'Effective communicators' there's the rub!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

‘Effective communicators’ there’s the rub!

‘Effective communicators’ there’s the rub; how does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world. In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.

Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.

People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.

How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?

Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.

People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).

2

i talk to people as though i am trying to explain things to myself, if you go over someones head, or under, a simple question can clear the air.

what do you mean by"-----------------"?

3

Coberst - I have no idea what you are talking about.

(Just kidding)

4

what does anti-intellectualism have to do with… what do you call it… ?.. Effective communicators ?

5

coberst,

I think the word Anti is a little strong here; Or, perhaps even misplaced.

What if people are just Anti-B.S., or Anti-pretentious, or Anti-elitist? Just brainstorming here. Using up the ole Random Access Memory.

I don’t know if people are so much Anti-intellectual as much as they are Anti- being-made-to-feel-like-they-are-stupid. Of course, there is that pride thing (ego?) running rampant throughout the land. You know, that whole ‘who are you calling stupid’ concept. It’s a survival mechanism I believe. ‘Put up a front and they wont eat you alive.’

Communicating? It’s all hit 'n miss. You find your audience sooner or later. …or those who can put up with you and vice versa.

6

I conflated communication with anti-intellectualism because it is almost impossible to talk with many people about ideas of intellectual matters because the ego goes bananas at any implication that their brain is not a critical thinker or a self-learner or whatever. And when this ego gets into gear the person often grabs the first axe around which is to denigrate all attempts at intellectual development.

No one goes berserk when you show them that they have a lousy backhand but anything hinting that they might could improve some intellectual accomplishment they go into the anti-intellectual attack.

This attitude greatly inhibits learning. It seems to me that our young people have a very negative attitude toward learning.

7

coberst,

‘Conflated?’ See, coberst, I was this close to laying into you concerning what I perceive to be verbiage subterfuge here, but I opted to put my axe down. Didn’t want to start an anti-intellectual attack… if you know what I mean. I believe you’re utilizing an underhanded (or was that back handed) sense of humor here…maybe it’s just me.

By the way, doesn’t the word ‘conflated’ just seem out of place to you? And why would I simply concentrate on a singular word when it’s not even the point of your thesis (or is it?). Why didn’t you simply just use ‘combined?’ What are you trying to hide? I am serious. My ego is not getting the best of me here, I am genuinely curious.

Who sets the grounds for intellectual improvment? (the Intellectuals?)

How are you going to communicate with someone using a word of that magnitude? (Conflated). Now, do you see why I perceived this as humorous? No? Let me know if you don’t so we can explore it. Should be fun.

8

Sangrain

You make a valid point. I often have several things I am studying and one of them is cognitive science. The word ‘conflation’ is used often in the text I am reading. Having been exposed to the word so often and recognizing how useful it is in certain situations I failed to consider how it might appear to others. The problem is that when I get into a mode when I question every word I am using I lose the ‘flow’ on the keyboard as I try to express my understanding.

You have a good point, but worrying about using one word versus another is a real pain in the ass.

I constantly look up words as I read. Is it so harmful to look up a word? Isn’t a precise use of words the key to an ordered mind? I think that it is vital that adults become learners; not just of matters relating to the job but I am talking about what was once called ‘liberal education’.

It is all very confusing (I had to run over in my mind what word to use here). A constant search for a word that is acceptable by a reader who may be 12 or 60 and educated or not is a very depressing situation.

Are we going to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator? I am serious here. What do advise?

9

Coberst,

You have the intellectual energy of a freight train. Your commitment to learning and discussion is an example to many here, including myself.

Here’s the rub. It isn’t the rub in all circumstances. If you see what I mean.

True, but there’s also a lot of information in internet communication that is not available in face-to-face communication. Also, there’s a significantly lower pressure of time on internet communication, leading the possibility (and the reality, sometimes) of more effective communication online.

This is problematic whether or not one knows whether one is talking to a person of a given age or education. But I take your point.

As a writer of attempted popular philosophical novels I have this problem continuously. That’s partly why I’ve so many posts here - I’m practising and experimenting. Plus I get a lot of good ideas for dialogue from here, more than I get in face-to-face communication. A lot of people are dull and not particularly talented conversationalists. Not many of them survive long at ILP.

One also has to be able to write well in the first place. And including a sex scene or two. Most readers can relate to sex scenes.

You can’t, indeed some theorists (I’m thinking of Judith Butler) would argue that it is the ability to break with a context (i.e. the possibility of being misunderstood) that makes any given utterance possible. I’ll outline this more when you respond, I imagine, since you’ve probably not come across Judith Butler.

Perhaps so, but there’s also a lot of effort by the established intellectual institutions to keep their knowledge somewhat private and therefore maintain their authority.

This brings us back to the issue of language - if intellectuals were capable of explaining themselves in words of less than six syllables then perhaps, just perhaps, they would be understood and respected a bit more. The retreat into jargon, frequent neologisms and the rest is a sign of fear, and I include Derrida in this because he’s as guilty as anyone. One has to be confident of being understood, even though it is the possibility of being misunderstood that makes communication possible.

