wtf is it with e-prime?
is it really supposed to enhance the accuracy and precision of your speech/writing? no, that is a lie. it is not supposed to enhance anything. it's just politically-correct "make sure you don't offend anybody" bullshit.
fuck that. if your opinion sucks, i'll say so. if you don't like it, then tell me my opinion sucks.
you'll be wrong but you'll feel better.
why should i waste half of my effort in saying something just to make sure you understand that i'm only expressing an opinion? if you can't tell it's only an opinion, then you either fail at communication or need to do more homework.
people these days make a career out of being offended by anything. e-prime just adds another layer of bullshit to every argument. now you can avoid the subject completely by saying "yeah but you didn't say IMHO." it's a whole world of the kind of shit lawyers and theologians (the two biggest reasons for societal decay) love to debate, i.e. useless crap about what you REALLY mean when what you say is plain as day.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
I think people these days make a career out of being offended by anything. In my opinion, e-prime just adds another layer of bullshit to every argument.
fixed
:lulz:
Why do you hate warm fuzzy hugsies?
DON'T YOU WANT EVERYONE TO FEEL HAPPY AND LOVED AND CODDLED?!
actually e-prime is useful for something.
it's not political correctness but more
- that the way you talk changes the way you think, which means you get confronted with the fact that opinions are just opinions
- you don't get into eachothers hairs as quickly. there is something immensely annoying about it when someone simply states "X is Y" and it's something you really don't agree with.
i just use it when i feel i'm getting into territory that may be hairy and passionate.
funny.
when i'm in "hairy and passionate" territory, i'm usually not thinking about my mode of speech.
she's the one that speechless i'm the one that's tongue-tied
I don't know what E-prime is.
Fuck you all.
I'm not aware of anyone stating that e' should be used in a manner not to offend others. In fact, most discussions around e', either by RAW or by students of Korby tend reference e' as a tool for the writer, not necessarily the reader.
In RAW's discussions, he doesn't state that the style will make writing more clear to the reader, but rather that he used e' to deconstruct his own assumptions. The idea is that if you write in e', it seems more likely that you will recognize statements which you might consider as truth axioms, to be opinions or perceptions. Note that even RAW didn't write his published works in e' (except the occasional argument constructed specifically to further the point of the value of e').
So, if I am of a conservative mindset and say "Abortion is Murder!!!" then it seems more likely (based on General Semantics) that my mind is hard coding Abortion=Murder. However, if I am forced to consider it in e'. then "Based on my system of metaphysics, abortion appears, to me, as murder".
If Korby's views on the importance of semantics are correct, the latter would begin a shift in the mind of the individual, the 'fact' would become less dogmatic and begin to come closer to 'opinion'.
In some cases, it can be valuable to use e'. Many of the classes at Maybelogic.net prefer the use of e', because when discussing magic, the 8circuit grid, personal experiences etc. it can be tempting to say IS, but it may be more beneficial (to the individual) to recall that their perception isn't necessarily "TROOF!"
It can be useful for the reader, particularly in scholarly works, but e' has limited value in random message boards etc (unless you're intentionally trying to piss off dogmatic people... works great for that).
Quote from: hunter s.durden on July 13, 2007, 05:18:12 PM
I don't believe I know what E-prime is.
Fuck you all, in my opinion.
e-primed
Quote from: someone who appears to be RWHN
Quote from: seems to be Hunter
I don't believe I know what E-prime is.
Fuck you all, in my opinion.
appears to have been e-primed
seems to be fixed
one e-prime snag I seem to have is getting confused about what level of uncertainty to express
Cheesecake is delicious
I like Cheesecake
I seem to like Cheesecake
I seem to like what appears to be cheesecake
Usually, I seem to like what appears to me to be cheesecake
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 13, 2007, 06:15:42 PM
one e-prime snag I seem to have is getting confused about what level of uncertainty to express
Cheesecake is delicious
I like Cheesecake
I seem to like Cheesecake
I seem to like what appears to be cheesecake
Usually, I seem to like what appears to me to be cheesecake
How about "I usually enjoy eating cheesecake"?
I call bullshit! It was a sponge, not cheesecake, apparently.
Cheesecakes and sponges might be described as sharing quite a lot in common, the least of which may or may not be the taste.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 06:30:08 PM
Cheesecakes and sponges might be described as sharing quite a lot in common, the least of which may or may not be the taste.
if your cheesecake tastes like sponge, then you need to shop for better cheesecake.
(i believe this to be so, IMHO, based on my experiences of having sampled many cheesecakes) 8)
but how many sponges have you sampled?
How can you dare to call yourself an expert without a proper knowledge base?
Hmm???
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 13, 2007, 06:50:31 PM
but how many sponges have you sampled?
How can you dare to call yourself an expert without a proper knowledge base?
Hmm???
i'm new to this e-prime stuff...so right now i'm at a loss other than to tell you to go and fuck yourself :lol:
Quote from: Mangrove on July 13, 2007, 06:51:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 13, 2007, 06:50:31 PM
but how many sponges have you sampled?
How can you dare to call yourself an expert without a proper knowledge base?
Hmm???
i'm new to this e-prime stuff...so right now i'm at a loss other than to tell you to go and fuck yourself :lol:
Well, RWHN wasn't really responding with e', he was responding with silliness ;-)
to e' your statement:
if your cheesecake tastes like sponge, then you need to shop for better cheesecake.if your cheesecake tastes like sponge, then you
probably need to shop for better cheesecake.
e' doesn't mean that you can't state anything, only that anything you state should be considered as perception, rather than fact.
To take our 'barstool', for example.
A pure subjectivist might argue if the barstool exists or doesn't exist, but e' requires only that you don't categorically state that It IS a barstool and it DOES exist exactly as you perceive it.
Thus, instead of
"We cannot prove that the barstool exists"
e' might say:
"It appears to me that you are sitting on a barstool."
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 13, 2007, 06:59:51 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on July 13, 2007, 06:51:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 13, 2007, 06:50:31 PM
but how many sponges have you sampled?
How can you dare to call yourself an expert without a proper knowledge base?
Hmm???
i'm new to this e-prime stuff...so right now i'm at a loss other than to tell you to go and fuck yourself :lol:
Well, RWHN wasn't really responding with e', he was responding with silliness ;-)
to e' your statement:
if your cheesecake tastes like sponge, then you need to shop for better cheesecake.
if your cheesecake tastes like sponge, then you probably need to shop for better cheesecake.
e' doesn't mean that you can't state anything, only that anything you state should be considered as perception, rather than fact.
To take our 'barstool', for example.
A pure subjectivist might argue if the barstool exists or doesn't exist, but e' requires only that you don't categorically state that It IS a barstool and it DOES exist exactly as you perceive it.
Thus, instead of
"We cannot prove that the barstool exists"
e' might say:
"It appears to me that you are sitting on a barstool."
i was responding to RWHN with silliness also.
(however, thank you for the explanation.)
:D
e': self-defeating.
"Language formatted in E' should likely be expressed as a statement of apparent perception, but (probably) not real fact."
which means, of course, there is a chance that language in E' might be stated as absolute, fuck-you-if-you-disagree fact.
