Refusing the GIFT

[parallaxicality]

It's known by many names. Wikipedia calls it the "Online Disinhibition Effect", but its older and more mythic title is the GIFT, or "Greater Internet <redacted> Theory".

The theorem can be expressed as a simple equation: N + A₁ + A₂ = F

Where N = Normal Person, A₁ = Anonymity, A₂ = Audience and F = Total <redacted>

You could argue, indeed, that the strenuous efforts to expel and discipline users on this forum are, essentially, responses to the GIFT.

Recently the GIFT has come under scrutiny by the media, though seldom by name, in its manifestation as rampant misogyny directed at female bloggers and columnists. Cyber-bullying, racism and even hacking are, in their own ways, simply differing manifestations of the GIFT.

It raises some perplexing problems:

First, are human beings genuinely so vile that the simple removal of learned social constraints is enough to turn them into ravening monsters? I think so, but then, unlike many on this forum, I have no faith in human nature.

Second, Can anything really be done to constrain it? The internet was designed specifically to limit control, but this means, effectively, that natural selection takes over. The loudest, strongest and most intimidating voices rule, while the weak are cowed into silence

Finally, do we really have the right, as this forum assumes, to so utterly crush the GIFT that those who indulge in it are banned or stripped of their privileges? Is that not, in its own way, just as crushing of dissent as the law of the jungle?

[HenrikOlsen]

The internet strips people of most social clues that they're interacting with other human beings, which means the learned constraints are not applied.

The GIFT is something to be suppressed at all times, though the method I really want to use, i.e. a real physical cluebat liberally applied to the real physical bodies of the GIFT'ed probably wouldn't be a good idea in the real world.

[Paul Beardsley]

Reading a random sample of stuff on the internet, it's difficult not to have the impression that human beings are genuinely vile. Any woman who is not anorexic is called fat; any woman over 25 is called ugly (actually a worse word than "ugly" which I won't use here), and anybody with a slightly different opinion of a TV series is called various other bad names.

Then again, text interaction with people you know nothing about (apart from what they choose to tell you) is inevitably problematic. There are several regulars on here who don't even reveal their gender or location, which is of course their right, but it sometimes makes it hard to know where they're coming from.

I have a friend who is very loyal, decent, patient, funny... and happens to have different political views to my own. The latter is trivial, because we know each other well enough to realise we have similar morality and simply have different approaches to how to bring about the greater good. But if I interact with someone on the internet, I don't know that they are loyal, decent, patient and funny, I just know they have different political views, which kind of slews the relationship somewhat. Hence I think it is a wonderful thing to have a place where you can talk about astronomy but not politics.

As to the "right" to "crush" the "GIFT" - it's not exactly global, is it?

[Selfsim]

Then again, text interaction with people you know nothing about (apart from what they choose to tell you) is inevitably problematic. There are several regulars on here who don't even reveal their gender or location, which is of course their right, but it sometimes makes it hard to know where they're coming from.

... But if I interact with someone on the internet, I don't know that they are loyal, decent, patient and funny, I just know they have different political views, which kind of slews the relationship somewhat.

This comment intrigues me ... (and that's coming form one of those annoying anonymous-types ).

Surely the words someone writes defines who they are, at the precise moment those words are written .. (??)
Isn't that all one needs, if one is prepared to accept others for what they say, rather than for who we think they are, where they come from, what sex they might be, age, etc?

There's a concept in communications called an "already always way of listening". What this amounts to is that we all carry with us, preconceived prejudices which inhibit our abilities to listen for purely what someone else is saying .. we then add our own meaning to what we think they are saying ... a meaning which, usually, has nothing to do with what they are actually saying (and thinking). We should seize the opportunity of leaving behind this burdensome way of listening, no ?

We should all enjoy the privilege of encountering the pure thoughts of others, (fairly logically constrained on this site, I might add), and enjoy what rolls of the ends of their finger-tips ... regardless of what they might physically look like, what sex or age they may be, or what their past histories might be (??)

Even if they might exercise the 'thread topic', does it really surprise us ? After all, its still quite a simple matter of just walking away from the keyboard, isn't it ??