10

Someone…says—“This brings us back to the issue of language - if intellectuals were capable of explaining themselves in words of less than six syllables then perhaps, just perhaps, they would be understood and respected a bit more. The retreat into jargon, frequent neologisms and the rest is a sign of fear, and I include Derrida in this because he’s as guilty as anyone. One has to be confident of being understood, even though it is the possibility of being misunderstood that makes communication possible.”

I agree with your sentiments expressed in this paragraph. I also think it is a straw man, at least for my posts. However, I do everything without feedback other than on these forums and may be wrong. Learning and writing is, as you know, a solitary activity. The academic lives with colleagues just like her self but I do not. The adult self-learner is alone.

11

coberst,

Effective communication? Always be prepared to be surprised. One cannot not communicate. Consider the obvious: What are your intentions? What are your assumptions? What are the intentions and assumptions of your potential audience? That there is any ‘communication’, effective or otherwise, is a miracle of sorts. There is always communication, but understanding of what you attempt to say in the way you mean to say it is the real issue.

There is no ‘formula’ for this. One simply states the same thing in as many ways, using whatever metaphors useful to obtain understanding. This is true at any level of discourse.

Communication, at least in the sense of what I’m reading here, is saying what you have to say until you are convinced that the lights are on and someone is home. The medium, the message, the presentation is art, not science.

You’ve given me an idea for a thread: is there really any difference between philosophy and philosophizing other than the structure of the discourse? What makes one form of discourse “intellectual” and another mundane “anti-intellectual” chatter? The answers could be quite uncomfortable…

12

Tentative says—“ You’ve given me an idea for a thread: is there really any difference between philosophy and philosophizing other than the structure of the discourse? What makes one form of discourse “intellectual” and another mundane “anti-intellectual” chatter? The answers could be quite uncomfortable…”

I think that we reason over practical matters and we reason over matters that have only intrinsic value. I consider an intellectual as being one who studies matters of intrinsic value. Such matters are what is or was commonly called ‘a liberal education’. Such matters as philosophy, history, literature, and the fine arts are such things. The things that the English aristocracy studied are such things.

It seems to me that philosophy is the result of philosophizing.

13

coberst,

How does one decide what is “matters of intrinsic value”? Is this a group decision? Can I decide for myself whether I’m being intellectual? I’m not connected to English aristocracy. Am I lost forever?

Hopefully, you see the dilemma here. The definitions become the controlling factor, not the reality.

14

How does one determine matters of intrinsic value?

Some matters such as education is, I think, universally recognized to have both intrinsic and extrinsic value.

Some matters such as ‘rights’ I think have intrinsic value. I guess a person must establish his or her own set of values. Our culture establishes values. Our ‘inner voice’, if there is such a thing helps us judge what is of value to us. Freedom I would think has both types of value. Liberty, etc. seems to have intrinsic value. I suspect people must look within themself to determine values. Charity must have some intrinsic value.

15

Hi coberst,

I’d like to believe that there are intrinsic values, but I find no such universiality. Is the farmer who has lived in his agrarian village and never traveled more than 10 miles in any direction ‘uneducated’? Is the fact that the values of this farmer are the traditional values of his tiny community and rigidly adhered to, make those values extrinsic? At what point would we consider them intrinsic if he has never been exposed to any other?

I realize that this is an extreme example, particularly with “communication” reaching the most remote places on earth. It seems to me that the idea of universal values is wanting. There are any number of qualifiers necessary to establish even consensus values. Even in a media saturated society, with all the advantages of modern education, I find no particular value set that cannot find it’s opposite. If there is any claim to intellectual pursuit, perhaps it lies in the ability to question - question all of our cherished answers.

16

T

I shall do a little research and prepare a post on What is an intrinsic value?

Aristotle starts out his Metaphysics with the sentence “All men desire to know?” Or close to it.

Maslow creates a hierarchy of needs with intrinsic values at the top.

Abraham Maslow defined a hierarchy of needs to be:

  1. Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)
  2. Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)
  3. Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)
  4. Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)
  5. Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)
17

I dont know how you should go about this task. I am 18 and a U.S. citizen, just so you know who one member of your audience is.

18

coberst,

I am not asking you to dumb anything down to the lowest denominator as this might make for messy Ivory towers. No one wants that.

All I am saying is; when communicating, certain words are used certain ways. You can use any words you like, I do it all the time. Make some up if you feel so inclined as long as you’re sensitive (I am using sensitive here in a different context … to the touchy feely) to your audience.

I can’t over emphasize context. Perhaps I’ll elaborate at a later date.

19

Flawless execution of language, and usage. Well done.

=D>

P.S. Correlates directly with personal experience in the manner with which I speak verbally to others, and the inordinate reactions.

20

Thanks I appreciate your words of encouragment. The responses I receive on these discussion forums are mostly negative followed by personal attacks most of which are centered around this anti-intellictual attitude. It is almost like I am walking about sprinkling holy water on the possessed.