News:

2020
Attempting to do something

Main Menu

Musings.

Started by Adios, December 09, 2008, 01:05:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wade

why wouldn't it?  I would think that knowledge would allow people to realize that one of their "triggers" was switched..  allowing them to adjust their reaction accordingly...
*shuts up now.
REALLY real discordians

i wouldnt hurt a fly
:thumb: :kojak:

Nast

Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.
"If I owned Goodwill, no charity worker would feel safe.  I would sit in my office behind a massive pile of cocaine, racking my pistol's slide every time the cleaning lady came near.  Auditors, I'd just shoot."

wade

Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.

DICK FUCK!

REALLY real discordians

i wouldnt hurt a fly
:thumb: :kojak:

Manta Obscura

Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.

Truth.

Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.

Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.
Everything I wish for myself, I wish for you also.

Adios

Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.

One of my favorite phrases I use on myself is, Never pass up the perfect opportunity to shut the fuck up.

Adios

Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 09, 2008, 06:54:08 PM
Reverend: I really, really like this. Much respect.

In particular, I think that you hit the nail on the head when you made the connection between lack of listening and lack of critical thought:

Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on December 09, 2008, 01:05:08 PM

People are forgetting how to think. Thinking has been replaced with robotic responses to something half heard (because people have also forgotten how to listen) that they have managed to convince themselves that has actually come from them.


I've noticed that the robotic-response-mechanism works very intricately due to not listening. In college, my various mentors and professors would always spout the line, "You have to be a critical thinker," not realizing or not conveying that the greatest aspect of critical thinking is critical listening. The result would be a lot of spags in Philosophy 101 "critically" grinding up and spitting out theories which, while original, lack an connection to the real-life people and concerns for which they were intended. I'll never forget the day when I had to endure a speech by some idiot about Nietzsche's "God is dead" claim being a supportive claim for modern Satanism and hedonistic gratification . . .

I say this simply as an illustration that robotic response works both ways, as a tool of the ignorant and the "critical thinking," alike. I don't really have any implications to draw from this, other than to commend you again on pointing out the negative affects that not listening can cause, both for the idea-repeaters and "intellectuals." A lot of times people are duped into thinking that they can use information and ideas non-contextually to prove anything, and become a complete opposite type of moron from the one who plugs their ears and shouts, "La la la! I can't hear you!"

Since I'm on the subject, which do you think is a more virulent or negative aspect of thought, ignorance or sophistry?

The problem is that people are waiting for their turn to talk instead of hearing all of what is being said. Waiting for your turn to talk is not listening. There should be a course in every school about the rudimentary skills of conversation.

Jenne

Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.

Truth.

Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.

Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.

Language, interaction and culture have long been disciplines of linguistics--it's the applied side, the one I got my master's degree in.  It's the driving force in a lot of ways behind what is said and how people are taught to say it.  Not to mention the contextual cues Rev Asshat alludes to above. 

In a sense, that situation you find yourself in can often dictate what it is you are going to say, and your audience is ALWAYS the most important factor (otherwise:  why use words at all).  Hence the robotic nature of students when they speak to their professors and mentors--people who know what they know and know all about everything they know, so there's "no such thing as an original idea" on the subject they KNOW.

And the girl in question in the OP, I believe she was just as much speaking to an AUDIENCE as she might have been to express her opinions on the subject at hand.  Who is listening usually can determine (before a word is uttered) what will be said.


Jenne

Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:34:51 AM



:asplode:
But yeah, learning about linguistics won't help you learn to communicate meaningfully if you already don't know how to.

No, not necessarily.  To me, this has to do with context.  And we always switch what we say, how we say it, according to who we are speaking to.

Children are taught this through interaction (and adults introduced to newer social situations as well) all their lives.  This is why you speak differently to a teacher than you do to your peers.  That's called "register"--you switch your register according to the person you are addressing.

Manta Obscura

Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.

Truth.

Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.

Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.

Language, interaction and culture have long been disciplines of linguistics--it's the applied side, the one I got my master's degree in.  It's the driving force in a lot of ways behind what is said and how people are taught to say it.  Not to mention the contextual cues Rev Asshat alludes to above. 

