December Deductions 2020; Day 10

 Today I'm going to talk about one of the most important parts about learning in general. 

Learn to take a break. 

Seriously, burnout can come in a lot of different forms, but regardless of where it comes from or how it hits, it can basically knock you out. If you've been keeping up just with the stuff I've been posting, you may already be very, very exhausted with all of it. Even when you're having fun learning, it can be very tiring. 

So, do yourself a favor every now and then, and take a break. If you want to read but know it's time for a break, read something about nice, simple things that you can just enjoy. If you want to watch something, every now and then choose something that's just simple fun. Better yet, do so more than every now and then. Rest is good for you. 

To that end, today's post is going to be short, and tomorrow's post is going to be a bit of a break, something fun rather than a lesson on learning. I haven't yet decided the subject, but it's not going to be particularly serious, and I hope you can take the opportunity to just chill out for a couple days, relax, let your mind recuperate from the constant assaults I've been subjecting it to. 

Remember, you're doing a really good job, believe it or not. Even on days where you're having a hard time, changes are you're putting in all the effort, but sometimes things just happen to be really, really hard. A rule of thumb I have learned to love is that for anyone with which you interact, they're probably doing their best, but some days their best doesn't necessarily look that great. Keep that in mind and you'll find it's easier to work with people. But also keep it in mind for yourself; we're all doing our best, but some days our best just doesn't look that great. Doesn't change the fact that we're doing it, and frankly, it's hard enough to do our best as it is without expecting our best to always be amazing every day. Be kind to yourself, and above all, you'll be okay. 

Alright, that's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in tomorrow's post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 9

 Alright, so you may have already grasped this, but just in case anyone's unaware, no one gets this stuff right all the time. Even if you do get everything I could possibly teach you right, you can and will make mistakes, you'll make wrong choices, you'll let your emotions get the better of you, you'll lose control, or any number of other possible things that will make what I'm teaching you today really, really important. 

Today, we're going to talk about apologies. 

Let's start by saying that everyone, yes everyone, should learn how to give a proper apology. We've all met the people who think apologies are somehow an admission of weakness or defeat, or those that simply take pride in never apologizing. In general, they're working under the belief that apologies give someone power over you, but that's not really what they're about. 

According to Psychology Today, the main purpose of an apology is repairing hurts and wounds in relationships. This is definitely true, and it applies to just about every possible relationship, whether it be something as personal as your relationship with your significant other or family member, a professional relationship, or sometimes even the very impersonal relationships you briefly experience in passing online. Sometimes the wounds are to your own credibility and/or personal honor, and that relationship, the one you have with yourself, sometimes needs healing too. 

Now, we all remember as kids being told to apologize and getting away with a half-felt "I'm sorry," or at least I remember that. Maybe I was just a crappy kid and everyone else meant the "I'm sorry"s they gave, who knows. In any case, as adults, we should know by now that "sorry doesn't cut it." A good apology has three major parts; first you acknowledge what you did wrong and explain that you understand why it was hurtful, you state that you intend not to do it again and possibly offer explanation, and then you conclude by inviting them to comment, or follow up with them later at least. Let's take a closer look at those pieces. 

An acknowledgment of what went wrong is important, and how you phrase it is also important. The old advice is to use "I statements," like "I'm sorry" and "I said the wrong thing." The key there is to shift the focus of blame onto yourself, rather than shift blame away. That means that apologies that end up being basically "I'm sorry you feel bad," "I'm sorry I was taken out of context," and "I'm sorry you're so weak," are not good. The verbs should be yours. Avoid the passive voice, which is what they call it when "things happen," and avoid shifting blame to the intended recipient. 

Just to make it a bit clearer, here's a simple example of a proper acknowledgment. "I'm sorry, I misspoke and I understand that by doing so I made it seem like I blamed you. That wasn't my intention, but I can see that's how it came across." 

An acknowledgment alone might cut it, but usually it doesn't. If the relationship is simply a passing one, maybe they'll be fine with that, but any lasting relationship will need a statement about the future. Now, sometimes we make mistakes because of things we can't control; a really good example of that is when a psychological disorder affects our perception to where we fail to follow through on our own values. That happens to me when I experience an extreme adrenal reaction, and I'll say things that I do not mean, that are often untrue. When that happens, I definitely need to apologize, but it also affects what I can say about the future. 

That's where explanations come in. When you make a simple mistake that you can learn from, it's fairly easy to say you'll do your best to not let it happen again, and mean it. If you've never made an apology with that kind of explanation, you might want to explore how well you're learning from your own mistakes. When the mistake is something that will be much harder to change, then it helps to better explain yourself, like I did with the psychological issue above. In either case, it should be your goal to do better in the future, and you can tell them that. Here's an example of that portion of an apology:

"I didn't mean to say it like that. I got my wording mixed up and panicked, so I said it wrong. I get that what I said was not okay, and I will do my best to not let something like that happen in the future." 

