Vocabulary and Nuances and the Education Thereof

relegating our communications to a never-ending chain of blacks and whites.

Perhaps you've only been exposed to rather uneducated people (sorry if I seem at all snobbish saying this) who don't possess as expansive a vocabulary as you.

I can't help but wonder if much of the communicative difficulties we encounter - day to day - might yet be a result of our inability to communicate accurately. In this time, when plain-speak seems to only deserve our praise, I can't help but notice that the art of communicating subtleties may have passed us by, relegating our communications to a never-ending chain of blacks and whites.

We can't lose those greys lest our combined view devolve into generation after generation of two-dimensional thinkers. Who here thinks it makes no difference: mauve or purple?

Translate this into the realm of philosophical communication and its import should come clear: An appreciation of the art of letters is paramount to our ability to grasp our collective, inescapable truth: Life is complex and full of nuance. If such is not taught nor appreciated, might we end up polarized, perpetually in dispute? Arguing where no real disagreement might, in fact, exist...

Just a thought... comment is invited.

Actually it seems that the younger generations (my generation included) are becoming progressively less intelligent as time advances. With the advent of the internet and the instant messaging/face book phenomenon, the size of our vocabulary and our ability to convey ideas has diminished. The generation under me is already plagued with the inability to properly wright in the English language and defers to internet "chat speak" (see definition here Urban Dictionary: Chat speak ) when writing and occasionally when speaking. As such it's no surprise that a person could go their entire lives without meeting very many literate people... And I can only imagine what form of English the next generation will adopt as they grow up.

James (Rubix Cube)

The generation under me is already plagued with the inability to properly wright in the English language

I think the problem goes back to the advent of television. I'm too afraid to even look into the average grade-level vocabulary of television shows today.

Now, kids spend their time glued to the television, only glancing away long enough to hammer out a quick text message, "Lolz 4 reel" "sup playa" "u 2" and so on. Practice makes perfect, and imperfect practice... well, you guys get it.

But back to the point: My perception is that having a broad vocabulary is not only not 'desired', to many it's looked down upon (memories of Idiocracy). If this is at all accurate, the spiral-down accelerates; dumbing us down more and more. Also: It's my belief that human nature seeks the easiest, quickest and shortest route to it's tasks across the spectrum. Again, to the extent that this holds true, it naturally follows that we'll become less wordy (which might be desirable for many applications). Even so, this polarizes our language, increases misunderstanding and conflict due to simple, avoidable, mis-communication.

Khethil, I'm curious: When do you believe our highest point in terms of communicative ability was, as a species?

Are you sure this "spiral-down" is unique to our period in time? Couldn't we name many periods in human history, especially during the Dark Ages, where many people were uneducated and didn't value the complexity in language?

I understand your point, but I'm not quite understanding why what you're saying is unique to our period in time. It seems we could make the argument for a great many periods in time, and we're definitely not doing that bad in comparison.

Are you saying that the quality of our thoughts can only be as great as the quality of our language?

First of all, to the above posts, I don't think we're considering all of the ways technology is improving, not devolving or diminishing, the language of our youth. And not just our youth, but every one in the world. Though this sounds awefully cliche, we do have access to more information now than ever before. People can research virtually anything, and find out anything about language they desire. I'm fairly certain that without my exposure to sites like these, my vocabulary and ability to communicate would be less mature.

Khethil, I'm not sure you were even referring to technology, though. What is making you think that people, these days, are ignoring the greys, the subtleties?

Because something, in some way and in some place, has been an issue before, doesn't invalidate the attention it warrants in the here and now.

Is this vocabulary? I can't honestly say with absolute certainty - it certainly seems so

No, it does not. But in order to better understand the problem, we must place it in a context as expansive as the concerns we're acknowledging. The uniqueness, I think, plays a role in defining this problem. If, for sake of argument, we assume there has always been some extent of this "spiral-down", we can at least take the advent of technology out of our main concern list. We should, I think, begin looking for common denominators, particularly in social interaction, where miscommunication occurs (really, throughout human history).

