eras, and ideas where-in 'chivalry' is proposed as a great value - you'll find all of this stuff is not so great.  and i also suspect that most people really know this, because they're glad they don't actually live back in the day when chivalry was the in thing.  and if they don't know this, then they don't know what 'chivalry' means, and they shouldn't use words they don't know.

but the point is, 'chivalry' has a feeling, and emotion, a connotation, that's brought about by it's history and usage and application.  and all of that is important when using this word in everyday conversation, because it has a different connotation than words that are synonyms like 'respect', 'honor', and 'politeness'.  all of those words are different, mean different things, and yet mean similar things.  

and today, while i was reading some of synecdochic's writing meta, this passage jumped out at me:

[...]  Ideally, everything down to your language choice should reflect the theme you're using. One of the most common things I'll ding people for, on beta, are moments when the prose works against the theme, not enhances it.

There are many, many layers and levels of connection-to-theme. Ideally, a really good story is going to employ all of them. A not-exhaustive list is, in rough order of how much your reader is going to pick up on it down to the subtle parts that your reader might not notice unless they're really picking at your prose analytically (but they'll notice if something is really off): 

[snippity]

5. The choice of language you use in descriptions and narrations -- the subtle, connotative details of each particular word.

This is what Mark Twain was talking about when he made his famous statement that "the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug" -- the English language in particular is blessed or cursed with a thousand synonyms for just about any concept, and each one of those synonyms has small subtle differences in connotative meaning and can affect the overall impression of theme and tone of your writing.

And this, too, is an entire essay on its own, because there are so many levels to it. 

and i felt the lightbulb go on.

right now you're asking 'ok, bs, how does that relate to online debates?'

and here's the thing.  in online debates, *you have the time to choose between the right word and the almost right word* to make your point.  contrary to popular opinion, i do not hold language a static thing when i examine a written argumentative response.  instead, i hold it to a standard i would expect in proffesional writing, in which each nuance of every word can be debated and dissected.  now, this is completely natural to me when i read, probably brought on by the fact that i've been reading fiction literally since before i can remember.  and in popular literature, word choice is inevitably something that's agonized over by the author and editor so that the reader will get *exactly the right emotional and intellectual punch that they are intended to get*.  and it's why there are some people on the bar i simply *won't* read, because their posts are so littered with mis-constructions of whatever stripe that it takes far more energy for me to figure out what they're actually saying than usual - much less figure out if that's what they *really*  mean.

the question becomes one of whether or not i'm right or wrong to hold what can be seen as a casual debate to the same standards as fiction writing and professional/ academic debate.  i make here the argument that i'm not wrong, although i am probably as annoying to others as they find me.  and the reason i do not think i'm in the wrong here is because a non-face-to-face discussion relies much more on having your respective facts in order, in backing up your assertions, and *being precise* in your language.  

in a face to face context, there's all sorts of things that communicate one's ideas, whether you use them conciously or not:  gestures, facial expression, body posture and language, even pauses and emphasis.  i had one friend, for instance, who if you had taped her mouth shut, you could probably have had a perfectly coherent conversation with her anyways - she *always* gestured at warp speed in support of her speech, even if it was just 'let's go to mickeyD's and get a shake'.  

online, those gestures have *no* translation, but one - becoming more precise and aware in your language usage to get your point across.  and that precision and awareness means knowing enough of the words you're using to understand their history, and why they have the connotations they do.  the meaning of 'chivalry' has changed between the middle ages definition, in which a knight was *only* beholden to being courteous to his lady, and his lords' ladies.  it now means being courteous to *all* women, no matter who they are or what they do.  *but* 'chivalry' will never divest itself of the connotation of women being on pedestals, held as all that is good and right and light and soft in the world - in short, the connotation of being courteous to an idealized version of 'woman', who is neither realistic, nor all-encompassing.  and if you don't understand that connotation inherent in the word, it's not a word you really understand, and therefore, it's not a word you should really use.

now i hear you say 'bs, most people don't use that definition, you know.'  and no, i can't know that, because that's not an assumption i can make.  more, most of the people on the forum in question are readers, so, my instinctive assumption is actually the exact counter to that - that most of the people on that forum know *darn well* what these words mean, and how important these connotations can be.  but in any case, in the end, it may not matter, because one of the backbones of debate is agreed-upon (as opposed to assumed-upon) definitions of various words.

that is, having your facts in order means stating explicity what various words you're using means.  if you're using the word 'chivalry' to describe your personal code of ethics, and don't want me to assume some rather dire things about you, you really need to expand on that.  you could something as simple as 'chivalry, without all the icky parts' to let me know exactly where you're headed - but you do need to explicitly state your definitions, so i can agree with them, or not.  and this foundational agreement is important.  

the classic example is the creationist/evolutionist debate, where creationists continually complain that evolutionists change the meaning of their words mid-way through the debate.  'it's all jargon', they say, or, 'it's all semantics'.  except in the case of this debate, and written debates in general, *the semantics are important.*  that's the end-all, be-all of a debate.  without knowing what the semantics *are*, without knowing the connotations and subtle nuances of meaning, you can't have a debate on the same subject at all.  if a debate consists of two people talking about two different things using the same words, it's not a debate, it's a waste of energy for both parties.  

now, i may be misreading my situation vis-a-vis communication problems.  it's entirely possible that the real problem here is that other people in the bar forum are interested in spouting off opinions and not actually discussing things.  there's nothing wrong with that; but it would explain my relative lack of desire to engage:  i prefer to debate in a polite manner, and part of debating is embracing the subtle nuances of language.