The final step is to invite comment. This is important because part of the function of the apology, part of how it heals those wounds, is to let them know they're being heard. This is where they have a moment to, if they feel it necessary, apologize in return, or simply accept your apology. I don't know of a right way to get this part done, it seems to be entirely based on the context, but the goal here is to let them know that if they need to say something, you can listen. 

This is the least fun part of the apology, because you really do need to try to listen. That means you have to be willing to hear them out if they want to more fully explain why what you did hurt them, and that's not fun. It can make you feel even worse, but it is sometimes important to let them do that. If that happens, where they feel the need to make sure you understand how your actions affected them, it is usually a good idea to go through the first two parts again to re-communicate that you understand, and maybe show that your understanding has improved based on what they said. 

Finally, there's always the chance it "won't work." No one is obligated to accept an apology, no matter how sincere. If they don't accept it, you can try to ask them why and see if it something that can be addressed. Sometimes they just need time away from the problem, which may mean they need to be away from you, so they can process what happened. Sometimes they're just unwilling to accept. Sometimes they're like the people we mentioned above, where they think they've won by getting you to apologize, and will react in a toxic manner. In any of these cases, or many others, it's alright to go ahead and end the conversation there for a while. If the relationship involved is one that matters to you long term, be sure to gently follow up with them after you've given them some time. 

Now, let's cover some aspects of apologies that I didn't get into with just the structure. First, an apology is not truly about them. It's about you, how you did something that caused unnecessary harm, or even necessary harm. Even if they can't accept your apology, it will help you learn from your mistakes and learn to trust yourself if you apologize. It also may help others who witness it to understand that you're willing to admit when you're wrong, which is an important trait to have if you're trying to learn more about the world around you. Secondly, there are some tools that do not work well for apologies. If you absolutely need to text your apology, don't make it complex, that might lead to them reading into it and result in another miscommunication. A simple "I'm sorry for ____" will work, but be sure to follow up later in a better format. The same generally applies to Tweets or anything else with a character limit. If you can, take it to direct messaging, an email, or another more fluid method of communication, like a phone call. Finally, please remember to take your own mental health into account. If you're not ready to talk about part of your personality or psychology that leaves you prone to make a certain kind of mistake, then don't force yourself, just focus more on the "I'll try not to do it again" part. If the other person is being toxic, feel free to cut the conversation short, and maybe follow up later. An apology is an action of strength, not weakness, so don't let people use it to walk all over you. You're worth more than that, and that's really why we apologize, because we can be better, we want to be better, and we will be better. 

To sum up: apologize when you screw up, which you will do, because we all do. Acknowledge what you did or said, how it affected the other person, and that you will try to do better. Let the other person say their piece if you can, so that you fully communicate that their feelings and well-being matter to you. And don't let people use the fact that you apologized to hurt you. Just because you screwed up doesn't mean they get to treat you badly, it just means you're human, and frankly, if you can apologize you're better than many, and better than you were, so hold your head up high.

Alright, that's all for today. As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 8

 I'm going to cut right to the chase: today we're going to talk about the function of a homogenous dialect. Let's get started. 

Alright, first let me explain what a homogenous dialect is. In the USA, and in most of North America for that matter, we teach the same dialect of English in every school, even those who prefer homeschooling have to learn it. In general, it can be referred to as Academic English. Since we all learn it, whether it's our primary dialect or not, we all can generally use it and understand it. It's all the same, which is what "homogenous" means. So our homogenous dialect in the USA is Academic English. 

That does not mean that there are no other dialects of English present or used in the USA. There are plenty. Every urban center usually features multiple, and there are a bunch of rural dialects used throughout the USA. African American Vernacular English is a very well known and heavily studied dialect that used to be called Ebonics (there is some debate as to whether AAVE and Ebonics are the same dialect or two similar dialects). Almost everyone is aware of AAVE, though you may not know it by that name. It's the dialect most commonly used in urban areas in which African Americans are the primary residents. You may have heard it called "gangster." 

That's just one example. You're probably aware of other dialects and not even know it. If, for instance, you know that in the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan the words "ope" and "oh" are not synonymous, or if you know that the proper plural of "y'all" is "all y'all" rather than "y'alls," you're aware of different dialects of English. Yes, their usage often coincides with an accent. The difference is that dialects are what is spoken, accents are how its spoken. 

Now, that's all just to help you understand what a dialect is, and how we already have a lot of them in our various cultures and subcultures. Today I want to talk to you about the function of a homogenous dialect, because it seems to be a subject a lot of people have been misinformed about. I'm not saying they just got it wrong, I'm saying they were told wrong when they were taught the dialect, and that those teaching the dialect weren't told why they were teaching it. 