In a sense, that situation you find yourself in can often dictate what it is you are going to say, and your audience is ALWAYS the most important factor (otherwise:  why use words at all).  Hence the robotic nature of students when they speak to their professors and mentors--people who know what they know and know all about everything they know, so there's "no such thing as an original idea" on the subject they KNOW.

And the girl in question in the OP, I believe she was just as much speaking to an AUDIENCE as she might have been to express her opinions on the subject at hand.  Who is listening usually can determine (before a word is uttered) what will be said.



Of course; thanks for the clarification, Jenne. I wasn't trying to bash on Linguistics or anything - my entire sophomore year in college was devoted to Linguistics - I was just trying to mention that Linguistics covers more than just effective communication, such as general language histories, grammar and semantics, etc. Hence, I was mentioning that Rhetoric was the distillation of the ideas of effective communication (classically speaking, that is), and would be of benefit to those who get hung up in the sentence-diagram-trappings of introductory Linguistics. The two subjects are complementary and include facets of each other, which is why I was advocating their use simultaneously. Only taking a year and a half of Linguistics, I had trouble transitioning from that framework to effective interpersonal/oral communication until I began my hardcore rhetorical studies, so I thought it was worth mentioning as a tool for those who, like me, need a bit of a kick in the pants, Linguistically-speaking.  :)

I guess I'm a bit biased towards Rhetoric, though, because applied rhetoric is my speciality.
Everything I wish for myself, I wish for you also.

Jenne

Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 03:11:15 PM
Quote from: Jenne on December 10, 2008, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on December 10, 2008, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on December 10, 2008, 05:54:58 AM
Because knowing how to say something doesn't mean you always know what to say.

Truth.

Linguistics works best when it's coupled with a study of Rhetoric which, unlike Linguistics, is fully concerned with the conveyance of meaning and the most effective transmission of thought. At least classical rhetoric is. Contemporary and modern rhetorical theory cover much wider ground (e.g., see Cain's posts on Foucault, who is considered a rhetorical theorist by some), including identity, the acquisition of power, gender dialectics, etc.

Also, at a young age people should be taught to just shut the hell up unless their words better the silence.

Language, interaction and culture have long been disciplines of linguistics--it's the applied side, the one I got my master's degree in.  It's the driving force in a lot of ways behind what is said and how people are taught to say it.  Not to mention the contextual cues Rev Asshat alludes to above. 

In a sense, that situation you find yourself in can often dictate what it is you are going to say, and your audience is ALWAYS the most important factor (otherwise:  why use words at all).  Hence the robotic nature of students when they speak to their professors and mentors--people who know what they know and know all about everything they know, so there's "no such thing as an original idea" on the subject they KNOW.

And the girl in question in the OP, I believe she was just as much speaking to an AUDIENCE as she might have been to express her opinions on the subject at hand.  Who is listening usually can determine (before a word is uttered) what will be said.



Of course; thanks for the clarification, Jenne. I wasn't trying to bash on Linguistics or anything - my entire sophomore year in college was devoted to Linguistics - I was just trying to mention that Linguistics covers more than just effective communication, such as general language histories, grammar and semantics, etc. Hence, I was mentioning that Rhetoric was the distillation of the ideas of effective communication (classically speaking, that is), and would be of benefit to those who get hung up in the sentence-diagram-trappings of introductory Linguistics. The two subjects are complementary and include facets of each other, which is why I was advocating their use simultaneously. Only taking a year and a half of Linguistics, I had trouble transitioning from that framework to effective interpersonal/oral communication until I began my hardcore rhetorical studies, so I thought it was worth mentioning as a tool for those who, like me, need a bit of a kick in the pants, Linguistically-speaking.  :)

I guess I'm a bit biased towards Rhetoric, though, because applied rhetoric is my speciality.

No, rhetoric is fine.  I got hung up on the sociological/cultural side, anyway, since the functionality of the thing bored me to tears!