-bs, thinky

Comments

[ithiliana.livejournal.com]

I agree with you in major ways, but I think one of the reasons for the misfit is that in some ways online communication is/should be more like print/writing communication (because we lack the non-verbal elements; because total strangers can be reading the stuff we post in public), but in other ways, it is/should be more like oral/vernacular communication (especially in communities that have existed for some time). I have, as an ideal, the philosophy you describe so well up here (and btw totally agree on teh *chivalry* issue), but I know at times I whip something off casually, as if I'm talking to friends.

Alternately, we as readers should be reading more carefully than, sometimes, many of us do (rushed time, so much to read, etc.--it's too easy to "skim"--I know I disasterously and badly misread one meta post one time, and am just grateful to the people who were kind enough to point out my total error kindly instead of whapping me upside the head).

And I don't even want to go into details about what I'd like to see happen to people who dismiss language history and development as "just semantics" because it would be illegal. Yes, language changes, but yes, as you say, there are always connections to earlier meanings, and there can always be fascinating discussions of word choices (coming from the creative writing part of the world, I've seen poets, especially but not exclusively, debate a single word in a poem for half an hour), that don't have to turn nasty, but sometimes do.

The online communication media are so new, so different in many ways (albeit similar in others), that it's probably not surprising that people have such a varying range of expectations and responses.

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

i'm also coming from a perspective where i literally used to read things that weren't there. so i really do put special emphasis on reading correctly, to make sure i make no mistake. i think this tendency to read closely informs the likelihood i'll emphasize nuances in debate.

-bs

[8bitnintendo.livejournal.com]

I have a habit of using obscure words in conversation because they have the precise meaning I intended. This has the positive outcome of increasing my friends' vocabularies, but the neutral-to-negative outcome of them thinking I am a walking dictionary/thesaurus.

Re: chivalry, would it be acceptable if someone said, "Chivalrous... as in the form of chivalric love idealized by 11th century troubadors"? Of course, courtly love was inherently adulterous...

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

heh, the troubador version was doubly slutty. the most acceptable version of chivalry is the current SCA version. which is something like 'respecting and honoring all peoples who have proved themselves worthy, and loving and honoring the person of thy suitor.' the feel of it is more gender-neutral, and respects a person's choices whether or not they're 'normal' for that culture. it doesn't hold people on a pedestal so much as expect all people to behave honorably and responsibly.

-bs

[strega42.livejournal.com]

Communication is, to start with, something most people don't actually engage in. Instead, they just wait for their turn to tell a story, or impart their thoughts and ideas, without truly listening to the other person. For *most* internet debates, and a significant amount of face to face communication, this is widely true - people just don't fucking listen.

Our circle of friends tends to have a higher standard about the ability to listen being a requirement for entry, so we don't see it as much with each other as we do with the wider population.

Now, people who actually attempt to truly communicate have some complications - we all have different areas of "vocabulary focus" - where we truly understand the meaning of a particular word, vs. having a "close" understanding. There's a point where we don't want to stop the conversation and ask for the precise definition of a word because 1) we feel stupid, or 2) it bogs down conversation and sidetracks us from the main point.

Another complication is the different ways in which language is used in various family cultures & regional dialects. Most of us understand when someone says that John Doe "had a fit", he expressed anger and rage - although it can also mean he had an epileptic seizure. It also leaves us uncertain as to how he expressed his anger and rage if we take the primary cultural meaning of having a fit. Did he get verbally abusive? Did he scream and yell? Did he throw things or hit someone? We don't know - largely because people use the phrase "having a fit" to describe some or all of those things.

And yet another complication is that people often use generalities to illustrate a point. A classic example is when people say "women are more [insert quality] than men" - one of two things is happening here. 1) The person speaking trusts the listener to understand that it is NOT an absolute "all women", or 2) the speaker is dumb enough to believe in black-and-white absolutes relating to the variations of human normal.

What most people often fail to understand is that the burden of being understood is on the person speaking. I've noticed a trend that most people who use language precisely are less bothered about being asked to clarify; people who use language imprecisely generally trend towards being angered because they *think* they are speaking precisely or clearly, or because they are not capable of speaking more precisely than they are.

Most people often tend to project their abilities onto others - I've noticed with some extremely gifted people that they need to have explained to them (sometimes over and over) that their gift is special; what they do/say is NOT obvious to others, and certainly not easy for them to do. In point of fact, I tend to do this myself - especially with stuff like henna or other artwork. Scott and I regularly have conversations about this with each other, in point of fact. :-p

You, dear one, are gifted with the ability (and have put an ass-ton of work to developing the ability!) to use language precisely in a way in which most people are simply not capable. Most people use language intuitively - relying on what they heard growing up, rather than stopping to learn how to use language intentionally.