First and foremost, there is no such thing as "proper" English. No dialect is inherently superior to another, but some serve different functions better than others. Academic English is not a natural dialect, but rather constructed. It's built to function directly with reference materials, most notably dictionaries, thesauruses, and encyclopedias. If you run across a word you don't know in Academic English, it's deigned so that you can look it up and understand it. Academic English also happens to be the dialect that I choose to use the most, simply because it can have such clean and clear definitions. The same cannot be said of most other dialects. 

Why do we have it? Because it serves a very specific function very well. The purpose of a homogenous dialect is to allow people on one side of the nation to communicate with people on the other side of the nation, or anywhere in between, and be understood. There have been attempts to create an entire language this way, but they've generally failed, but it has worked with a homogenous dialect. It is also not the only tool developed for that purpose; in the USA we have an accent that was designed to be easily understood, which I tend to refer to as the "Hollywood Neutral" accent, but it's actually a variant on a lower-Midwestern accent. In the UK, they have what's called the "BBC Accent," which was developed for the same purpose. 

Why is that important? Because when we need to have information transmitted to the vast majority of our population, or even just a lot of people from across the nation, we need to be able to do so without worrying about something getting lost in translation. This is incredibly useful not only in situations where official information needs to get out, like emergencies or systems like the "Amber Alert" system, but also because it gives a vehicle for interaction for the size of organizations and super-organizations our society and economy thrive on. The business world uses Academic English almost exclusively when it comes to writing, but you'll still find other dialect used "on the ground" as it were, when interacting with customers. That way, you get a personable interface that provides meaningful interaction with people and organizations that might otherwise not understand that dialect, and we're able to do that because we teach Academic English to everyone, while still allowing them to develop their own speaking skills with their peers, family, and community. 

Now, here's where I start to get offensive. Most English teachers in academia seem to have the reasoning for this wrong. They will tell their students that they teach Academic English because it's the correct way to read or write English, but as I said, that's not a real thing. All dialects are viable dialects, they just have different properties that make them more or less useful for certain purposes, and Academic English is specifically designed to be good for the purpose it serves. You learn basic Academic English in compulsory education because we need all citizens to be able to understand a certain level of official and unofficial communication. You learn more advanced Academic English, mostly focusing on writing, because having that skill is an unwritten prerequisite for promotion above a certain level in any industry. If you need to communicate regularly with people via writing, you benefit from that education. That's why many technical schools and trade schools still feature English courses. You're not being taught these things for arbitrary reasons, or because they're "right," language doesn't have an inherent moral or ethical value like that. You're being taught them because it benefits you, and it benefits your community, whether that be local, business, national, or even international. Almost anyone who speaks any dialect of English can understand Academic English, so knowing it and knowing how to use it opens up opportunities for communication and interaction. 

TL;DR: We all learn the same form of English, Academic English, because it helps us and it helps our society, not because it's "right" or "good" or anything arbitrary like that. That doesn't mean your primary dialect is wrong, it just means you can benefit from the additional tool that is Academic English. 

That's it for today. I fully expect for some educators to be very, very upset with me, but I meant what I said. It's up to you how honest you want to be with your students, but especially if they're adults, you probably should be willing to tell them that they're learning it because it can help them, not because some dude named Webster decided it's the right way to go. 

As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 7

 Today's the day you've all been waiting for: we're wrapping up my tips and tricks specifically about word choice.

Tip 5: Putting It All Together and Why

Alright, so let's summarize each of the previous tips, then we'll cover the connections and the overall theme. 

Our first tip was to be aware of vernaculars, but let's simplify that again. Be aware of different sets of words and how they're used differently based on context. Be aware of it for when others' use it, and be aware of it when you do it, so you're ready to answer the question as to "why". It will also help you identify when public statements aren't *exactly* what a person means due to the need to avoid legal issues, as happens with news media very often. 

Our second tip was to be specific with your meanings, and be sure of the meanings of others. Be willing to explain the definition you're using, and be willing to ask respectfully for someone else's used definition if you think there might be a miscommunication. 

Our third tip was to not be an uninvited editor. Believe it or not, grammar Nazis pretty much derail conversations. If you're looking to learn more, you don't want a derailed conversation. 

Our fourth tip was to avoid attacking people, but rather judge and argument or claim by its merit. Look for evidence, look for good reason, etc. Attack the argument, not the arguer. 

Now, the whole reason for this is because we're all here to try to learn more about the world. That goal of learning more and the goal of "winning" an argument by beating the "other side" are mutually exclusive. If you want to learn more, and you want to be someone who helps others learn more, you need to let go of the feeling that you need to "win." If you can't let go of the feeling, at least follow through on the actions, and be careful with what you say so you don't derail the conversation yourself. That being said, don't torture yourself by staying in a conversation where you're being attacked without hope of getting it back on track towards the truth. 