Regards

[Perikles]

Surely the words someone writes defines who they are, at the precise moment those words are written .. (??)
Isn't that all one needs, if one is prepared to accept others for what they say, rather than for who we think they are, where they come from, what sex they might be, age, etc?

To be honest, this sounds to me like a massive simplification. What somebody writes is never quite what they mean, and is never read as they intended. We have evolved to listen to face-to-face communication where what is said is taken in a context of who says it, the manner in which they say it, their body language, their tone of voice, their history, a whole mass of information which is absent from the written word. I don't think that what anybody says can be extracted from whom they are, such as age and sex, and treated in isolation, without the danger of misunderstandings. As @Paul B said, the only real chance of on-line dialogue is when topics are kept to the rational and scientific, avoiding emotional issues.

[Paul Beardsley]

Thing is, I don't think people "listen" to what others actually "say" on the internet any more than they do face to face. If anything, the either/or polarity seems heightened (you either agree with everything I say or none of it).

Offhand, I cannot think of many arguments in which the speaker's background isn't significantly relevant. If you express an opinion about life on Mars, it would be useful to know what you know about biology and the surface conditions of the planet. If you express a view on the funding of schools, it would be useful if you could back it up with your experience and/or perspective as a teacher or a parent or whatever.

[Selfsim]

To be honest, this sounds to me like a massive simplification. What somebody writes is never quite what they mean,

I find that to be a very broad generalisation ... Whilst I accept that written things may not always be particularly well-considered or well-articulated, I find that mostly in the instant, people mean what they write ...
Anyway, a simple question directed at the writer, can answer the question of whether they meant what they wrote, can't it ?

and is never read as they intended.

Well, that's kind of what I was getting at with the "already always way of listening" .. and that's got nothing to do with the writer ... that's a function of the baggage brought in to the conversation by the reader ...
Also, as I said .. just ask the writer whether they meant what came across ... and that problem disappears in an instant, doesn't it ?

We have evolved to listen to face-to-face communication where what is said is taken in a context of who says it, the manner in which they say it, their body language, their tone of voice, their history, a whole mass of information which is absent from the written word.

I agree that much is also lost by not having the 'visuals', but I think the written word in this medium (for example) adds a lot more clarity because it (usually) requires focus in thinking. After all, why does the law prefer written contracts ? Why is complex engineering always written in the form of specifications? (I'm sure there are many other examples of where writing is used to clarify meaning)...

I don't think that what anybody says can be extracted from whom they are, such as age and sex, and treated in isolation,

But why should their background matter when all one has to go on, is what that person has written (or said)? If we don't know their details, then all we can do is interpret what they've put out there. We have no choice other that to separate what they are, from what they've written (using this place, as an example).
Also, (another example), does it really matter if a qualified scientist wrote the paper I just read .. or is what they wrote more important?

without the danger of misunderstandings.

Misunderstandings happen in verbal and visual communications as well ...

As @Paul B said, the only real chance of on-line dialogue is when topics are kept to the rational and scientific, avoiding emotional issues.

I definitely agree that this keeps up the focus and the quality ... leading towards more effective communications.

Regards

[Selfsim]

Thing is, I don't think people "listen" to what others actually "say" on the internet any more than they do face to face. If anything, the either/or polarity seems heightened (you either agree with everything I say or none of it).

Yep ... I think I'd have to concur with that, too !

Offhand, I cannot think of many arguments in which the speaker's background isn't significantly relevant. If you express an opinion about life on Mars, it would be useful to know what you know about biology and the surface conditions of the planet. If you express a view on the funding of schools, it would be useful if you could back it up with your experience and/or perspective as a teacher or a parent or whatever.

Well, I personally find that experience comes across very quickly in a good conversation. It doesn't take too long to sense experience with a familiar field. Perhaps that's got some label like 'intuition', (which is actually perception, underpinned by a bunch of acquired knowledge .... which also amounts to wisdom, come to think of it ... )

Regards

[Swift]

It's known by many names. Wikipedia calls it the "Online Disinhibition Effect", but its older and more mythic title is the GIFT, or "Greater Internet <redacted> Theory".