I can see the need for e' in certain discussions. But, yeah, it's good to be able to be firm in your beliefs and not wishy washy. I think. I dunno, I've had way too much day.
its like a training exercise
it can help people stop exaggerating their self importance
also it helps point out how indefinite things are - especially things that seem definite
its ok to not be certain about things
some people clutch on to theories as fact until the flesh has been burned off their skeleton
and then they are STILL holding on to it
knuckleheads
i c what u did there.
very nice. :D
Rat: "Korby"?
That's swote! (In my opinion).
Quote from: LMNO on July 13, 2007, 07:37:10 PM
Rat: "Korby"?
That's swote! (In my opinion).
It's hella easier than remembering how to spell "Count Alfred Korzybski" every time I want to talk about General Semantics ;-)
Quote
its like a training exercise
I think thats a very good way of describing it. I used it as much as I could possibly get away with (including in various philosophy and religious debate groups) and while it pissed off most people that read it... it seems to have had a continual impact on how I generally write, speak and think now.
For example, I didn't even think about it, but I just said "it seems to have had..." as opposed to "it has had".
I think it may also be useful when you're trying to figure out a particularly knotty set of thoughts as a sort of internal sanity check. I sometimes write something out in e' then translate it into English before posting.... it doesn't end up wishy-washy that way, but it does tend to make the post less dogmatic ;-)
Quote
But, yeah, it's good to be able to be firm in your beliefs
Dear Goddess, in the name of Limbo why would that be good?
talking about talking is like thinking about thinking: fucking useless.
GO USA!
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 08:40:48 PM
talking about talking is like thinking about thinking: fucking useless.
GO USA!
ROFL
I lurve youse guys.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 13, 2007, 08:32:52 PM
Quote
But, yeah, it's good to be able to be firm in your beliefs
Dear Goddess, in the name of Limbo why would that be good?
Eh, clumsy wording on my part. What I was trying to say is that e' is all well and good, but at some point you also have to stand up for your side of things. It's good for there to be lots of questions, but without statements every now and again you'd have no clue as to where things were going.
without statements of fact, how can you have a context for your questions?
in this case: are we talking about e-prime?
yes or no, not "it looks that way, so maybe some of us are"
I concur with Rat. After reading the fundamentals of e' I have percieved a change in my thought patterns. I don't consciously try to write in e', but it still seems affects me. Even just thinking in my head or arguing with someone else.
I actually think I have won (or at least ended) some arguements using it. Letting people know "Well, that is just how I see it because of 'this'." and "How can either one of us be so sure?" That logic forces them to take a second look at both ideas.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 09:26:20 PM
without statements of fact, how can you have a context for your questions?
in this case: are we talking about e-prime?
yes or no, not "it looks that way, so maybe some of us are"
e' like any other model appears useful in some situations, not useful in some situations and actively confusing in some situations. It seems to me that the best way to use maps may be when they're actually useful. I don't think I'd use a topographical map of Ohio to find directions to my house. Likewise, I don't think that Delorme Street Maps will tell me where the utility services are buried in my backyard.
E-prime removes Platonic assumptions about the nature of reality from language and replaces it with a more subjective analysis.
When you say "something is something" what you are essentially saying is that the object in question shares the essence of the trait you are describing. Therefore, if you say "Saddam Hussein is evil" you are not only making an assumption about the existence and nature of evil, you are also saying Saddam is an avatar of sorts for this trait.
It brings all sort of implicit assumptions that can create very nasty side effects. It is no coincidence that both Christianity and Fascism can be traced back to Plato. The basic assumptions of the existence of transcendental absolutes has always been a recipe for disaster in the hands of apes. Because apes are thick as bricks and if they believe some group is harbouring the essence of evil, then they are totally justified in wiping it out, be it Jews or Heathens.
if i remember correctly, the idea of e-prime was to convey speech nondogmaticly. korby used to take his system very seriously and his 900 page paper "General Semantics" could probably be shortened incredibly. he had a tendancy to over inflate his ideas as an end/all to society's problems and discussed often how his non-aristotelian language could blah blah blah.
really the only benefit to using e-prime falls within 2 catagories of of the verb form "to be:" that of identity and predication.
basicly when identifying something saying:
"That IS a dog." is based on your own ideas of what dog means to you. if you've never seen a wolf, for instance, the dog could be a wolf. etc. etc.
predication is more of forming an opinion about something. an opinion is only relative to the observer.
"your mother is ugly." but thats not necessarily true, becasue the father at some point thought her hot enough to plant his seed in her.
if you're discussing your actions or intentions to use e-prime would seem to be silly.
"i am going to the store" well i suppose one could SEEM to be going to the store but whats the point of going through all that when the facts are pretty much clear?
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 09:26:20 PM
without statements of fact, how can you have a context for your questions?
in this case: are we talking about e-prime?
yes or no, not "it looks that way, so maybe some of us are"
I really enjoy listening to music.
There; now "
Some of us are
mostly talking about E-Prime."
:p
do not disrupt my continuum of absolute fact or my holy crusade against gray areas.
discordian forum: if grayfaces are bad, imagine what havoc could be wreaked by entire gray areas.
actually a gray area is the result of smearing a grayface at high velocity over a piece of concrete.
i don't see what's the problem with that.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
wtf is it with e-prime?
is it really supposed to enhance the accuracy and precision of your speech/writing? no, that is a lie. it is not supposed to enhance anything. it's just politically-correct "make sure you don't offend anybody" bullshit.
fuck that. if your opinion sucks, i'll say so. if you don't like it, then tell me my opinion sucks.
you'll be wrong but you'll feel better.
why should i waste half of my effort in saying something just to make sure you understand that i'm only expressing an opinion? if you can't tell it's only an opinion, then you either fail at communication or need to do more homework.
people these days make a career out of being offended by anything. e-prime just adds another layer of bullshit to every argument. now you can avoid the subject completely by saying "yeah but you didn't say IMHO." it's a whole world of the kind of shit lawyers and theologians (the two biggest reasons for societal decay) love to debate, i.e. useless crap about what you REALLY mean when what you say is plain as day.
You're quite right, why should human speech be clear at all?
Dumbass.
Quote from: Baron von Hoopla on July 16, 2007, 10:51:26 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
wtf is it with e-prime?
is it really supposed to enhance the accuracy and precision of your speech/writing? no, that is a lie. it is not supposed to enhance anything. it's just politically-correct "make sure you don't offend anybody" bullshit.
fuck that. if your opinion sucks, i'll say so. if you don't like it, then tell me my opinion sucks.
you'll be wrong but you'll feel better.
why should i waste half of my effort in saying something just to make sure you understand that i'm only expressing an opinion? if you can't tell it's only an opinion, then you either fail at communication or need to do more homework.
people these days make a career out of being offended by anything. e-prime just adds another layer of bullshit to every argument. now you can avoid the subject completely by saying "yeah but you didn't say IMHO." it's a whole world of the kind of shit lawyers and theologians (the two biggest reasons for societal decay) love to debate, i.e. useless crap about what you REALLY mean when what you say is plain as day.
You're quite right, why should human speech be clear at all?
Dumbass.
adults can have conversations without stopping every two minutes to remind each other they're just having a conversation.