I know today's post is short, but I figured all of us could use a bit of an easier day. 

As I've said before, if you're following along, I will "see" you in the next post, and have a great day. Goodbye. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 6

 OK, today is the day you start to get annoyed with me, if you haven't already, because I'm basically going to tell you to calm down, take a breath, and treat even the rudest of people with a modicum of respect. And yes, it is a continuation of the word choice tips. 

Tip 4: Avoid Ad Hominem and other useless attacks

This doesn't have anything to do with the actions of someone else, and you are going to hate me for that. If people insult you, attack you, cancel you, lie about you, anything, you do not respond in kind if you want to continue learning. It often feels like the least fair part of trying to learn more around other people. Even before they start purposely acting like jerks, you want to act like a jerk. How do I know this? Well, I often act like a jerk completely unintentionally and people do respond in kind, but also because I constantly want to do it. I want to just slam their virtual face into facts that I know and they don't to win the argument and - obviously that's the exact wrong way to approach things. 

In case you haven't been on Twitter in the last few years, and haven't taken a Philosophy course, an Ad Hominem attack is what I discussed last week: attacking the arguer rather than the argument. Usually, the attack isn't even related to the subject matter, like pretending that correcting their grammar makes you smarter, or just insulting them. I can't tell you how many times I've had people somehow think that implying sexual inexperience somehow affected my argument. 

Oh, and I'm no saint either, this is probably the hardest lesson to actually apply out of anything I'll teach you, because it requires you to take your emotions and tell them to shut up and sit quietly in the corner of your mind while you treat the other people better than they're treating you. 

There are other kinds of fallacious attacks that tie in to Ad Hominem attacks, like what's called the "genetic fallacy." The genetic fallacy is basically the idea that a fact's merit can be entirely based on its source. Note, this is not talking about when someone makes a claim with no backing, it's most often applied, in my experience, when it comes to well known people or organizations. You are probably well aware that if you link an article from a Fox affiliate news source or a CNN affiliate news source, you're going to get replies that all too often include the word "sheep." 

That ties in with Ad Hominem attacks because one often leads to the other. If someone is angry about a claim, rather than assessing the claim's merit, they can just insult the source. "Of course someone as dumb as you watches CNN/FOX." It's very easy to dismiss claims that way, but also incredibly useless to do so. It's worth your time to judge a claim based on its merit, which includes checking multiple sources, including those you may not personally prefer. Keeps you from being in an echo chamber. 

This all leads into a discussion on circular logic, but that's a very complex subject that I will cover more in depth at a later date. I will, however, leave you with a very common example of an argument based in circular logic, so you know to avoid using it, or falling for it. It often comes up whenever someone wants to say mental health is the primary cause of a particular problem, and goes as such: 

Person A: "Why do you think they did that?"

Person B: "Well, because they're crazy!" 

Person A: "Why do you think they're crazy?"

Person B: "Well, you'd have to be crazy to do that!"

See the problem? If you break down Person A's argument, it's that a person did something because they were crazy, but the only evidence they were crazy is that they did it, so they're crazy because they're crazy. That's why it's called circular reasoning, it just goes back to itself to prove itself. Another name for this lapse in logic is "begging the question." Don't fall for this, and definitely don't use it. If you look at your argument and realize that it only supports itself, you may need to rethink your argument. 

So, to sum up: don't attack people, even if they attack you (feel free to leave the conversation though, it's probably a dry well if they're consistently attacking you rather than responding to your argument); Judge a claim based on its merit, including evidence from other sources when possible, rather than just discrediting it based on the source provided; and don't use or fall for circular reasoning. In all of these aspects, be the better person, it's your only chance of getting that "win" we talked about before, where all parties involved end up closer to the truth. 

Alright, that's enough for today. Great job getting this far. Take a breather, get something to drink, eat if you haven't lately, and let your mind chill for a bit. I'm throwing this stuff at you in a really dense and fast manner, so I'm pretty sure its exhausting. Make sure to take care of yourself even as you try to better yourself. 

As I've said before, if you're following along I will "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a great day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 5

 Alright, today we're going to focus on something that's important when it comes to word choice, which is how much you can control other people's work choice.

Tip 3: Don't be an uninvited editor. 

Alright, we've all heard the term "grammar Nazi," and for some of us, we've used it to describe ourselves. If you know me, you know I've done this over, and over, and over, and over again. I've done what I thought was correcting people far too often. Worse, I've used a mistake/misunderstanding based on grammar or syntax as part of my argument; logic doesn't really work like that. 