From Rule 3:

Attempts to express bad words or phrases in messages or screen names, by any means such as (but not limited to): replacing key letters with different characters, misspellings homonyms, sound-alikes, abbreviations, or any other trick will not be tolerated.

Any more examples of this in this thread will be infracted.

[HenrikOlsen]

I find that to be a very broad generalisation ... Whilst I accept that written things may not always be particularly well-considered or well-articulated, I find that mostly in the instant, people mean what they write ...
Anyway, a simple question directed at the writer, can answer the question of whether they meant what they wrote, can't it ?

Experience from this board show that it's entirely possible for the question to be misunderstood and thus the answer be to a question not asked. This answer is then understood as if it was intended for the question asked at which time serious side discussions happen.
That some people apparently believe that discussion is best done by attacking the literal meaning of
what's written, often by interpreting individual words through dictionary definitions, isn't helping either.

[Perikles]

I But why should their background matter when all one has to go on, is what that person has written (or said)? If we don't know their details, then all we can do is interpret what they've put out there. We have no choice other that to separate what they are, from what they've written (using this place, as an example). ?

Because ultimately you can't separate what has been said from who said it. I know this is a generalization and there are times when what has been said has a face value and is unambiguous, but this is rare unless you restrict yourself to 'scientific' assertions. A simple random example. The imperative "Get thee to a nunnery! What does this mean? It depends on who says it, in what context, and who is reading it.

Also, (another example), does it really matter if a qualified scientist wrote the paper I just read .. or is what they wrote more important?

In a perfect world, no it wouldn't matter. But time is limited and the information out there is almost infinite. Realistically, you are only going to pay attention to something which is likely to have value. So I am far more likely to pay attention to a paper written by a known expert in that field than a paper written by a teenager who hasn't a clue. I find myself doing this on this forum, by the way. When I don't understand something in an argument, I take into consideration the (perceived) background of the writer before making a guess whether what has been said is nonsense or something I just don't understand. Not, I hasten to add, that I automatically believe something somebody said just because of his credentials (magister dixit), nor dismiss something because I know the person to be uninformed.

[Paul Beardsley]

When someone who is supposedly going to overturn our understanding of the universe begins with, "Admittedly I am no physicist or mathematician..." I usually do not read any further.

There's a lot to be said for this approach. Among other things, it means you don't get to the bit where he says, "After all, Einstein didn't know any mathematics."

[Ara Pacis]

Surely the words someone writes defines who they are, at the precise moment those words are written .. (??)

On the contrary, most words are not deliberate but immediate emotional responses. Internet comments are often more akin in timing, frequency and forethought to verbal speech than to essays.

Isn't that all one needs, if one is prepared to accept others for what they say, rather than for who we think they are, where they come from, what sex they might be, age, etc?

Hardly! First of all, no that's not all one needs: there is a great deal more to human communications than connotation of words and the ocassional vague denotation of their syntax. Secondly, humans don't accept others for what they say, they do, in fact, accept them for who they are, which due to limitations in physics, actually means who we think they are.

There's a concept in communications called an "already always way of listening". What this amounts to is that we all carry with us, preconceived prejudices which inhibit our abilities to listen for purely what someone else is saying .. we then add our own meaning to what we think they are saying ... a meaning which, usually, has nothing to do with what they are actually saying (and thinking). We should seize the opportunity of leaving behind this burdensome way of listening, no ?

That sounds like something my Comms professor called Dialogism and Monoligism. Dialogism accepts that different people's experiences inform the meanings of the words they use, which means no two people's meanings can be precisely alike. Monologism is the belief or desire that a word has or can have a universal meaning devoid of individual subtext. How many times have you seen two people, even talking face to face, get into an argument over what the other just said? Meta-discussions are rampant in real life and give reveal that the idea that people say what they mean is false. More often than not, people intentionally shield their true meaning in ambiguity, which allows a listener to take from the statement whatever meaning they want, as long as it's in a range of meanings the speaker wants to convey. In other words, "do as I mean not as I say".

We should all enjoy the privilege of encountering the pure thoughts of others, (fairly logically constrained on this site, I might add), and enjoy what rolls of the ends of their finger-tips ... regardless of what they might physically look like, what sex or age they may be, or what their past histories might be (??)