You ever witnessed adults having conversations? :lulz:
e' doesn't appear very useful for regular conversation. It seems most useful when discussing ideas, concepts, beliefs, theories etc... and then as a tool for the user (as much, if not more so than an audience). If we're chatting about the weather, or our favorite music... then (as Vex says) we don't need to remind each other that we're having a conversation. Of course, if thats all we ever chat about, then we have no need for e'... but then if that's all we ever chat about, we're likely rather boring.
CLOUDS are not BORING.
they can look like unicorns, and that's magical.
E-PRIME cannot look like a unicorn.
i'm tired of this ridiculous argument. i should have thought out my actual opinion before deciding i knew what it was in the OP.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 17, 2007, 04:02:19 PM
i should have thought out my actual opinion before deciding i knew what it was in the OP.
Why? What fun would that be?
Quote from: vexati0n on July 17, 2007, 04:02:19 PM
CLOUDS are not BORING.
they can look like unicorns, and that's magical.
E-PRIME cannot look like a unicorn.
i'm tired of this ridiculous argument. i should have thought out my actual opinion before deciding i knew what it was in the OP.
i dont think anybody knows exactly how the what behind that
but at least there isnt twice as many far as there was that time
I tend to try and keep things pretty simple. e-prime for me is just anothert tool in the kit to use when it suits or serves some purpose to me. I tend to agree along the lines of Rat and Rza, more than anything it is a way to cross-check my own thinking.
When I start getting worked up about something, when those intense feelings start to rise in discussions and debates, that to me is trigger to start applying some simple concepts of e-prime to make sure I'm not rolling down the slippery slope. The basis to me is to start eliminating the word "is" in my own thoughts, if not so much in what I'm actually saying. To me it simply helps keep some objective oversite.
Official Spokesman for E-Prime:
THAT DEPENDS!
\
(http://www.medaloffreedom.com/BillClintonPresident.jpg)
Hopeless.
often a person can find themself liable to be understood
but even though there can be some
there is no need to blow it out of proportion and say one half is 80% of the other 3
when it comes to e-prime
i dont think anybody can
If you use e' in your results section of a scientific paper, no professional scientist will take your seriously.
Just sayin.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 19, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
If you use e' in your results section of a scientific paper, no professional scientist will take your seriously.
Just sayin.
Of course not... but if you use e' internally when developing the paper, it may help you shy away from unnecessary assumptions. (Not that some scientists don't already do such a thing... but I know a few who might benefit from questioning their own assumptions occasionally)
Of course, we should always keep in mind that Scientists =/= Science.
Quote from: LMNO on July 19, 2007, 03:48:11 PM
Of course, we should always keep in mind that Scientists =/= Science.
w00t! True Dat!
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 19, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
If you use e' in your results section of a scientific paper, no professional scientist will take your seriously.
Just sayin.
You don't need to anyway. All you've gotta do is tack on "further research is recommended" to the end of your paper and you've got it covered anyway. At least, that's how we do it in the social sciences.
Everyone read the new Scientific American article on memory coding.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 19, 2007, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 19, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
If you use e' in your results section of a scientific paper, no professional scientist will take your seriously.
Just sayin.
Of course not... but if you use e' internally when developing the paper, it may help you shy away from unnecessary assumptions. (Not that some scientists don't already do such a thing... but I know a few who might benefit from questioning their own assumptions occasionally)
Actually, when you are reporting the results of the paper, not the conclusions, something compltly different, there should not be any subjective reasoning involved. That section of the paper should be statements like "5 individuals were randomly chosen to recieve treatment, matched with 5 control individuals with weight and condition within one unit of each other", and "42.3% of individuals grew more than .5 mm over 72 hours". It should not read like, "It seems as though 5 individuals may have possibly been randomly chosen to recieve treatment, which from my subjective opinion may have been matched with control individuals with what looked like to me to be about the same weight and conditions", or " From what was subjectively assumed, 42.3% looked like they grew over half an inch over 3 days, from my reconing."
I repeat again, if you report results in e', you will not be taken seriously, at least in biology. I don't know what sorts of standards are in the "soft" sciences, but I'm sure it can't be different.
Its not. Social sciences use the same methods, it is just the conclusions are less firm, what with the amount of factors you have to try and control or account for.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 01:06:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 19, 2007, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 19, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
If you use e' in your results section of a scientific paper, no professional scientist will take your seriously.
Just sayin.
Of course not... but if you use e' internally when developing the paper, it may help you shy away from unnecessary assumptions. (Not that some scientists don't already do such a thing... but I know a few who might benefit from questioning their own assumptions occasionally)
Actually, when you are reporting the results of the paper, not the conclusions, something compltly different, there should not be any subjective reasoning involved. That section of the paper should be statements like "5 individuals were randomly chosen to recieve treatment, matched with 5 control individuals with weight and condition within one unit of each other", and "42.3% of individuals grew more than .5 mm over 72 hours". It should not read like, "It seems as though 5 individuals may have possibly been randomly chosen to recieve treatment, which from my subjective opinion may have been matched with control individuals with what looked like to me to be about the same weight and conditions", or " From what was subjectively assumed, 42.3% looked like they grew over half an inch over 3 days, from my reconing."
I repeat again, if you report results in e', you will not be taken seriously, at least in biology. I don't know what sorts of standards are in the "soft" sciences, but I'm sure it can't be different.
Yep, no map appears useful for all the territory, as far as I can tell. ;-)
Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2007, 01:13:16 PM
Its not. Social sciences use the same methods, it is just the conclusions are less firm, what with the amount of factors you have to try and control or account for.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Quote from: Cain on July 20, 2007, 01:13:16 PM
Its not. Social sciences use the same methods, it is just the conclusions are less firm, what with the amount of factors you have to try and control or account for.
absolute troof. It can be quite difficult when there are so many variables and factors to control for. For example, in my field of research which is substance abuse. There are so many things that go into it. Economy, family history, law enforcement, advertising, supply, etc., etc., When you do the research, you can definitely gleem influences, and there are some things you can nail down. But, invariably, for every question you answer, you create 5 more to be answered. But at the same time, you have to be firm in your research, you can't just say, well we think this is what's going on but we could be wrong. No one wants to fund that shit.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 01:06:44 PM
It should not read like, "It seems as though 5 individuals may have possibly been randomly chosen to recieve treatment, which from my subjective opinion may have been matched with control individuals with what looked like to me to be about the same weight and conditions", or " From what was subjectively assumed, 42.3% looked like they grew over half an inch over 3 days, from my reconing."
from what i understand of e-prime, it wasn't meant to be taken to that extreme. If you pick 5 people for an experiment, for all intents and purposes you have to assume that it's an objective truth. You're stretching its use. At its core, e-prime is english without the word 'to be'
Quote
5 individuals were randomly chosen to recieve treatment, matched with 5 control individuals with weight and condition within one unit of each other
The e-prime equivalent of that could be "We randomly selected 5 individuals to recieve treatment, and matched them with 5 control individuals with measured weight and condition within one unit of each other" or something to that effect.
I don't know much about the etiquitte of writing scientific papers, although i remember my physics teacher in high school telling me to refrain from saying "we did this... we did that" in lab reports. not sure if this holds true as a general rule of thumb in the real scientific community as well, but i'm sure if it does there is another acceptable translation of that sentence into e-prime that would work.