"But if I'm trying to learn more about stuff around me, and if other people are wrong, then I can't!" Yeah, the whole point of these posts is to explain to you how to get around that. There's a distinct difference between asking for clarification and giving people unrequested "advice" or correction. I still have problems with this, because I got so used to using that as a tool to "win" an argument. Remember that if you're there to learn, you're not there to "win," you win by learning more, not by trying to prove the other person wrong. If you happen to convince them to learn more and maybe change their mind, great, but don't make that your singular goal. I'll explain that in more detail at a later date, but the short version is you'll just end up upset and disappointed. 

If you think there's a misunderstanding or miscommunication happening, don't push for correction, ask for clarification. Make sure to make it about your own understanding, rather than their actions or intelligence. Here, I'll give you a list of options and explain why they're more or less preferred. 

"Correction*" 

That one's dismissive, and will almost always result in the perception of you being there for a fight, and that you think you're better than them. It also has the direct effect of pushing anyone who doesn't speak English as their first language, or doesn't speak academic English primarily, out of the conversation. Just, please don't do this. 

"I think you meant/ did you mean 'Correction?"

This one's not as bad, but it still gives off that feeling of condescension and superiority. It also has that same silencing effect on people who don't speak your preferred dialect. 

"Do you mean 'correction'?"

Much, much better, but if the other person is already emotionally charged, this is still pretty likely to result in an escalation of conflict. 

"I'm sorry, I think I might have misunderstood. Can you explain what you meant when you said 'correction'?" 

That one puts the fault on your lap, leaves them open to react as if you're not attacking them. It does take up more time/character limit, but it's the most likely to result in a more reasonable conversation in my experience. 

Finally, let's talk about how using it as an argument doesn't work. The purpose of an argument is to counter the actual content of one of the previous claims, not to counter the person who presented it. Under the most strict rules of philosophical debate, who presents an argument doesn't really matter. Sure, expert opinion relies on expert credentials, but that's generally just evidence for a claim, rather than the claim itself. When you choose to try to make an argument out of correcting someone, you're basically attacking the arguer rather than the argument. It's a low blow that only serves to derail reasonable conversation. 

Why does that matter? You can't get good information out of people who are pissed at you. If you want to learn more, to become better, to get the information so you can analyze it and choose whether it's reliable or needing to be rejected, you need it to be as reliable as the source of it can provide, which means you need to treat them well. That, and they're you're fellow person, often your fellow citizen of the same nation, the same community, you need to learn to work together. 

Tomorrow's post will be about a similar subject to that last paragraph, the concept of ad hominem attacks. I hope it's helpful enough to clean up at least a few of the debates on the internet. 

Regardless, you did good today. Take a moment to relax, and remember that. You're not a bad person, and you're even working to make yourself better. You deserve to feel good about that, okay?

Alright, as I've said before, if you're following along I'll "see" you in the next post, and otherwise have a good day. Goodbye! 

December Deductions 2020; Day 4

 Day 4: Words Matter Chapter 2 - Different Definitions

This may seem a bit like a rehash of yesterday's piece on vernaculars, but it's important enough that I felt the need to spend a full day's post focusing on it, so here we go. 

Tip 2: Be Accurate, Be Precise, Be Aware Of Other Definitions. 

Why is that all one tip? Because it's all one concept. A lot of the discussions about important events and concepts today fail in a very, very important way: they don't treat their words as important as the concept requires. When you're talking about what to get for dinner, there's no reason to freak out about being precise. It's not going to really affect the discussion if you call both Taco Bell and a local, family owned restaurant that specializes in Latin-American cuisine "Mexican Food." It's simply just not that important. 

Now, when we're talking about the rights and liberties of millions of people, about making cultural changes to make the world a better place, or about just about any other socioeconomic issue that requires either a governmental or mass response to fix, the importance goes up. In those conversations, even though we often have them among people that can't really change anything, accuracy and precision are much more important to avoid miscommunication and misunderstandings. 

Let's cover one such misused and abuse word in recent years: "socialism." I'm going to try to keep from pouring into what "socialism" actually is, because that's a long discussion that doesn't have much to do with word choice, but I will focus on what it's not, and why it's use in Western politics has caused such a problem for a lot of people. To be brief: socialism is an economic system, not necessarily political or governmental, in which the "people" own what are called the "productive assets." That's it. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Medicare, social security, food stamps or anything else like that. 

People think it does though. Why? Because politicians and their allies largely misused the word throughout the cold war and beyond. They took a look at every social program, and called it socialist. Even today, both parties use the term socialism to describe things like tax cuts to corporations, government funded healthcare, and even government apologies for past actions. The thing is, for the most part, those are social programs, but they're not socialism. They're not changing how our economy functions on a basic level, they're changing some details about how we're running it. 