Again, Hardly. The pure thoughts of others are a jumbled mess. It needs editing.

Even if they might exercise the 'GIFT', does it really surprise us ? After all, its still quite a simple matter of just walking away from the keyboard, isn't it ??

It is that simple, not that doesn't mean it's easy. Conversation is a social construct and anyone who has been yelled at for walking away ("Don't walk away when I'm talking to you!") knows the severity of severing that contact and the potential social implications of showing that level of disrespect. Humans are social animals an instinctively try to maintain collaborative stability. Learning to to walk away isn't a very useful social skill, as it means abandoning conflict instead of resolving conflict is preferred. That, however, undoes thousands of years of social evolution.

[Selfsim]

Fascinating .. I'm enjoying this conversation.

I can't say that I disagree too much with anything anyone has said over the last few posts. I wouldn't describe my own life experiences as 'naive' in the slightest, so I can certainly relate to the specific situations folk seem to have described, when they speak of the necessity of establishing where a poster is generally coming from, (in life), before interpreting what they have written.

That folk seem to actually embrace the dire need for knowing someone's background, in order to interpret what they are saying however, I find to be perplexing.

For me, it seems that outright rejection of the concept of even making the attempt of leaving one's own baggage out of the interpretation loop (in general), merely speaks in support of close-mindedness (??) (Not that I've seen anyone doing this in this conversation .. to be clear).

Surely a common interest we all share here, is a desire to pursue (mostly scientific) knowledge ? If this is the case, then how are we able to do this if we, by default, take the position of superior knowledge, specifically through interpretation via a set of purely 'intuitive filters', where the writer is coming from ? How can this approach support the goal of acquiring new knowledge, when entering a conversation with unfamiliar folk ? Is everything unfamiliar folk have to say of such little value ?

One form of prejudice which I kind of find amusing, is the individual 'post count' statistic. Over the years of posting on boards around the traps, I find that this statistic sets up an instantaneous bias in listening before a 'newbie' has even cranked out their first 'Reply to thread' response. It seems that the ambiguity we all start out with, courtesy of how the board software functions, is immediately replaced with a new piece of irrelevant information, which seems to then be used as a way of continuing our need for a biased listening perspective. It then seems to progress unchecked ... right up to the mythical, and seemingly highly revered: 'Order of Kilopi' levels ! (Quite bizarre really).

I have a feeling that many of these deliberately biased listening perspectives may well be what provokes the ultimate 'thread topic' response. It may be that these subtleties may be the cause, even though we seem to remain in denial of it, and I suspect, we would probably even embrace the retention of them, if so challenged (??)

Regards
PS: Comments on this are welcome .. I'm not totally convinced of these ideas … just yet … its something I play around with, as 'unexplored territory'.

Regards

[Ara Pacis]

Fascinating .. I'm enjoying this conversation.

I can't say that I disagree too much with anything anyone has said over the last few posts. I wouldn't describe my own life experiences as 'naive' in the slightest, so I can certainly relate to the specific situations folk seem to have described, when they speak of the necessity of establishing where a poster is generally coming from, (in life), before interpreting what they have written.

That folk seem to actually embrace the dire need for knowing someone's background, in order to interpret what they are saying however, I find to be perplexing.

For me, it seems that outright rejection of the concept of even making the attempt of leaving one's own baggage out of the interpretation loop (in general), merely speaks in support of close-mindedness (??) (Not that I've seen anyone doing this in this conversation .. to be clear).

Surely a common interest we all share here, is a desire to pursue (mostly scientific) knowledge ? If this is the case, then how are we able to do this if we, by default, take the position of superior knowledge, specifically through interpretation via a set of purely 'intuitive filters', where the writer is coming from ? How can this approach support the goal of acquiring new knowledge, when entering a conversation with unfamiliar folk ? Is everything unfamiliar folk have to say of such little value ?

One form of prejudice which I kind of find amusing, is the individual 'post count' statistic. Over the years of posting on boards around the traps, I find that this statistic sets up an instantaneous bias in listening before a 'newbie' has even cranked out their first 'Reply to thread' response. It seems that the ambiguity we all start out with, courtesy of how the board software functions, is immediately replaced with a new piece of irrelevant information, which seems to then be used as a way of continuing our need for a biased listening perspective. It then seems to progress unchecked ... right up to the mythical, and seemingly highly revered: 'Order of Kilopi' levels ! (Quite bizarre really).