Either way, i speak in e-prime when i know i'm talking about a subjective topic... Music, Books, TV, personal interests, opinions, talking about another person's mood, etc. I don't do it consciously, it just seems to have developed as a habit over the past few years. I don't use it to say "I'm going to the store" because that would be ridiculous.
Quote from: Slarti on July 20, 2007, 06:23:27 PM
Either way, i speak in e-prime when i know i'm talking about a subjective topic... Music, Books, TV, personal interests, opinions, talking about another person's mood, etc. I don't do it consciously, it just seems to have developed as a habit over the past few years. I don't use it to say "I'm going to the store" because that would be ridiculous.
Oh come on now, Slarti, you expect us to be able to figure out that e' is useful sometimes and not useful sometimes? How are all of the anti-e' folks gonna prove that e' sucks unless they can take it to idiotic extremes that only a dogmatic fool would consider valid?
I mean, its not like we have some sort of brain or anything that might help us figure out when its useful and when its not. We're supposed to either use it ALL OF THE TIME, or NEVER. That's the only rational answer, obviously.
*suppresses giggle*
Quote from: Slarti on July 20, 2007, 06:23:27 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 01:06:44 PM
It should not read like, "It seems as though 5 individuals may have possibly been randomly chosen to recieve treatment, which from my subjective opinion may have been matched with control individuals with what looked like to me to be about the same weight and conditions", or " From what was subjectively assumed, 42.3% looked like they grew over half an inch over 3 days, from my reconing."
from what i understand of e-prime, it wasn't meant to be taken to that extreme. If you pick 5 people for an experiment, for all intents and purposes you have to assume that it's an objective truth. You're stretching its use. At its core, e-prime is english without the word 'to be'
Quote
5 individuals were randomly chosen to recieve treatment, matched with 5 control individuals with weight and condition within one unit of each other
The e-prime equivalent of that could be "We randomly selected 5 individuals to recieve treatment, and matched them with 5 control individuals with measured weight and condition within one unit of each other" or something to that effect.
I don't know much about the etiquitte of writing scientific papers, although i remember my physics teacher in high school telling me to refrain from saying "we did this... we did that" in lab reports. not sure if this holds true as a general rule of thumb in the real scientific community as well, but i'm sure if it does there is another acceptable translation of that sentence into e-prime that would work.
Either way, i speak in e-prime when i know i'm talking about a subjective topic... Music, Books, TV, personal interests, opinions, talking about another person's mood, etc. I don't do it consciously, it just seems to have developed as a habit over the past few years. I don't use it to say "I'm going to the store" because that would be ridiculous.
However, in a scientific paper you are attempting to support conclusions with evidence that is taken as actually happened. In that case, you do not want to seem like you are unsure of your results as you are reporting them, which would make the conclusions seem more shaky and less valid or useful. Direct reporting of results has no room for e'.
Okay, i can agree with you on that point. I just didn't agree with the example you used because it was taking things to an extreme. I just find E-Prime to be a helpful way for me to remind myself that "the map is not the territory". As a side note, it's funny that that Korzybski said that, and that RAW liked that quote so much, even though it's obviously not spoke in e-prime...
I think Korzybski wanted E-prime to be used in science because it could serve as a reminder that all the results one got from scientific research were based on the tools and equipment and models used to gain the results, and i don't believe he was too worried about people appearing unsure in their conclusions because he WANTED people to be unsure, to doubt their models, to constantly question their reality grids, etc.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 06:48:23 PM
However, in a scientific paper you are attempting to support conclusions with evidence that is taken as actually happened. In that case, you do not want to seem like you are unsure of your results as you are reporting them, which would make the conclusions seem more shaky and less valid or useful. Direct reporting of results has no room for e'.
That's likely true, particularly if you're looking for funding. Our society tends toward the Aristotelean view of the Universe and they don't tend to like fuzzy logic. After all, who'd pay the Doctor or listen to any Scientist, if they admitted that they only have a "pretty good idea" of what's going on, rather than knowing the Truth.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2007, 07:07:20 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 06:48:23 PM
However, in a scientific paper you are attempting to support conclusions with evidence that is taken as actually happened. In that case, you do not want to seem like you are unsure of your results as you are reporting them, which would make the conclusions seem more shaky and less valid or useful. Direct reporting of results has no room for e'.
That's likely true, particularly if you're looking for funding. Our society tends toward the Aristotelean view of the Universe and they don't tend to like fuzzy logic. After all, who'd pay the Doctor or listen to any Scientist, if they admitted that they only have a "pretty good idea" of what's going on, rather than knowing the Truth.
No doubt, there ARE some shady dealings that go on with Research Funding, in both the Physical and Social Sciences. However, a lot of it is legit and with their interest being in the greater good. And in those instances they want to make sure their money is going towards something that will have concrete results.
Quote from: Slarti on July 20, 2007, 07:05:37 PM
I think Korzybski wanted E-prime to be used in science because it could serve as a reminder that all the results one got from scientific research were based on the tools and equipment and models used to gain the results, and i don't believe he was too worried about people appearing unsure in their conclusions because he WANTED people to be unsure, to doubt their models, to constantly question their reality grids, etc.
i dunno
science has its own methods to accomplish those things. the scientific method. falsifiability. it works pretty well.
you don't wanna do that in a real person-to-person discussion
and that is where e-prime
comes seems to come in in very handy,
sometimes.
Yeah i mean i'm not saying i agree with it, just from what i've read of korzybski and e-prime and general semantics, it seems like that was his goal. I agree with you, i only use e-prime in person to person discussion...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2007, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2007, 07:07:20 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 06:48:23 PM
However, in a scientific paper you are attempting to support conclusions with evidence that is taken as actually happened. In that case, you do not want to seem like you are unsure of your results as you are reporting them, which would make the conclusions seem more shaky and less valid or useful. Direct reporting of results has no room for e'.
That's likely true, particularly if you're looking for funding. Our society tends toward the Aristotelean view of the Universe and they don't tend to like fuzzy logic. After all, who'd pay the Doctor or listen to any Scientist, if they admitted that they only have a "pretty good idea" of what's going on, rather than knowing the Truth.
No doubt, there ARE some shady dealings that go on with Research Funding, in both the Physical and Social Sciences. However, a lot of it is legit and with their interest being in the greater good. And in those instances they want to make sure their money is going towards something that will have concrete results.
Sure, however... the results are equally concrete no matter the language used. E' simply admits that there's a limit to the concrete-ness of the information. People aren't programmed to accept that basic fact and thus would see something written inE' as a non-concrete.
However, as I've said a number of times. E' is useful in some situations and not useful in others. In the realm of Philosophy, religion and theoretical studies it might make more sense, particularly in debate (as opposed to a report on observations).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2007, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 20, 2007, 07:07:20 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 20, 2007, 06:48:23 PM
However, in a scientific paper you are attempting to support conclusions with evidence that is taken as actually happened. In that case, you do not want to seem like you are unsure of your results as you are reporting them, which would make the conclusions seem more shaky and less valid or useful. Direct reporting of results has no room for e'.