Why does this matter? Because "socialism," like so many other words that are affected by today's tip, is used not to convey information, but to cause an emotional response. We used to call these kind of things "buzzwords" or "loaded" because they really muddy the water of a reasonable discussion. If you want to learn more about the world around you, or help others learn it, don't appeal to emotion. Emotions can be wonderful things, and they can even give us some information about ourselves, but they're not useful when it comes to learning or making decisions. I know that sounds harsh, and if you don't believe me go ask a scientist or philosopher that you trust, and feel free to come back here later. 

The key to avoiding those pitfalls of emotion is to seek out accuracy and precision in terms. Part of that comes from using more accurate terms, like instead of using "socialism" as a blanket term, focus in on what you're discussing. Is it a single-payer healthcare system funded by the government? Maybe use "universal healthcare." That kind of thing. Accurate terms tend to be more professional or academic in nature, and tend to be longer, but they're worth having at your disposal, because if you know someone will immediately shut down at the thought of "socialism," which is kind of what the word has been used to do for a while now, then focus on the details, and maybe they'll be more willing to discuss why they honestly think there's a problem with it. 

When seeking to be precise in a conversation, the most important thing to do is confirm that you're working with the same definitions for key terms. If someone tells you that they hate "Obama-care," for instance, ask them to elaborate on it. What they may hate is the idea that the mandate that came with it hurt so many people who had to choose between useless but still expensive healthcare plans or paying a fee at the end of the year. Or it could be that they hate the fact that the government is deciding what people can or can't do with their money. 

Getting those key terms down pat will help you both communicate and understand better, and instead of a discussion being an argument where one person has to win, it can become a debate where, by responding to each others concerns and counter points, both of you end up closer to the truth than you started. But if you're using a word to mean something while they think you mean something completely different, you're going to end up having a hard time communicating at all. It's worth the extra time and effort to confirm the definitions. If nothing else, it may show the person you're talking with that you legitimately care enough to want to understand where they're coming from, rather than just being there to pick a fight. 

Finally, be aware of common terms that have different definitions. Loaded terms and buzzwords are a big one, because they'll often be used to mean different things by different subcultural media, whether that be a news organization, a social media site, or even just a regional difference based on where someone grew up. Over time, learn to identify the words you use that you have a definition for that doesn't necessarily match the common usage. If you've been following along so far, you've seen me define a bunch of terms because I've found that how I use them can be confusing without doing so; that's a practice you can use to avoid miscommunication. 

Alright, I think that's enough for one day. Let's quickly sum up and head out. Today's tip is to use precise terms to avoid miscommunication, open up the conversation by asking how someone is using a term that may not be in line with what you expect, and be aware of the times you do the same. Reducing miscommunication is just a generally good thing to do, so hopefully this all helped. 

Have a great day everyone, and if you're keeping up with all of this nonsense, I'll "see" you in tomorrow's post. Goodbye!

December Deductions 2020; Day 3

 Day 3: Words Matter Chapter 1 - Vernaculars

No, this is not me trying to get you to realize that the old "stick and stones" rhyme is ridiculous (it is, but that's not for today). There's a big problem with a lot of the dialogues about important issues that can skew our understanding of it very easily, and that's word choice. 

On the surface, word choice seems like a small thing. Using synonyms seems like a good way to keep what you're saying from being repetitive, and an explicative here or there is just emphasis. In a conversation between people that already understand each other, that's pretty accurate, it doesn't matter that much, but a lot of the stuff we're discussing these days happens to be with people we generally don't know that well, who we can't read well, and often who we don't even see, just see what they type. 

There are a lot of tips and tricks I've learned about word choice, so this one is going to be a bit long, but I'm going to try to keep it as simple as possible. This is going to be broken up to a few days because otherwise this would be way, way too long. Each day I'll try to just do one tip about word choice until I've run out of them, and then on to the next concept. They all build on one another so they can't really be put in a good order, so I'm just ordering them based on which one I feel like writing about next. 

Tip 1: learn to identify vernaculars

I'm going to oversimplify this, so if you're intrigued by this concept, please look deeper than what I write. Vernaculars are kind of like different sets of internal dictionaries. If you go to the reference section of a major library, you'll see things like Webster's Modern English Dictionary, but also things like medical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, and dictionaries for just about every professional or academic discipline out there. A vernacular acts as our way of using those without us actually using them. 

Let me clarify a bit. When you're speaking to a friend informally, you're using what I would refer to as a "colloquial vernacular", which basically just means everyday speech. If, however, you were writing an essay for a class or a report for your boss, you'd likely use an academic or professional vernacular, meaning you'd choose different words based on a set of more precise definitions, usually. Every professional and academic discipline that has experts in it has a vernacular, and they often overlap with related disciplines. They're not as scary as I make them sound, either. 