Also, and I want to clarify something. Initially when you first posted, it seemed as though you were arguing we were degressing as a species. I think I got this impression more from those who responded than from your actual post, but nonetheless is the impression I got. So, my intial response was with that in mind - not so much that there isn't a problem or that we shouldn't address it, but rather that this problem reaches further than our period in time. Thus, when we address it, we have to take this into consideration, lest we begin placing blame via convenience (the easiest scapegoat receives the award).

I think it's ego and personality. Two amicable minds can reach common ground and understanding despite being poorly educated with immature dictions. People often even understand they're engaging in "Violent Agreement", but they choose to continue. This has nothing to do with the expansiveness of their vocabularies, but rather how bull-headed they choose to be.

1) Human's tendency to go for the least effort -and- 2) Polarization of communication through vocabulary reduction - and how they play on each other; fueling and exaggerating each others' effect.

I'm probably going to need to understand in more detail why you feel that vocabulary reduction can promote conflicting (this is how you're using "polarization" here, right?)communication. If humans go for the least effort, does this always hamper communication? Do we need big words to articulate big thoughts? Sometimes, I think, we may, but does this mean a summarized version won't suffice?

What about the polarization of communication through vocabulary expansion? Some people feel less is more, in terms of communication. If we articulate too many greys, could the same problem occur?

We must consider our audience whenever we converse, and if we converse to an audience that doesn't understand the nuances in our language, we must understand we may be the ones making the error. A great communicator finds common ground, even if that means reducing language to a more understandable tidbit.

Sometimes the simplest, most direct answer/language does the best job; no doubt. We're not talking "always"... It's a pattern, a prepondrance, maybe even a trend. This is very tough to give an example of; actually, scratch that - it's easy to give an example. But any particular part that might reflect a pattern 'on the whole' can be given disqualifiers. Let me try; this is crude, to be sure (but I hope it illustrates on aspect of where I'm going):

• Wanna come over for a beer?
  
• Would you like to come by for a visit?
  
• Hey, I really need to talk. Do you feel like coming over?
  
• Say, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind lending an ear; I've got a problem.
  
• Say, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind lending an ear; I've got a problem. It wouldn't hurt to have some drinks together either; I've got beer
  
• Say, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind lending an ear; I've got a problem. It wouldn't hurt to have some drinks together either; I'm drinking and feeling a bit talkative.
  
• Yo, come hang
  

Which to use, in my case, would depend on a lot of factors; where that best balance is. But if my primary need is to vent with a friend in an non-threatening atmosphere of effusiveness, which fits best? If I want to communicate my particular need, which tells it best? Even more important, which in our climate is most likely to be used by those hampered by vocabulary? Not necessarily the most wordy, but certainly not the least. What I'm hoping is apparent in this crude example is to illustrate that although there's a balance, a better vocabulary (indeed, even the willingness, effort-expended to use such a vocabulary) enhances the preciseness of the message communicated.

No, this isn't an ALWAYS or NEVER proposition. But the lack of ability or vocabulary can't help but hamper ones communicative effectiveness. Translate this into our every-day communication; every day action.

To have a better vocabulary, which I'm suggesting we need, does not equate to using the most words. To suggest that this must be the case is two-dimensions

Isn't the problem less with the trends caused by technology than with what we value and praise? If civilisation continues to value clear, lucid, and well-phrased writing (and thinking, for the two are inseparable), then it will find ways to avoid the pitfalls of the forces that pull towards the opposite direction of lazy simplicity, vague "thinking," repetitive sloganeering, and verbal confusion.

Again (and again, and again), there are many issues, pitfalls and potential sticking points. And for anyone to say that "This is an issue!" is not the same as professing it is the ONLY issue.

We hardly ever mean exactly what we say. It's not that we generally speak figuratively or that we're generally insincere (these are different ways of not meaning what one says). Rather, we commonly speak loosely, by omitting words that could have made what we meant more explicit, and we let our audience fill in the gaps. Language works far more efficiently when we do that. Literalism can have its virtues, like when we're drawing up a contract or programming a computer, but we generally opt for efficiency over explicitness. In most conversation, though, spelling things out is not only unnecessary, it just slows things down.[2] It is often misleading too, insofar as it guards against something that doesn't need to be guarded against.