That's likely true, particularly if you're looking for funding. Our society tends toward the Aristotelean view of the Universe and they don't tend to like fuzzy logic. After all, who'd pay the Doctor or listen to any Scientist, if they admitted that they only have a "pretty good idea" of what's going on, rather than knowing the Truth.
No doubt, there ARE some shady dealings that go on with Research Funding, in both the Physical and Social Sciences. However, a lot of it is legit and with their interest being in the greater good. And in those instances they want to make sure their money is going towards something that will have concrete results.
It doesn't matter if you have strong results or weak results. You simply report the results, with as little subjectivity as possible. Because subjectivity means inprecise data, and unrepeatability of experimentation. e' prime gets in the way.
If you want to use e' in the conclusion section, thats up to you, but generally its not used there either. Or in methods, or the introduction. Its part of the whole standard formality of a scientific paper to remove subjectivity as much ass possible.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 20, 2007, 06:19:00 PM
But at the same time, you have to be firm in your research, you can't just say, well we think this is what's going on but we could be wrong. No one wants to fund that shit.
which may be the ultimate problem in and of itself
we are witnessing the end of a legacy that has tried to accomplish that which is impossible
namely - control
this is a fine example
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
wtf is it with e-prime?
is it really supposed to enhance the accuracy and precision of your speech/writing? no, that is a lie. it is not supposed to enhance anything. it's just politically-correct "make sure you don't offend anybody" bullshit.
fuck that. if your opinion sucks, i'll say so. if you don't like it, then tell me my opinion sucks.
you'll be wrong but you'll feel better.
why should i waste half of my effort in saying something just to make sure you understand that i'm only expressing an opinion? if you can't tell it's only an opinion, then you either fail at communication or need to do more homework.
people these days make a career out of being offended by anything. e-prime just adds another layer of bullshit to every argument. now you can avoid the subject completely by saying "yeah but you didn't say IMHO." it's a whole world of the kind of shit lawyers and theologians (the two biggest reasons for societal decay) love to debate, i.e. useless crap about what you REALLY mean when what you say is plain as day.
What the fuck is E Prime?
I don't fully understand it myself
but it is the elimation of the verb "to be"
with the result of eliminating the passive voice, or in other words where your subject is the target of the action
ie... My dog is hurt
subject.. actionin E prime the words that mean "to Be" - as in my example "is" - are eliminated
so my example becomes
My dog has become hurt
my problem with it, other then fact I dont fully understand it, is that your letting semantics become more important then the message (which is the way of dawning 21'st Century... really)
it also makes description of the abstract generally impossible
Quotee.g. a student is more likely to be described in E-Prime as "She attends classes at the university".
http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 22, 2007, 11:18:46 PM
I don't fully understand it myself
but it is the elimation of the verb "to be"
with the result of eliminating the passive voice, or in other words where your subject is the target of the action
ie... My dog is hurt
subject.. action
in E prime the words that mean "to Be" - as in my example "is" - are eliminated
so my example becomes
My dog has become hurt
my problem with it, other then fact I dont fully understand it, is that your letting semantics become more important then the message (which is the way of dawning 21'st Century... really)
it also makes description of the abstract generally impossible
Quotee.g. a student is more likely to be described in E-Prime as "She attends classes at the university".
http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf
This is fucking retarded.
I thought e-prime was illustrative? Kind of like the Law of Fives, this is an example of how the brain can be fooled by semantics etc...I didn't know people actually did it, all the time.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm
EDIT: Before anyone asks.. yes that is the same Robert Anton Wilson as The Illuminatus Trilogy
I'd say e-prime is mostly useful as an exercise and possibly as a tool, something to consider now and then as you speak or write (or think?). Though he didn't "invent" e-prime as such, Korzybski did point out the dangers of identifying different levels of abstraction with each other, something easily done using the "is of identity". The problem isn't solved just by avoiding the word "is", but it might be one way of making yourself aware of that you're identifying. Using e-prime all the time seems pointless though.
BMW: how would using E-prime make your writing less objective? I agree that scientific papers are rarely, if ever, written in strict e-prime, but on the other hand, I'd say they're a fair bit more e-primey than a typical newspaper. Lots of "we interpret as", "this indicates that", "is regarded as" etc... Generally, e.g. the bit where the experiment is described, "is" is abundant, as mostly this is a list of techniques used. But when the results are reported and discussed, the wordings usually gets much more careful, with "is" tempered with stuff like "in general", "under this/that assumption", etc. Although not e-prime by definition, it has much the same effect.
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 23, 2007, 04:08:54 AM
I'd say e-prime is mostly useful as an exercise and possibly as a tool, something to consider now and then as you speak or write (or think?). Though he didn't "invent" e-prime as such, Korzybski did point out the dangers of identifying different levels of abstraction with each other, something easily done using the "is of identity". The problem isn't solved just by avoiding the word "is", but it might be one way of making yourself aware of that you're identifying. Using e-prime all the time seems pointless though.
BMW: how would using E-prime make your writing less objective? I agree that scientific papers are rarely, if ever, written in strict e-prime, but on the other hand, I'd say they're a fair bit more e-primey than a typical newspaper. Lots of "we interpret as", "this indicates that", "is regarded as" etc... Generally, e.g. the bit where the experiment is described, "is" is abundant, as mostly this is a list of techniques used. But when the results are reported and discussed, the wordings usually gets much more careful, with "is" tempered with stuff like "in general", "under this/that assumption", etc. Although not e-prime by definition, it has much the same effect.
TROOF!
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 23, 2007, 04:08:54 AM
I'd say e-prime is mostly useful as an exercise and possibly as a tool, something to consider now and then as you speak or write (or think?). Though he didn't "invent" e-prime as such, Korzybski did point out the dangers of identifying different levels of abstraction with each other, something easily done using the "is of identity". The problem isn't solved just by avoiding the word "is", but it might be one way of making yourself aware of that you're identifying. Using e-prime all the time seems pointless though.
BMW: how would using E-prime make your writing less objective? I agree that scientific papers are rarely, if ever, written in strict e-prime, but on the other hand, I'd say they're a fair bit more e-primey than a typical newspaper. Lots of "we interpret as", "this indicates that", "is regarded as" etc... Generally, e.g. the bit where the experiment is described, "is" is abundant, as mostly this is a list of techniques used. But when the results are reported and discussed, the wordings usually gets much more careful, with "is" tempered with stuff like "in general", "under this/that assumption", etc. Although not e-prime by definition, it has much the same effect.
The RESULTS section, RESULTS people! As in you are reporting the direct results of whatever experiment you performed! There is not supposed to be ANY interpretation in results, only straight forward reporting with as little subjectivity as possible. Interpretation goes in your discussion and conclusion. If you fail to do this, not only does no one take you seriously, but you fail your scientific writing course.
A scientific paper is generally layed out in this manner:
Introduction: with background, citation of previous research on the subject, etc. The very end of the introduction includes your hypothesis. This can be slightly interpretive up to the hypothesis, but after that, everything needs to be objective till your conclusion
Methods: This is how you set up the experiment, what materials were used, etc. This is also objective
Results: Objective display of what happened. Includes graphs, tables, statistics, etc.
Discussion: Whereas you discuss the results. Can include e', but should have as little new information as possible. Often includes reasons for data variability and error.
Conclusion: in which you tie the whole of the paper together.