If you got through a significant portion of schooling here in the USA, you're already somewhat aware of different vernaculars, but you wouldn't use that term for it most likely. You're aware that when speaking to your teacher in class, you talk differently than you do when speaking to your friends outside of class. That's a basic version of your own academic vernacular versus your colloquial vernacular. If you went to college and found that you had to use terms differently based on what kind of class you were doing the work for, you came across different academic or professional vernaculars, like using terms in an anthropological context versus using them in a biological context. 

Now, before I go into why this helps, let me be sure to clarify one very important bit: my use of the term vernacular is not universal. So far in my experience, I've also seen the terms "lexicon," "dialect," and even just "word choice" used to describe them. I choose "vernacular" because the term "professional vernacular" is part of the academic vernacular we all are supposed to be taught here in the USA, so it's usually pretty easy to explain what I mean. 

Learning to identify what vernacular a person is using gives you a sort of foundation to better understand meanings that may be more subtle, or may be misleading due to context. A good example of this comes in the form of legally important accusations. You won't see legitimate news organizations refer to someone who shot someone else as a "murderer" until after a trial has concluded, because "murderer" has a legal definition that requires conviction. They may use the term "alleged murderer" or "gunman," so they don't technically misspeak and commit an act of defamation that can get them sued. You will, however, see a lot of people use "murderer," "terrorist," etc. For that same kind of person because in informal speech defamation isn't as big an issue. 

This also comes in handy when you're looking at how experts and media organizations treat various claims. One thing I've seen a lot recently is people claiming that the media or experts are being too soft on someone because they use non-accusatory language, like I mentioned above. That narrative exists to discredit the news for following legal standards that keep them from being liable for any losses the person they're referring to may suffer due to their coverage of the event in question. Just because an expert, whether they be a police officer, a lawyer, a scientist, or a journalist, doesn't call an alleged criminal a "criminal," doesn't mean they're being nice to the accused, it just means that they're following the law. If you're trying to understand how that relates to colloquial speech, just ask yourself the question of "what are they trying to say happened, but can't say directly because there's legal stuff involved?" Usually the narrative of a media organization is pretty clear when you're looking at the full coverage. 

So, to summarize and even further simplify: learn to see what professional or academic context that the other person might be using, because it can help you understand them, and help you choose your own words better. Avoiding miscommunication is the goal there. Also, be aware of common professional vernaculars, like those used by media organizations due to legal concerns. That will help you better understand what is being said, and later on, it'll help you identify bias (that will come much later this month). I know it sounds daunting, but just like everything else I've written about so far and will be writing about, this is not something you need to put a lot of worry into. You're not going to learn it all in one day, in fact a lot of these you can only really get down pat by failing through miscommunication and facing the consequences, but I'm hoping that by having these concepts introduced to you, you'll see those failures as what they are, simple, forgivable failures that you can learn from and grow, rather than something you either have to pretend didn't happen or something to feel deeply ashamed about. 

You're going to be okay. None of what I'm saying is of universal importance. These are just tools that I've found helpful in learning about the world around me, and in learning about myself, so please, be at peace. Take a breath, let it out, and take a moment to try to relax a little. I know this stuff is stressful, I've been where you are, to some extent, when I was learning these myself. If you can, try to see these posts as icing on top of the knowledge and experience you already have that has gotten you so far in life, not something that will save you from a looming absolute destruction. They will hopefully make your life a little easier, but if you don't get them right away, or if you struggle with them for a while, that's not going to cause a huge amount of harm. You'll be okay. 

That's all for today. Please, have a wonderful day, and if you're keeping up with all this, I'll "see" you tomorrow. Goodbye. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 2

 Day 2: Universal and Existential Modifiers. 

OK, the topic name sounds scary, but it's not that bad, I promise. We'll cover the vocab, and then the application. 

A "Universal Modifier" is basically was we use to note a statement about all instances of something. A simple way to put it is that Universal Modifiers come in the form of "In all cases of ____." Like If I said all humans are mammals, that's a universal statement. Likewise, if I said no humans are reptiles, that is also universal. How, because it's still breaking down to "In all cases of [something being a human], it is not also a reptile."

A "Existential Modifier" is what we use to note a statement that is not about all instances. It breaks down to "In at least one case of _____." Examples: There are people that are fat, and there are people that are not fat. Two existential statements. 

Now here's where it comes in more handy: the counter to any universal statement is an existential statement, and vice versa. If you're playing "Never have I ever," you experience this directly. The claim could be, for instance "never have I ever eaten a gumball." To counter that claim, you just need to show that the person claiming it had eaten a gumball at least once. The opposite is true as well. The claim that "I walked on water" can be countered with "no one walks on water." It can also be countered with "no you haven't," which is also a universal. That one breaks down to "In all cases of [me possibly walking on water], I have not walked on water." 