I had a point in there somewhere, but I think it ran away when the cold medicine kicked in. Food for thought, at least.

Virtual Huggles! Because I can't give you my cold through teh intarwebs. LOL

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

::snorks re cold:: that's a good thing, cause it's raining here...

the thing is, i don't think of it as having putting in an ass-ton of work into it, because i literally picked it all up by reading things again and again and again, and finding new things on every re-reading. i'm naturally *data* oriented - making sense of vast amounts of data is my gift, and language *is* a vast amount of data - history and culture and logical construction and cultural interactions then and now all wrapped up into one.

i know we've gone back and forth on the 'all women x' statements before, but your stmt actually re-inforces mine. if the listener is to be trusted to understand that 'all women' doesn't *actually* refer to an absolute set of 'all women', then the speaker needs to identify who the exact women are.

but you do have a point, which circles back into my last stmt, that a lot of the people go through the bar thinking 'casual conversation'. and yes, stopping to define terms does take digression to whole new levels where that's concerned. i'm in it for the debate, which perforce means i *am* interested in that sort of definition thing. it really is entirely possible that these two expectations are what is causing the main crux of problem.

-bs

[strega42.livejournal.com]

Okay... let me take as broad an example of this as I can in my mentally fogged state ( :-p )- "women are more nurturing than men". I really should not have to add "most" and "generally" in there in the context of a wide-reaching internet discussion - I expect it to be understood that it's simply *not humanly possible* for ALL women to be better at something than ALL men. "Most women are generally more nurturing than most men, but of course there are always exceptions within the normal variance of humanity" is... cumbersome and somewhat pedantic, when my intent was probably something of a context setting statement, rather than an explicitly informative one. If I were engaging in a debate, rather than expressing my point of view for sharing purposes, I'd present the second statement rather than the first; however, my *usual* method of communicating is sharing a point of view rather than a debate; I tend to communicate informally as a default.




:: shrugs :: I think that's all I'm qualified to say tonight because I feel *special* right now btw the cold medicine not quite working, and skipping my Adderall today. :-p

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

People on the internet in our social group are usually very far above average as writers.

People who have closer to average skills get frustrated because they can't communicate as well as many of us. They have trouble making themselves understood, and they really wish that instead of bashing them for being inarticulate in print, we'd ask if we weren't sure we were following them.

Sometimes, they just get mad because they're used to being good socially in face to face situations, and it's a big turnaround to be in a venue where they're awkward and unattractive.

It's fine to say that print gives people the time to choose their words more precisely, so they should do so. The problem with that is that many people would be awkward and unattractive in print no matter how much time they had to re-word.

I recently read a letter Melissa Gilbert, as president of the Screen Actors' Guild, made in reply to some carping by members about what she did or didn't do that she should or shouldn't have done. To my pro's eyes, the letter was awkward and unattractive--yet this woman could far outshine me for attractiveness and social glibness in person.

Most of us who look prettiest in print are pros to one degree or another. Looking pretty in print is, if not our whole job, part of our job--reports, etc. If not, we could do a job that required those skills, by definition. Pro or semi-pro level.

While it is, in a perfect world, incumbent on the speaker (writer) to be clear, it's also incumbent on those of us who are pretty in print to make allowances and try to make awkward, unattractive people with poor print social skills feel like the textual ugly ducklings they are. Most of them have zero hope of blooming into swans, and it doesn't cost us anything to be nice.

Unless, of course, we really disagree with them, they're being jerks, and we want to pound them. :-)

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

Whups. We should try not to make awkward people feel bad. :-)

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

i don't know what's so awkward about feeling bad... i mean, i feel bad so often it's sorta second-nature by now, hee.

-bs

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

Monika, I'm fond of you and that's an excellent example of what we've been talking about. Julie said that the cause was being awkward and the result was feeling bad. You said that the cause was feeling bad and the result was being awkward.

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

it was a joke. i know what Julie meant there, i was deliberately inverting it to poke fun at myself. granted, i can't tell jokes for beans, but i'm not so sure that's a prime example of communication failure between Julie and myself.

- bs

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

::gives you some beans::

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

::grins:: but are they magic beans?

::hugs for hugs sakes::

-bs

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

Nope! Dey's JELLY beans!

::passes fresh homemade biscuits::

[murstein.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of good advice here, and I'm late to the discussion. But there's one point I'd like to make. It's been alluded to, but only in a sideways fashion.

One-size-fits-all communication techniques work about as well as one-size fits all religions. Or one-size-fits-all clothes.

If you want to discuss things with the widest number of people, you'll have to vary how you communicate based on who you're communicating with. Or you might prefer to avoid discussions those whose styles don't mesh well with yours. But holding discussions with those who are not academically oriented using academic rules is more likely to cause friction than enlightenment. On both sides of the discussion.