I have a feeling that many of these deliberately biased listening perspectives may well be what provokes the ultimate 'GIFT' response. It may be that these subtleties may be the cause, even though we seem to remain in denial of it, and I suspect, we would probably even embrace the retention of them, if so challenged (??)

Regards
PS: Comments on this are welcome .. I'm not totally convinced of these ideas … just yet … its something I play around with, as 'unexplored territory'.

Regards

There's a couple issues here. Humans are social and social behavior is described well by group dynamics, which goes through multiple phases with the general result being to establish a norm, that is a rule of conduct and general consensus on various social actions and even shared perceptions about reality inside and outside of the group. Thus, whether it is on this site, or others in cyberspace or in meatspace, consensus is of paramount importance to the group's foundation. That being said, groups may or may not be open to new ideas, but even those that are tend to have established methods or protocols for submitting new information or membership. It may be a formal process or it may be informal.

This all leads towards the second issue: I can't recall where I read it but some researches have suggested that most human communication is not, in fact, about gaining new information but is about supporting ideas they already subscribe to. In other words, confirmation bias is our standard operating procedure. But I suspect it's more important socially than in private research because we have more at stake socially whereas if we make a mistake in private no one needs to know.

This is true in religion, science and politics and how revolutions in them occur. All it takes is for a person to convince enough key people of a new idea and then everyone else jumps on the bandwagon. This is even more successful if people who had contrary ideas change their mind because we automatically give someone who is motivated to act against their own interest more credibility. And another key part of that is giving people the ability to save face. If someone has something to gain by agreeing with you without appearing to be a sellout, then they are more likely to do so, but if you back them into a corner in a join-me-or-fight-me conflict, then you're likely to get conflict.

This really isn't bizzare. It's the way things have worked for tens of thousands of years.

[Selfsim]

I can't recall where I read it but some researches have suggested that most human communication is not, in fact, about gaining new information but is about supporting ideas they already subscribe to. In other words, confirmation bias is our standard operating procedure. But I suspect it's more important socially than in private research because we have more at stake socially whereas if we make a mistake in private no one needs to know.

And what of discussions centred around a point of Science ? (I guess this could be classified as 'private research', but in a public forum setting about Science, both modes would seem to be in play, and yet somehow, perhaps at odds with eachother (?)).

Ie: Science is mostly counterintuitive … being prepared to release one's intuitively motivated beliefs, is a prerequisite. If one isn't prepared to do this, or is unaware that inherited intuitive biases exist in the first place .. (like the somewhat optional' bias of needing to know the speaker's background or, the 'number of posts/join date' rankings), then almost by definition, interchange and perhaps learning something new about science, is usually curtailed. This would be the cost, which also comes with a commensurate benefit of some kind of emotional gratification for those whose primary motivation is remaining as 'one of the group'.

To me, listening is all about recognising which 'filter' we have 'enganged' whilst someone else is speaking. A key part of recognising which particular 'filter' has been put into play by the listener, is for them to realise that we all put 'em, up all the time. Questioning why that particular filter may have been subconsciously put into play, brings us closer to understanding how to remove it in future discussions (should we choose to do so).

As mentioned, the 'thread topic' may simply be a strong reaction by those sensing an unyielding unwillingness of others, to listen to another's contributions. It might be that technical/science wranglin' folks actually give birth to the 'thread topic' … and its proponents !?!

This really isn't bizzare. It's the way things have worked for tens of thousands of years.

I concur. Science seems to be encouraging us to migrate away from this inherited attractor however.

In this instance, embracing inherited group behaviours, may not necessarily be supportive of getting to the bottom of some curly counterintuitive scientific point, nor would it necessarily be a particularly effective demonstration of the scientific method(??)

Regards

[Gillianren]

After all, why does the law prefer written contracts ? Why is complex engineering always written in the form of specifications? (I'm sure there are many other examples of where writing is used to clarify meaning)...