There is one generally applicable kind of universal statement that can be proven, those that are impossible to be false. Often this is stuff that's true by definition, like my universal statements about humans. By definition, a human is a bipedal mammal of the species name "homo sapien." Therefore, by definition, anything that fits that definition is a mammal. It's impossible for it not to be true. The same works for "all squares are rectangles," since, by definition, any square also meets the requirements of the definition of rectangle, but it also happens to have four equal sides. I point this out so you don't get confused when people are able to prove some universals, but remember that generally those that can be proven are proven through reason alone, rather than needing to seek physical evidence of it. Or just forget this paragraph, I fully admit it's confusing, and I apologize for that. 

Now, if you remember yesterday's post, about the burden of proof, these come in especially handy. See, you can't prove a universal, but you can disprove one. You can't disprove an existential, but you can prove one. That will help you figure out who had the burden of proof: who's claim can be proven. If someone claims "I've been robbed!" the counter is obviously "no you haven't." Now, the person who claimed that they'd been robbed just need to prove that they, in fact, have been robbed once, so the burden of proof is on them. 

However, in reality and law things get messier. See, by countering the claim of "I have been robbed" with "no you haven't," you've also implied "you have lied in this case." That's a very specific existential, and in considering how it might affect court of law or even the court of public opinion, things get murky. It's possible that the person can't *prove* that they've been robbed, but they have evidence to support it (missing valuables, injuries, having traveled through an area that experiences a high rate of violent crime, etc.). In your counter, you then have to provide evidence to support your assertion that they have lied. Since you can't disprove that they've ever been robbed, you can try to find evidence that disproves some of the details, (video footage of the alleged time and location, an alibi for the accused, etc.). What I've just described is a very simplified version of how a criminal trial works, with the prosecution being the person alleging that "I have been robbed" and the defense being the person alleging "no you haven't"; or vise versa if the alleged crime is filing a false police report rather than robbery. 

So, the way this particular tip/trick helps is that by learning to identify whether a claim is universal or existential, whether it's about all of something or at least one of something, you can better understand what claims people are trying to prove, and what claims they're not, because they can't. That alone won't necessarily help you get closer to the truth, but it will help you learn how to assess the evidence being presented. And also, please remember, even though in logic we know we can't prove universal statements, often people will ignore logic and insist you can. Please don't fall for it. "Proving a negative" is a form of proving a universal, so don't let people insist that you have to prove something never happened, or something can't happen. 

December Deductions 2020; Day 1

For December, I'm going to try something a little different. I'm going to share with you some of the tips and tricks I've learned and use regularly to help understand what's going on in the world, to help identify biases and bad faith arguments, and to get to the truth on matters that are otherwise controversial. I won't say any one works amazingly, or even that all together they'll all work perfectly, but they've helped me get past some issues that I've seen far too many people get stuck on in recent years. 

Day 1: 

Today I want to explain what "burden of proof" or "onus of proof" refers to, and a basic explanation of how it works in both philosophy and law. Again, this is very basic, especially when it comes to law, the concept becomes much more complex and has a lot more issues involved. 

The Burden of Proof is a concept of who in a debate or argument should actually provide proof for a particular claim or counterclaim. The most basic working version of this is that the person making the claim that something is, has been, or will be, must provide the proof, and so the burden of proof is on them. For instance, if you allege that someone you know committed a crime, you must provide evidence to support that; you cannot merely assert that they must prove it didn't happen. 

This brings up a very important concept that people really do need to know: you can't prove a negative. That literally means you can't prove something never happened, and in most cases, can't even prove that a particular claimed event didn't happen without really explicit detail on that event. Using the example above, the person you claimed to have committed a crime can't prove they have never done so. They can provide evidence that might call yours into question, but they can't prove they never did anything like that unless they have some irrefutable record of their entire existence, which as of yet is still impossible. Saying they need to prove it didn't happen is saying they need to prove a negative, which is impossible. If you ever see someone respond to another person asking for evidence by saying "well prove it's not true!" you can reasonably assume that they lack the necessary evidence to prove their claim, and are hoping that since the other side literally can't prove their claim can't be true, that the possibility of it's truth is enough to carry their argument. 

Just a quick rule of thumb on that last bit: if something is possible, that doesn't mean it's probable/likely to be true. If something is probable that doesn't mean it necessarily happened. Be aware that claims are not black-and-white in this particular area, something can be possible, and even probable, and still not have happened. Look for evidence about what actually is, rather than what could be. 

Let me know if this kind of thing interests you. I'm going to try to keep this up throughout December, or at least as long as I have tips and tricks to share, but if it's really just not going to help anyone, I might not bother. 

In any case, have a great day, and I'll try to post another one tomorrow.