And usually, right at the beginning there is an abstract, telling you the general contents of the paper.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 19, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
If you use e' in your results section of a scientific paper, no professional scientist will take your seriously.
Just sayin.
How often do you make scientific conclusions compared to non-scientific conclusions though?
i had a semi-rant like BMWs up there waiting to be posted, but i closed the window because i thought it was too much grumpy early morning bitching. suffice to say, i agree with what BMW said.
but i should stick to that general layout more often. it's easier and more thorough than making up a logical structure yourself.
btw, you left out the "future work" section, which is IMO a prime e-prime candidate (heh) because it basically consists of speculations (which you'd love to research but it's been long enough and you're past the deadline already).
eventually there comes a point where most definitive statements stop working
'is' is a fallacy in most situations
the word carries connotations of static and rigidity - two things that are very uncommon where we live
use it if it works for you
just
dont allow yourself to be fooled
unless you want to fool yourself
which is a different story altogether
science is a great way to observe things
but
the number of variables involved in any particular situation are prolly beyond our comprehension
and if they are not beyond our comprehension - then they are beyond our ability to communicate
still - the scientific process is by far the best (possibly only) approach to take to investigating one's surroundings
before it was even defined - it was prolly the default approach man was already using
its natural
defining it is almost like taking the time to define what triggers a inhale of breath to the lungs
BMW, the way I understand it, in a science paper, you explain the equipment used, how the experiment was performed, the methods used to obtain the results, ect.
Then you say something like, "between 12:01 and 12:07, the tacheon meter registered 5 events when under conditions X and Y" or something like that.
That's similar to e' in that you're explaining the instruments and methods used.
I agree you don't want to take it further and say, "between what seemed for me to be 12:01 and 12:07, what I assume was a tacheon meter seemingly registered 5 events when possibly under conditions X and Y, for me."
But still, you're listing the instruments and conditions.
yeah that was basically what nurbldorff was trying to get across in his second paragraph, i think.
it's also why i didn't post my post :) cause i based my rant upon the first paragraph and then read the second .. heh
so: the way a carefully written scientific paper is worded, is functionally equivalent to e-prime.
still i wouldn't want to use e-prime in a paper.
Not to mention, doesn't most "hard" science do it's best to remove the observer from the experiment?
Please, don't post quantum physics bullshit at me. I'm in no mood to explain it, again.
to be honest, science papers just use a different approach to the same goal that e-prime uses. specifically, where e-prime has the writer use somewhat vague language when referring to personal opinion in order to emphasize that the opinion isn't necessarily fact, science publications (usually) completely removes all opinion in order to emphasize the actual facts.
so maybe science is better at e-prime than e-prime is.
Yes. The same is true for social sciences. Of course, it can be a tricky horse to ride, so it generally becomes a part of the "potential bias" section of the research. Of course, this primarily tends to be more of an issue in qualitative research when you are dealing with focus groups and other types of anecdotal data.
if a person is full of shit or has alterior motives
it comes across in their writing no matter what technique they use
there is no-prime that could save a idiot
Quote from: vexati0n on July 23, 2007, 03:07:25 PM
so maybe science is better at e-prime than e-prime is.
In some situations. e-prime exists as a tool. It can be a useful tool sometimes. I personally find it useful when debating politics, metaphysics and pretty much anything in a blog environment. Mostly this is because any example used in those situations are often jumped on and driven to some extreme. For example, if I say "It appears to me, based on how I read the Constitution, that States should have the right to make most decisions themselves, without demands from the Feds, unless it breeches the Constitution." Usually the first Liberal reply will be "Then States should be allowed to have Slaves!!!!" (I could point to other recent examples, but I'd just as soon let that dog sleep).
When writing a technical document or a security policy, I don't use E-Prime. When sending my boss an email about why the current encryption implementation seems to be screwed up in a pilot store, I use E-Prime. The most valuable thing a writer can do is communicate the best semantics to get across their ideas. Sometimes E-Prime gets in the way of that goal. Sometimes it facilitates that goal. A writer should know their tools and know when they're useful.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2007, 11:29:52 PM
I thought e-prime was illustrative? Kind of like the Law of Fives, this is an example of how the brain can be fooled by semantics etc...I didn't know people actually did it, all the time.
I used to do it all the time.
I still think E-prime is an excellent creative and analytical device,Äîmuch like the idea of the Law of Fives only less nebulous and with prescriptive qualities.
I've heard it mostly being used in the context of writing but IMO, applying it to live conversation has much more interesting results. Even if only due to the fact that by putting more energy into a social encounter you tend to get more out of it.
Although you save face by keeping it to writing at first, the looser rules of the spoken word make it much easier carry out.
What I extract from E-Prime isn't so much "increasing my subjectivitay" as much as vivifying my language in an invisible and often compelling way. By combining it with a confident tonality in debate people often get disarmed, flustered, or utterly sold. I've attributed, maybe wrongly, winning many skirmishes with my professors to the E.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2007, 03:02:12 PM
Not to mention, doesn't most "hard" science do it's best to remove the observer from the experiment?
sometimes. depends on your style. there's also a line of scientific writing that writes the entire description as "we did this" and "we did that", sometimes even if only one person did the research.
the important thing is to pick a style and stick to it.
this is actually one of the things i find hardest about scientific writing. writing the whole paper in the passive form also becomes unnatural after a while. and i'm not gonna use "we" unless i got co-authors (and even then rather not).
fortunately when i read the papers i reference, i notice a lot of people suck a lot harder at writing proper english, or with writing style in general. though you can clearly see writing style
will improve with experience (even if knowledge of the english language doesn't).
Quote
Please, don't post quantum physics bullshit at me. I'm in no mood to explain it, again.
you know i wanted to :sad:
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2007, 03:02:12 PM
Not to mention, doesn't most "hard" science do it's best to remove the observer from the experiment?
Please, don't post quantum physics bullshit at me. I'm in no mood to explain it, again.
NEEDS MOAR EXPLAINING.
Ok.
It seems to me that a lot of science wants to say what happens to an object, not what happens to the person observing the object.
Which is why they set up reproduicible experiments, and why they do the experiment many, many times.
Also as an example in the theoretical sciences, Einstein's special relativity theory removes the observer from the equation.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2007, 04:19:23 PM
Ok.
It seems to me that a lot of science wants to say what happens to an object, not what happens to the person observing the object.
Which is why they set up reproduicible experiments, and why they do the experiment many, many times.
Also as an example in the theoretical sciences, Einstein's special relativity theory removes the observer from the equation.
Ok.
What's the issue with 000's take on quantum physics?
Where's that thread where you two were getting on hot and heavy over this?
(Thread roont in 3...2...1)
I think it had to do with a general misunderstanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
.. he proposed to my mum, but she said she wasn't sure and needed more time.
it is said this was the only moment in Heisenberg's life when he was painfully aware of both his position and velocity.
:rimshot:
Heh.
Now where were we?