Because the record is important. A written contract is preferable not because it's any more or less clear than a verbal one but because it is written. There is a tangible object recording all the pertinent details and marked by both parties to indicate that they agree with it. Those parties can still contest the contract based on what they think the words mean, but neither of them can lie about what the contract actually dictates.

The simplest example of why it matters where a person comes from in what they say is that different words mean different things in different places. There is a word that, in the United States, is an innocuous, even childish, term for the human buttocks. In the United Kingdom, it is a rather rude term for the female genitalia. Not a lot of people from either country, so far as I can tell, know what the people from the other country use that word to mean. There have been fights about that on this very board.

And you know what? To a greater or lesser degree, it does matter what your scientific background is when you make pronouncements about science. You aren't guaranteed to be right, of course, but you are more likely to have the basics down and not be quite as wrong if you are speaking in a field you actually studied seriously.

[schlaugh]

The simplest example of why it matters where a person comes from in what they say is that different words mean different things in different places. There is a word that, in the United States, is an innocuous, even childish, term for the human buttocks. In the United Kingdom, it is a rather rude term for the female genitalia. Not a lot of people from either country, so far as I can tell, know what the people from the other country use that word to mean. There have been fights about that on this very board.

Oh dear. I never knew that and now you have me wondering about countless meetings I had with British colleagues and clients (eek!) in which I may have used that word. Sure, it typically wouldn't come up in business conversation but who knows? I once used the word "slated" in a presentation to show that something was scheduled to happen. Turns out that "slated" has a negative connotation in British usage.

Going back to the OP, I'm of the opinion (and we all know what that's worth) that people do behave differently online than in face-to-face interactions. Case in point; on a message board that I help to moderate we have banned one member at least twice (not counting sock puppets) over the last six years because he could not refrain from making strongly political posts, derailing threads and making somewhat threatening noises in PMs and in posts. Yet to meet this fellow you'd think he was a reasonable, sensible person. But once he gets in front of a keyboard, look out!

[Noclevername]

Yet to meet this fellow you'd think he was a reasonable, sensible person. But once he gets in front of a keyboard, look out!

I'm the opposite way; when I'm typing I have to think about what I'm saying and usually read it over before posting, so (meds and sleep prevailing) I usually self-censor online. In person I fumble and mumble and blurt things out unfiltered.

[Perikles]

I'm the opposite way; when I'm typing I have to think about what I'm saying and usually read it over before posting, so (meds and sleep prevailing) I usually self-censor online. In person I fumble and mumble and blurt things out unfiltered.

So this would probably make you a good writer of letters, rather than being good at social intercourse. (Is that word acceptable in this context? I'm getting paranoid.) It's a shame that letter writing has all but died out these days.

[Gillianren]

Oh dear. I never knew that and now you have me wondering about countless meetings I had with British colleagues and clients (eek!) in which I may have used that word. Sure, it typically wouldn't come up in business conversation but who knows? I once used the word "slated" in a presentation to show that something was scheduled to happen. Turns out that "slated" has a negative connotation in British usage.

See, now, I didn't know that!

Going back to the OP, I'm of the opinion (and we all know what that's worth) that people do behave differently online than in face-to-face interactions. Case in point; on a message board that I help to moderate we have banned one member at least twice (not counting sock puppets) over the last six years because he could not refrain from making strongly political posts, derailing threads and making somewhat threatening noises in PMs and in posts. Yet to meet this fellow you'd think he was a reasonable, sensible person. But once he gets in front of a keyboard, look out!

I've known people like that. Of course, one of the only people I've blocked on Facebook is a jerk both ways, so there's that. I have friends who think he's funny, and it only encourages him. But my best friend says she didn't have twelve-year-old friends when she was twelve, so she guesses now is the time.

So this would probably make you a good writer of letters, rather than being good at social intercourse. (Is that word acceptable in this context? I'm getting paranoid.) It's a shame that letter writing has all but died out these days.

I'm really bad at mailing things. I still have the postcards from my trip last month sitting in my bag, waiting to be mailed, in part because I have now mislaid the postcard stamps I bought two days after I got home. I love getting mail, but I'm terrible at sending it.

