Good day, my little love carbuncles of internet desire. It is I, Doktor Howl, standing in for The Good Reverend Roger, who has yet again lost his shit in various embarrassing ways. The world, you see, has grown far to amusing to be explained by religion, and once again requires SCIENCE. And I know, as you know, that the world screams to have SCIENCE done to it. In every orifice.
So here we are. Just you and me and 7.3 billion humans, all alone together. I don't like the humans, and you don't like the humans. But you can't really run away from what you are, because the legs you are running with are part of what you're trying to flee.
So, anyway, on to business. While I've been dead, I've done a lot more thinking about communication. I have come up with some conclusions that seem to be almost universal, at least with respect to the United States. Results may vary in other lands. First, some definitions/de-coded statements and words:
"But" --> Ignore every word that preceded this one.
"I understand" --> I didn't listen to a single word you said.
"I feel your pain" --> Go spread your tale of woe elsewhere.
"I have some issues with that" --> I am butthurt and I'm done listening.
There's more, but you get the idea. Language not used to directly convey information can be assumed to mean the exact opposite of what it seems to say. Contrast it with the following:
"This fucking thing is broken" --> This fucking thing is broken.
"I love you" --> I love you.
"We had to let Harry go this week" --> Harry doesn't work here anymore.
Notice that the difference is that the first set of statements didn't actually convey information, and the second set did. We can form a hypothesis here, and that is that humans will give you factual information and package it in factual statements. Humans will also feed you bullshit, and will package it in words that don't actually say anything, but sound as if they do.
All jargon, I think, is based on this principle. Jargon is widely taken to mean "language used by specific specialists, for the purpose of communicating within their specialty". The fact is, though, that what jargon actually means is "language which is used to define who is an insider and who is The Other." This is why jargon changes once the general population learns what it means...Thus disproving the commonly held concept of what "jargon" means.
More on this later.
Okay for now,
Dok
Uh oh. Dok's back. Hide the medical utensils.
This is excellent!
That is my experience of jargon as well.
It's like an inside joke, designed to make you feel not welcome.
Excellent piece, Dok.
HE IS RISEN.
OSHI-
Humans program their MACHINES to say things that don't mean anything. "Your call is very important to us! Please hold for the next available operator."
Are jargon and slang the same thing?
As a youth I would always get upset because I never understood the current slang. These days I just shrug my shoulders and figure that whatever was said wasn't very important if they either couldn't or wouldn't explain it to me.
As far as I understand it, no. Slang is shorthand, and a tribal marker.
Jargon is a willful attempt to send bad signal, masked by obfuscation.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 26, 2013, 11:38:55 PM
As far as I understand it, no. Slang is shorthand, and a tribal marker.
Jargon is a willful attempt to send bad signal, masked by obfuscation.
What about jargon that is originally derived from occupation-centric slang?
Quote from: Sita on April 26, 2013, 11:34:16 PM
Are jargon and slang the same thing?
As a youth I would always get upset because I never understood the current slang. These days I just shrug my shoulders and figure that whatever was said wasn't very important if they either couldn't or wouldn't explain it to me.
Slang is shared, while jargon is hoarded.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 26, 2013, 11:55:01 PM
Quote from: Sita on April 26, 2013, 11:34:16 PM
Are jargon and slang the same thing?
As a youth I would always get upset because I never understood the current slang. These days I just shrug my shoulders and figure that whatever was said wasn't very important if they either couldn't or wouldn't explain it to me.
Slang is shared, while jargon is hoarded.
If that's the case then I heard a whole lot of jargon from my peers at school, because nothing was ever shared with me.
Does technical jargon count? Lots of professions use acronyms excessively, but often it's necessary shorthand.
For example, most computer/network services are acronym'ed not to confuse outsiders, but because otherwise conversations would take forever. "HTTP" and DNS" are much easier to say than "Hypertext Transport Protocol" and "Domain Name Service".
Where is the line drawn between valid acronyms and "obscuring" jargon?
Quote from: Remington on April 27, 2013, 02:01:40 AM
Does technical jargon count? Lots of professions use acronyms excessively, but often it's necessary shorthand.
For example, most computer/network services are acronym'ed not to confuse outsiders, but because otherwise conversations would take forever. "HTTP" and DNS" are much easier to say than "Hypertext Transport Protocol" and "Domain Name Service".
Where is the line drawn between valid acronyms and "obscuring" jargon?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 26, 2013, 08:42:00 PM
Notice that the difference is that the first set of statements didn't actually convey information, and the second set did. We can form a hypothesis here, and that is that humans will give you factual information and package it in factual statements. Humans will also feed you bullshit, and will package it in words that don't actually say anything, but sound as if they do.
All jargon, I think, is based on this principle.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 27, 2013, 02:33:56 AM
Quote from: Remington on April 27, 2013, 02:01:40 AM
Does technical jargon count? Lots of professions use acronyms excessively, but often it's necessary shorthand.
For example, most computer/network services are acronym'ed not to confuse outsiders, but because otherwise conversations would take forever. "HTTP" and DNS" are much easier to say than "Hypertext Transport Protocol" and "Domain Name Service".
Where is the line drawn between valid acronyms and "obscuring" jargon?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 26, 2013, 08:42:00 PM
Notice that the difference is that the first set of statements didn't actually convey information, and the second set did. We can form a hypothesis here, and that is that humans will give you factual information and package it in factual statements. Humans will also feed you bullshit, and will package it in words that don't actually say anything, but sound as if they do.
All jargon, I think, is based on this principle.
Ah, got it. Thanks.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 26, 2013, 11:38:55 PM
As far as I understand it, no. Slang is shorthand, and a tribal marker.
Jargon is a willful attempt to send bad signal, masked by obfuscation.
I think your definition of slang is closer to what I hear Jargon being defined as. Jargon is not an attempt to deceive, it is an attempt to exclude, and it is different from contradictory signal. "Your call is important to us" isn't Jargon, it's just bullshit.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 28, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 26, 2013, 11:38:55 PM
As far as I understand it, no. Slang is shorthand, and a tribal marker.
Jargon is a willful attempt to send bad signal, masked by obfuscation.
I think your definition of slang is closer to what I hear Jargon being defined as. Jargon is not an attempt to deceive, it is an attempt to exclude, and it is different from contradictory signal. "Your call is important to us" isn't Jargon, it's just bullshit.
Slang has a way of entering the common lexicon over time. Jargon doesn't. Jargon, as Roger is defining it, will never enter the common lexicon because it has a low communication value.
Jargon also serves the purpose of making it seem like you know what you're talking about even when you don't.
Quote from: Queef Erisson on April 29, 2013, 08:47:46 PM
Jargon also serves the purpose of making it seem like you know what you're talking about even when you don't.
ESPECIALLY this!
But only when you're talking to people who don't know what you're talking about.
I think this can be connected to what Harry G. Frankfurt was talking about in his essay, "On Bullshit" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit )
QuoteBullshit either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman whose principal aim — when uttering or publishing bullshit — is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed; i.e. "the bullshitter is faking things, but that does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong."
Someone who is telling a lie, by contrast, knows the truth and is explicitly trying to convince the reader/listener of something untrue.
For a bullshitter, it isn't particularly important if their audience believes a truth or falsehood, so long as the bullshitter's goal is served. In the case of jargon, the listener ends up with neither the truth nor a falsehood, because nothing was actually communicated.