Quote from: LHX on July 23, 2007, 02:29:02 PM
eventually there comes a point where most definitive statements stop working
'is' is a fallacy in most situations
the word carries connotations of static and rigidity - two things that are very uncommon where we live
use it if it works for you
just
dont allow yourself to be fooled
unless you want to fool yourself
which is a different story altogether
science is a great way to observe things
but
the number of variables involved in any particular situation are prolly beyond our comprehension
and if they are not beyond our comprehension - then they are beyond our ability to communicate
still - the scientific process is by far the best (possibly only) approach to take to investigating one's surroundings
before it was even defined - it was prolly the default approach man was already using
its natural
defining it is almost like taking the time to define what triggers a inhale of breath to the lungs
Case closed.
Quote from: triple zero on July 23, 2007, 02:03:10 PM
i had a semi-rant like BMWs up there waiting to be posted, but i closed the window because i thought it was too much grumpy early morning bitching. suffice to say, i agree with what BMW said.
but i should stick to that general layout more often. it's easier and more thorough than making up a logical structure yourself.
btw, you left out the "future work" section, which is IMO a prime e-prime candidate (heh) because it basically consists of speculations (which you'd love to research but it's been long enough and you're past the deadline already).
As far as I know, future work is usually listed as part of discussion or conclusion. Also, while you shouldn't use we unless you are working with a team, you should still use third person in scientific style. And passive tense; although this may seem like poor english its proper for science writing. Maybe the styles are different in different fields but in biology this is the setup and format that is communally respective.
i take issue with the removal of the observer from scientific language.
aside from the obvious subjectivity of the observer,
the person observing has bias, inflection, suspicion,
obligation to monetary backers, and the such.
to remove the observer is to break the continuity of
any given system (not to say it won't produce reproducable
results.) and inasmuch, any system you encounter in
math or physics, etc, will be affected by any and all other juxtaposed
systems, including the observer in itself.
there's a reason republicans always see godless heathens
destroying the moral fabric of society/family values/ the economy, etc...
regardless of the evidence, and other factors.
(not to confuse republicans with scientists.)
Dude.
You asked for it.
Einstein insists that the laws of motion must not depend upon ourselves.
Einstein insisted that Newton's Second Law be altered to account for the independence of lightspeed from the steady motion of a moving reference frame. This program of special relativity ("special" because the reference frame speed must be constant, not accelerating) swept through all the theories of particle motion and gave them a new and simpler form.
Einstein's vision, however, went far deeper than simply reconciling the new features of Maxwell's formulas with the old Newtonian mechanics. He believed that the rules governing the dance of atoms should be entirely free of any merely contingent features. In particular, he believed the rules should not depend upon where or when or from what perspective they happen to be observed.
This is not so easy to arrange. A surveyor will typically express distances and times relative to arbitrary points of reference, like the prime meridian, or Greenwich mean time. These choices clearly depend upon who draws the maps. Einstein wanted the rules of motion to depend only upon relative distances, which we might call "separations," and relative times or durations.
Similarly, motions are usually measured with respect to a platform the observer defines to be stationary, such as the (daily rotating!) surface of the planet earth. So Einstein wanted the rules to depend only on relative velocities, as well as relative distances and times. This is why the whole program is called the theory of relativity. It is a systematic effort to eliminate the point of view of the observer completely from the laws of motion. The special theory of relativity managed to adjust the laws of motion known at the time ,Äì Newton's and Maxwell's ,Äì to be independent of the position, orientation, historical moment of time, and any constant speed, of the observer.
But an observer could be moving with a non-constant speed, jumping up and down for example, or accelerating in some other complicated way like the deck of a tossing ship. And this causes trouble in the theory. Newton's law is a rule specifically about accelerations. Unlike uniform motion, which we cannot detect, we can always "feel" accelerations (except ,Äì and this is a clue ,Äì when we are falling). That is the basic experience the Second Law itself summarizes. How can we separate "real" forces from the merely apparent forces inflicted by our own personal, arbitrary, motion?
These apparent forces are familiar. As an automobile (frame of reference) speeds around a curve, the passengers sense a force pulling them to the outside of the curve. They call it centrifugal force, but there is nothing there to pull them. They are only feeling the effect of the First Law of Motion, which declares the tendency of bodies (theirs) to move in a straight line. As the auto's path is curving, the passengers' straight trajectories would pass right through its side if they were not pulled along with the auto by friction against the seat and by the seat belts. We attribute the pressure of the belts upon our bodies to a fictitious "centrifugal force."
Distinguishing real from apparent forces seems hopeless so long as we express the Rules of the Dance in terms of the observed acceleration. According to Einstein's program, therefore, some other formulation of the Second Law of Motion must be found that does not refer to accelerations. This seems an absurdly radical idea, given that the whole point of Newton's Law is to relate accelerations to forces. Einstein persisted because he was convinced that the deep truths of nature do not depend in any way upon how we choose to view them.
-JHMIII
that is the single best explanation of the theory of relativity that I have ever read.
I learn from the best.
is that from your dad's book, LMNO?
Yupper. Page 24.
I want.
I thought I sent it to you already.
PM me email addy.
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
wtf is it with e-prime?
E-prime can help develop a habit of recognizing that perspective determines meaning - it facilitates understanding in communication. If you don't want to have clearer communications, or think you can accomplish that habit without using e-prime, or just thrive on the chaos of people who insist on living in neatly packaged worlds of certainly blowing each other's kids up and would rather they not learn to listen to one another, then don't use it.
whut? And hello.
Quote from: LMNO on July 23, 2007, 07:40:28 PM
I thought I sent it to you already.
PM me email addy.
you may have, but it might be on my GF's crashed laptop, or it might have been one of the random odd unrecoverable files on my hard drive.
sent.
Quote from: Rev. T. Lockhart Killjoy on July 23, 2007, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on July 13, 2007, 04:55:00 PM
wtf is it with e-prime?
E-prime can help develop a habit of recognizing that perspective determines meaning - it facilitates understanding in communication. If you don't want to have clearer communications, or think you can accomplish that habit without using e-prime, or just thrive on the chaos of people who insist on living in neatly packaged worlds of certainly blowing each other's kids up and would rather they not learn to listen to one another, then don't use it.
There are a number of valid critiques of E-Prime (http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf). It's certainly not the holy grail of communication theory.
One of the major problems with E-Prime is how it limits the range of expression available to an individual. Most communicative theories work to make MORE options available. To suggest that E-Prime has some ultimate, mystical power on top of it already being a restrictive theory misses the point in a big way.
Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson's axioms of communication are widely regarded as basic foundational elements in communication theory and naturally have downsides to them as well. But one of the main reasons you'll see Watzlawick in communication textbooks and not E-Prime is because the axioms ask you to broaden your perspective rather than narrow it. This paper (http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/Sackrison.htm) does an excellent job of putting it into a context not so different from these forums.
Quote from: Netaungrot on July 23, 2007, 10:42:04 PM
There are a number of valid critiques of E-Prime (http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf). It's certainly not the holy grail of communication theory.
Agreed.
(http://images.wikia.com/transformers/images/thumb/3/37/Optimusg1.jpg/300px-Optimusg1.jpg)
"until all seem to be one?"
Quote from: LHX on July 24, 2007, 04:38:08 AM
(http://images.wikia.com/transformers/images/thumb/3/37/Optimusg1.jpg/300px-Optimusg1.jpg)
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113
OFUK! It's Optimus Prime Minister!!!!!1!