[starcanuck64]

Finally, do we really have the right, as this forum assumes, to so utterly crush the GIFT that those who indulge in it are banned or stripped of their privileges? Is that not, in its own way, just as crushing of dissent as the law of the jungle?

You can't have a rational discussion if you allow the lowest common denominator to rule which is what the GIFT is really all about.

I don't think most people are vile, I do think there is a small number of people who through physical or developmental impairment lack the ability to feel empathy and that is what comes through most strongly for some when the traditional social constraints of face to face contact is removed. They can significantly poison the forum, whether it's online or off.

Rationality is a relatively rare thing in this world, it's nice to be able to come to a place where people aren't allowed to smear their crazy all over other people.

[Paul Beardsley]

Oh dear. I never knew that and now you have me wondering about countless meetings I had with British colleagues and clients (eek!) in which I may have used that word. Sure, it typically wouldn't come up in business conversation but who knows?

Relax. UK English speakers know the US English meanings of words, and the equivalent words - how can we not, given how many US films and TV shows we get? It's not a taboo word, and its use is more likely to evoke giggles. It's even used as a girl's name, and the name for maiden aunts.

I once used the word "slated" in a presentation to show that something was scheduled to happen. Turns out that "slated" has a negative connotation in British usage.

Again, we know both meanings.

Actually it's a bit like "outstanding". "Jenkins, your essay is outstanding!" "Thank you very much, sir!" "No, you idiot, I mean you haven't submitted it!"

[Perikles]

Again, we know both meanings.

Speak for yourself. I've only ever seen the word in the context of newspaper journalism written by morons who don't the the words 'severely criticized'

[Ara Pacis]

And what of discussions centred around a point of Science ? (I guess this could be classified as 'private research', but in a public forum setting about Science, both modes would seem to be in play, and yet somehow, perhaps at odds with eachother (?)).

Ie: Science is mostly counterintuitive … being prepared to release one's intuitively motivated beliefs, is a prerequisite. If one isn't prepared to do this, or is unaware that inherited intuitive biases exist in the first place .. (like the somewhat optional' bias of needing to know the speaker's background or, the 'number of posts/join date' rankings), then almost by definition, interchange and perhaps learning something new about science, is usually curtailed. This would be the cost, which also comes with a commensurate benefit of some kind of emotional gratification for those whose primary motivation is remaining as 'one of the group'.

Scientists aren't immune from being human. Like any group, they've established behaviors that work for them, so while it may seem different it's mostly just different jargon and rules. As tool users we do want to learn new techniques, but each person wants to learn it their way. People like to learn but don't like to be taught which is a lot like being sold, because it makes them feel like they've been used like a fool and a tool. If you've ever worked in sales, you'll know that people sell themselves. It's up to the seller to give the potential buyer enough information to let them come to their own conclusion. A lot of sales and teaching is done via demonstration, so people can observe and see it for themselves instead of taking it on authority. Recall that at the heart of the scientific method is repeatability, so one scientist (or group of them) doesn't necessarily take another's word for it but verifies it before believing.

To me, listening is all about recognising which 'filter' we have 'enganged' whilst someone else is speaking. A key part of recognising which particular 'filter' has been put into play by the listener, is for them to realise that we all put 'em, up all the time. Questioning why that particular filter may have been subconsciously put into play, brings us closer to understanding how to remove it in future discussions (should we choose to do so).

That analogy works. And to add to it, a good speaker knows what filters an audience has put up.

As mentioned, the 'thread topic' may simply be a strong reaction by those sensing an unyielding unwillingness of others, to listen to another's contributions. It might be that technical/science wranglin' folks actually give birth to the 'thread topic' … and its proponents !?!

Well, even on a science forum, not everyone is a scientist.

I concur. Science seems to be encouraging us to migrate away from this inherited attractor however.

In this instance, embracing inherited group behaviours, may not necessarily be supportive of getting to the bottom of some curly counterintuitive scientific point, nor would it necessarily be a particularly effective demonstration of the scientific method(??)

I think I proved otherwise above.

