|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
adventious
Joined: 23 Nov 2015
Posts: 237
Location: In the wide
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:17 am Post subject: Splain It to Me |
 |
|
http://status451.com/2016/01/06/splain-it-to-me/
Alice Maz offers a model of communication in regard to discussion of two types: harmonious emotional experience and information sharing. The responses that don’t attempt to establish emotional rapport are merely coming from a different context, one in which communication is about information sharing.
From the article:
Communication is hard. Like, really hard. Brain-to-brain state transfer is impossible, so we rely on an untold number of tools, signals, assumptions, wild guesses, and luck in the hopes that we can get someone else’s black box to generate something vaguely similar enough to our original for practical purposes.
What strikes me about “splaining” is that it’s so widespread–both the ostensible act and the complaints about it–and so consistent. Two reasonably distinct groups of individuals speaking on arbitrary topics, but the interactions generally resemble the same form and end up in the same place.
While it would flatter me greatly if the vast majority of the people in my out-group turned out to be malicious and/or stupid, it seems more reasonable to conclude the groups communicate differently and as a result have a difficult time communicating with each other.
This is the essence of culture. People drawn together by shared values, with history, lore, customs, speech, and thought all their own, working toward a common goal. I’d very much like to see more genuine communication between the groups, that we may understand each other better, and maybe even share a bit of information. But it is difficult for that to happen when the ways we differ are dismissed out of hand, when we are held to a values system we do not subscribe to and punished for not living up to its standards. Because we are, actually, different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great find, adventious!
Here's one I'm more familiar with although it's more narrowly focused on dialogue:
| Quote: |
I give a meaning to the word “dialogue” that is somewhat
different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words
often help to suggest a deeper meaning. “Dialogue” comes from
the Greek word dialogos. Logos means “the word,” or in our case
we would think of the “meaning of the word.” And dia means
“through” – it doesn’t mean “two.” A dialogue can be among
any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a
sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is
present. The picture or image that this derivation suggests is of a
stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us.
This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group,
out of which may emerge some new understanding. It’s something
new, which may not have been in the starting point at all.
It’s something creative. And this shared meaning is the “glue” or
“cement” that holds people and societies together.
Contrast this with the word “discussion,” which has the same
root as “percussion” and “concussion.” It really means to break
things up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be
many points of view, and where everybody is presenting a different
one – analyzing and breaking up. That obviously has its
value, but it is limited, and it will not get us very far beyond our
various points of view. Discussion is almost like a ping-pong
game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the
object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly
you will take up somebody else’s ideas to back up your own –
you may agree with some and disagree with others – but the
basic point is to win the game. That’s very frequently the case in
a discussion. |
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear LongShiKong,
Interesting - but perhaps too much emphasis on etymology and not enough attention to how those words are actually used in real life by real people.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adventious
Joined: 23 Nov 2015
Posts: 237
Location: In the wide
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As the post didn't generate much interest, I want to thank you for contributing. The OP is language about language and that's always fun.
The source of your quote? I would offer no contradiction or alternative to the etymologies given. But without more context, the author's conclusions in terms of value are problematic for me. The comparison is semantic and a distinction likely made in, say, a workshop, therapy, colloquium, or seminar because their contrast serves or speaks to a purpose.
But an association is plain to see and I appreciate a reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adventious wrote: |
| As the post didn't generate much interest, I want to thank you for contributing. |
The way you've worded it sounds like you're holding John and I accountable for such lack of interest. 
| adventious wrote: |
| ... the author's conclusions in terms of value are problematic for me. |
How so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gregory999
Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 372
Location: 999
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Communication in this thread is hard, and brain-to-brain state transfer was impossible.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johnslat wrote: |
Dear LongShiKong,
Interesting - but perhaps too much emphasis on etymology and not enough attention to how those words are actually used in real life by real people.
Regards,
John |
Used, or misused for political currency? If you can endure just one more etymology, perhaps you'll see my point:
| Quote: |
TheFreeDictionary.com says that 'tolerating' is "to put up with" or "endure" something.
Now did you notice something here? In order for 'tolerance' to exist and to be demonstrated, several things are required. Let's take a look at the list of pre-requisites for 'tolerance':
1. Two or more people must exist
2. These folks must hold divergent views, beliefs or practices. In other words, they must DISAGREE.
3. These same folks must endure one another. In other words, they cannot eliminate each other even though they don't embrace each other's beliefs, but must instead find a way to peacefully co-exist.
You see, 'tolerance', under this classic view, requires a disagreement. Without the disagreement, 'tolerance' is not even possible. Now let's take a look at a new accepted view of tolerance that has emerged in our relativistic culture.
Websters-Online-Dictionary.com begins to hint at the subtle shift in definition when it describes 'tolerance' as "a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior." In its 'Declaration on the Principles of Tolerance', the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines 'tolerance' as "respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human."
Notice the shift? The concept (and the actual word) 'acceptance' has been added to the definition in a way that subtly transforms the classic definition. This view promotes not that we must 'endure' each other in the context of our disagreements, but that we must 'accept' and embrace each other's worldview as equally valuable and equally true. This current definition of 'tolerance' could be stated in the following way:
Tolerance: "The act of recognizing and accepting the equal validity and value of all views, beliefs and actions."
This new definition of 'tolerance' cannot live up to its own standard. What if I hold (and practice) the belief that 'all views, beliefs and actions are NOT equally valid and valuable'? Could the new, corrupted definition of 'tolerance' tolerate my position? No, clearly my position would be the one position that would have to be abolished in order for the new, corrupted definition of 'tolerance' to be true. But rejecting my view entirely would simultaneously reject the new definition itself. You see, this corrupted view of tolerance simply cannot stand up under the weight of its own standard. The world presently embraces a view of 'tolerance' that is illogical, unsustainable and self-refuting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fester
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tolerance: "The act of recognizing and accepting the equal validity and value of all views, beliefs and actions."
Where, how and why do you get the word 'ALL' in the above quote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xie Lin
Joined: 21 Oct 2011
Posts: 731
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fester wrote: |
Tolerance: "The act of recognizing and accepting the equal validity and value of all views, beliefs and actions."
Where, how and why do you get the word 'ALL' in the above quote? |
Oh, my!
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I, for one, refuse to tolerate intolerance (except, of course, in cases where the intolerant others are intolerant only of intolerance.) 
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fester wrote: |
Tolerance: "The act of recognizing and accepting the equal validity and value of all views, beliefs and actions."
Where, how and why do you get the word 'ALL' in the above quote? |
Simple. By not deleting or altering it. 
The quote comes from this website but the fallacy appears to be quite widespread among what some are calling 'regressive left' while others refer to as 'moral relativists'. Two members of a dialogue group I belong to state it as: "All Views are Equally Valid and Equally Valuable!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Connecting this thread to the larger context of language teaching, I presume it's this fear of intolerance, insults, etc. that has certain members here spooked about the prospect of engaging EFL students in authentic communication with others via class-to-class Skype calls with those of another L1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