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/optimusprimeminister.png)
:lol:
ok..
e-prime = being excessively picky about what you say to avoid presenting your 'perception' as 'fact'.
o-prime = being an excessively big robot.
u-prime
What I yell at my wife when she can't get the mower started.
or
What she yells at me when she wants me to paint something in/on the house.
ez-prime. which is just like english, only you can make up your own pronouns in order to more accurately offend people.
ET-prime - being able to request a phone home no matter where you are or what state of consciousness you're in.
Quote from: Mangrove on July 24, 2007, 06:39:56 PM
e-prime = being excessively picky about what you say to avoid presenting your 'perception' as 'fact'.
o-prime = being an excessively big robot.
in my perception, that is a fact
f-prime,
used by such scholars as Andrew Dice Clay, Dave Chappelle, and Dave Attel.
ass-prime = low income republicans who vote
USDA-Prime - The English language without the use of the adjective and noun combination "cheap meat"
Brie-Prime = eating watered down cheese on crackers in order to seem more fancy to others than you actually are.
E' has nothing to do with peppering your communication with uncertainties like "it seems to me" and "perhaps." It has everything to do with English without the verb "to be." Make of that what you will.
One can speak with certainty using E'.
Quote from: QuackenBush on July 27, 2007, 04:28:39 PM
E' has nothing to do with peppering your communication with uncertainties like "it seems to me" and "perhaps." It has everything to do with English without the verb "to be." Make of that what you will.
One can speak with certainty using E'.
w00t
Quote from: QuackenBush on July 27, 2007, 04:28:39 PM
E' has nothing to do with peppering your communication with uncertainties like "it seems to me" and "perhaps." It has everything to do with English without the verb "to be." Make of that what you will.
One can speak with certainty using E'.
True, it's less to do with peppering, and more to do with asalting.
Oh, and welcome. You may want to pop by the Apple Talk forum and file a proper introduction.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 27, 2007, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: QuackenBush on July 27, 2007, 04:28:39 PM
E' has nothing to do with peppering your communication with uncertainties like "it seems to me" and "perhaps." It has everything to do with English without the verb "to be." Make of that what you will.
True, it's less to do with peppering, and more to do with asalting.
ZOMFG! :lulz: I still hate yuo!
It appears to be Hammertime. Perhaps not, but fuck it I'm gonna shake it regardless.
/
:hammer:
:mittens:
RWHN takes it and bakes it!
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 23, 2007, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 23, 2007, 04:08:54 AM
I'd say e-prime is mostly useful as an exercise and possibly as a tool, something to consider now and then as you speak or write (or think?). Though he didn't "invent" e-prime as such, Korzybski did point out the dangers of identifying different levels of abstraction with each other, something easily done using the "is of identity". The problem isn't solved just by avoiding the word "is", but it might be one way of making yourself aware of that you're identifying. Using e-prime all the time seems pointless though.
BMW: how would using E-prime make your writing less objective? I agree that scientific papers are rarely, if ever, written in strict e-prime, but on the other hand, I'd say they're a fair bit more e-primey than a typical newspaper. Lots of "we interpret as", "this indicates that", "is regarded as" etc... Generally, e.g. the bit where the experiment is described, "is" is abundant, as mostly this is a list of techniques used. But when the results are reported and discussed, the wordings usually gets much more careful, with "is" tempered with stuff like "in general", "under this/that assumption", etc. Although not e-prime by definition, it has much the same effect.
The RESULTS section, RESULTS people! As in you are reporting the direct results of whatever experiment you performed! There is not supposed to be ANY interpretation in results, only straight forward reporting with as little subjectivity as possible. Interpretation goes in your discussion and conclusion. If you fail to do this, not only does no one take you seriously, but you fail your scientific writing course.
While I agree that in an ideal world, this should be the case (and it's certainly what you should aim for), I don't think it's even possible to report results without in some way interpreting them. To start with, you always have some preconceived notion of what you're observing. This means you'll always be selective in what you see in the data. Then, you choose how to represent these data; plotting them or whatever. Rarely do not report ALL your data, but restrict yourself to what seems "relevant" or "meaningful", or your paper will likely be unreadable. There are always subjective choices and while those choices should be reported and motivated, it's practically impossible to be exhaustive, if not else because you're probably not aware of all of them.
That's why I think it's good to be somewhat careful about language even in your "results" section, because, if nothing else, it might draw attention to the fact that even the raw data went through the brains of real people on the way to publication. Even in a "hard" science as experimental physics (my field). I'm not saying it because otherwise, everyone else will interpret it as THE TROOF. I just think it's plain good for YUO.
Quote from: nurbldoff on August 03, 2007, 07:25:39 PM
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on July 23, 2007, 01:11:48 PM
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 23, 2007, 04:08:54 AM
I'd say e-prime is mostly useful as an exercise and possibly as a tool, something to consider now and then as you speak or write (or think?). Though he didn't "invent" e-prime as such, Korzybski did point out the dangers of identifying different levels of abstraction with each other, something easily done using the "is of identity". The problem isn't solved just by avoiding the word "is", but it might be one way of making yourself aware of that you're identifying. Using e-prime all the time seems pointless though.
BMW: how would using E-prime make your writing less objective? I agree that scientific papers are rarely, if ever, written in strict e-prime, but on the other hand, I'd say they're a fair bit more e-primey than a typical newspaper. Lots of "we interpret as", "this indicates that", "is regarded as" etc... Generally, e.g. the bit where the experiment is described, "is" is abundant, as mostly this is a list of techniques used. But when the results are reported and discussed, the wordings usually gets much more careful, with "is" tempered with stuff like "in general", "under this/that assumption", etc. Although not e-prime by definition, it has much the same effect.
The RESULTS section, RESULTS people! As in you are reporting the direct results of whatever experiment you performed! There is not supposed to be ANY interpretation in results, only straight forward reporting with as little subjectivity as possible. Interpretation goes in your discussion and conclusion. If you fail to do this, not only does no one take you seriously, but you fail your scientific writing course.
While I agree that in an ideal world, this should be the case (and it's certainly what you should aim for), I don't think it's even possible to report results without in some way interpreting them. To start with, you always have some preconceived notion of what you're observing. This means you'll always be selective in what you see in the data. Then, you choose how to represent these data; plotting them or whatever. Rarely do not report ALL your data, but restrict yourself to what seems "relevant" or "meaningful", or your paper will likely be unreadable. There are always subjective choices and while those choices should be reported and motivated, it's practically impossible to be exhaustive, if not else because you're probably not aware of all of them.
That's why I think it's good to be somewhat careful about language even in your "results" section, because, if nothing else, it might draw attention to the fact that even the raw data went through the brains of real people on the way to publication. Even in a "hard" science as experimental physics (my field). I'm not saying it because otherwise, everyone else will interpret it as THE TROOF. I just think it's plain good for YUO.
As far as I know, e' is a way of saying something, not deciding what or what not to say.
Sure, but its purpose is (IMHO) to make you think about what you're saying, which, in turn, is likely to result in choices about what you will say. E-prime seems intended more as a tool to help make you conscious of your own assumptions etc, than a standardized way of expressing yourself.
It sounds more like a big, steaming pile of ISO-9000-ish bullshit, to me.
It's crap. Meaningless semantics.