I find that often when I have a discussion with someone who isn’t familiar with A Human’s Guide to Words or Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action, the conversation often ends prematurely because I can’t seem to tactfully point out when someone is arguing over semantics or confusing the map for the territory. How do you guys approach a discussion where your partner seems to be making these types of errors?
I tend to say things like “I think most of our disagreement is about definitions of words rather than the actual facts” and try to express the underlying issue more explicitly.
The thing is that even when a disagreement seems to be about words, this very often also means that there are disagreeing motives; one persons either wants to accomplish something or to reach a certain conclusion, and thinks that such and such a definition will lend itself more easily to these goals. Meanwhile, the other person does not have these goals. The consequence is that at least one person may resist the clarification of meaning, because such a clarification will tend to impede his ends.
This is a very good observation. I think certainly the most useful application of the “map and territory” metaphor in my everyday life is that I am now able to make someone’s implicit motivations (disguised in semantic disagreements) explicit and obvious to everyone involved.
If your discussion partner is actively impeding clarification because that furthers his goals, then your problem isn’t his lack of familiarity with the metaphor of map and territory, and your real problem isn’t clarification but helping get past his unhelpful motivations.
I find that often when I have a discussion with someone who isn’t familiar with A Human’s Guide to Words or Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action, the conversation often ends prematurely because I can’t seem to tactfully point out when someone is arguing over semantics or confusing the map for the territory. How do you guys approach a discussion where your partner seems to be making these types of errors?
I tend to say things like “I think most of our disagreement is about definitions of words rather than the actual facts” and try to express the underlying issue more explicitly.
The thing is that even when a disagreement seems to be about words, this very often also means that there are disagreeing motives; one persons either wants to accomplish something or to reach a certain conclusion, and thinks that such and such a definition will lend itself more easily to these goals. Meanwhile, the other person does not have these goals. The consequence is that at least one person may resist the clarification of meaning, because such a clarification will tend to impede his ends.
This is a very good observation. I think certainly the most useful application of the “map and territory” metaphor in my everyday life is that I am now able to make someone’s implicit motivations (disguised in semantic disagreements) explicit and obvious to everyone involved.
If your discussion partner is actively impeding clarification because that furthers his goals, then your problem isn’t his lack of familiarity with the metaphor of map and territory, and your real problem isn’t clarification but helping get past his unhelpful motivations.