I don't think it's that big a problem between scientists themselves (getting to the bottom of a "curly counterintuitive scientific point"), but it could be, I suppose. I think the bigger problem is the disconnect between scientists and the public. The use of jargon and different behaviors which can be a source of efficiency in communication between specialists can fall on deaf ears when they speak that way to non-specialists. Some are good at it, some are not, but the art of rhetoric is more about appealing to emotion and using figurative language than mathematics and esoteric formulae.

[HenrikOlsen]

I may be privileged, by having English as a second language, to learn the rude words of all the various English languages, though I fully understand the bit about British English speakers understanding the American English use through exposure.

A silly thing is that I wouldn't expect 20% of a random selection of Americans to be able to identify which word Gillianren was talking about in this quote, even though I got it mid-second-sentence:

The simplest example of why it matters where a person comes from in what they say is that different words mean different things in different places. There is a word that, in the United States, is an innocuous, even childish, term for the human buttocks. In the United Kingdom, it is a rather rude term for the female genitalia. Not a lot of people from either country, so far as I can tell, know what the people from the other country use that word to mean. There have been fights about that on this very board.

[starcanuck64]

Aren't there English women with that word for a name?

I'm watching New Tricks S6 and I think I just saw an episode where a character had that name.

[Strange]

Aren't there English women with that word for a name?

I'm watching New Tricks S6 and I think I just saw an episode where a character had that name.

Indeed. There was a famous murder of a small child, "sweet Fanny Adams". Her name has now come to be a euphemism for ... erm ... "nothing at all".

ETA: I just checked the etymology and the word comes from the female name, which is a diminutive for Frances.

Now, about the possible names for donkeys ...

[starcanuck64]

Now, about the possible names for donkeys ...

I'm going to play it safe and stick with Jack and Jill.

[Selfsim]

I agree that much is also lost by not having the 'visuals', but I think the written word in this medium (for example) adds a lot more clarity because it (usually) requires focus in thinking. After all, why does the law prefer written contracts ? Why is complex engineering always written in the form of specifications? (I'm sure there are many other examples of where writing is used to clarify meaning)…

Because the record is important. A written contract is preferable not because it's any more or less clear than a verbal one but because it is written. There is a tangible object recording all the pertinent details and marked by both parties to indicate that they agree with it. Those parties can still contest the contract based on what they think the words mean, but neither of them can lie about what the contract actually dictates.

In my original words above, I was comparing written material to verbal. I would hope that you agree that both written contracts and technical specifications, impose a discipline calling for far greater focus and clarity of thought, than verbal communications do … (and that would be separable from the material's ultimate purpose, which may not be precisely known at the time of speaking/authoring)?

The simplest example of why it matters where a person comes from in what they say is that different words mean different things in different places. There is a word that, in the United States, is an innocuous, even childish, term for the human buttocks. In the United Kingdom, it is a rather rude term for the female genitalia. Not a lot of people from either country, so far as I can tell, know what the people from the other country use that word to mean. There have been fights about that on this very board.

Well, maybe there wouldn't have been 'fights', if a simple clarifying question had been posed around the intended meaning of the word in question (?) Mind you, the listening filters would have to be dropped, in order to clearly understand the response. To do that, the listener would have to be aware that they may have subconsciously imposed such a filter in the first place ! (It seems perhaps some folk from the UK may have already mastered awareness of the dual interpretation of the term and are thus are well aware of the existence of the filter).

Such 'filters' are also separable and independent from the medium chosen for comms, as well (ie: verbal, written, visual, etc). They certainly influence interpretation … but they can be imposed on either the spoken or written pathways, equally.

And you know what? To a greater or lesser degree, it does matter what your scientific background is when you make pronouncements about science. You aren't guaranteed to be right, of course, but you are more likely to have the basics down and not be quite as wrong if you are speaking in a field you actually studied seriously.

Ok .. so if most of the folk on this board are personally unknown, following such reasoning, how would one know whether what they say is technically valid or not ? If one doesn't know the speaker's background and likely, because of the anonymity factor, one probably never would authentically know their background, one would have to conclude that everything technical, read on a board such as this, is unreliable.

Which begs the question … what is the purpose of engaging in science-based conversations here ?

Does this mean no-one is here to acquire knowledge from those more knowledgable than themselves .. and that those contributing and sharing their knowledge are doing so 'inefficiently' ?

Regards