When someone speaks in a way that strikes you as unusually ambiguous, consider that it may be intentionally so to avoid placing emphasis on irrelevancies.
When someone speaks in a way that strikes you as unusually ambiguous, consider that it may be intentionally so to avoid placing emphasis on irrelevancies.
What makes you think I didn’t? If he’s in the habit of intentionally sabotaging himself that increases the value of having it being pointed out to him.
I wouldn’t highlite it if he wouldn’t have specifically asked for ways to draw more attention on himself. The more of your attention you concentrate in withholding information the less likely people are going to give you attention.
It’s not like it’s wrong to do so, but you should be aware of the tradeoffs that you are making.
It’s not obvious that attention is being diverted to obscuring information. Maybe “partner” is the lower-effort term. It is for me: “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” have weird connotations and baggage that make me want to pause before using them and wonder if I’m really being accurate.
It’s not obvious that attention is being diverted to obscuring information.
It makes it harder for me to build a mental image of the situation that he’s describing. If it’s harder than I will put less attention on the situation.
Here it’s a subtle choice. But it points to a pattern. A common general piece of advice on telling stories which draw listeners attention is to provide a lot of adjectives to make it more easy for the audience to picture what you are describing.
The kind that most people don’t put to practice when they hear it. Instead of describing the principle abstractly, I pointed to an example.
It takes effort to provide listeners with details. It’s still one of the pure white hat strategies to getting peoples attention when you speak.
As far as the information being relevant, when I give someone recommendation about testosterone, the gender of the person I’m interacting with matters.
I have a good idea that more testosterone in males will help with given attention. I’m less certain, that trying to increase testosterone is a good strategy for females.
I don’t know whether you refer to a business partner, you are male and refer to a girlfriend or you are female and refer to a boyfriend.
You omit at least two possibilities: that he is male and referring to his boyfriend or that she is female and referring to her girlfriend. In these cases, word “boy/girlfriend” would have you interpreting the situation wrongly.
As others have commented, the fact that we do not know these unnecessary details is a feature, not a bug, of ungendered words.
In this case, it’s deliberately non-gendered language. Lower-effort, as kalium says. In my case because I cultivated the habit, in years past.
As both you and Douglas_Knight point out, there are tradeoffs involved. In the case of not gendering pronouns I expect I’ll continue thinking it worthwhile.
But it’s a helpful thing to consider- I’ll bet there are other habits I’ve developed that I’ve never considered if it’s worth the costs. Especially when I contrast my teenaged self – “I don’t care what anyone thinks of me” + “I’ll choose my words for my own aesthetical pleasure” – with the me of today – who does care, and on balance values communication higher than self-expression. I doubt my conversational habits have shifted as far as my preferences have.
I’m also interested by what you say about details. It’s not something I’d’ve thought of, worrying I tend more to being too verbose. But I like to write, and concrete detail / description is the area I’d consider my weakest there. I can think of some ways to practice this (started playing tabletop RPGs recently, for one.)
When it comes to details, the thing that count is whether the details help the person you are talking with to form a picture of the situation that you are describing in their mind.
If you are talking in “I” using colorful language that describes the qualia you perceive is nearly always good. That doesn’t mean that sentences should be long. If you can transform one sentence into two, that’s often good.
If you are talking in “you” it better to be a bit more vague. If you tell someone: “When you go to work on Monday morning at 7 o’clock and drive though rush hour, you know the feeling where you wish, you could just take a day off?”, the might be irritated if they aren’t in the habit of going to work at 7 o’clock or don’t drive.
I”m okay with non-gendered language. In text it’s nearly impossible to see what the words mean for you.
If your teenage self trained a bunch of separate word choices I would look carefully at them and judge whether they are real self-expression or whether they are more of a mask that’s supposed to provide shelter.
Authentic self-expression draws attention, wearing a mask reduces it.
Usually when people intentionally manipulate emphasis like this, they are trying to change relevance, not merely acknowledging existing relevance. Maybe it is worth the personal cost to achieve the political end, but it is not possible to make the tradeoff without being honest about the cost.
Thanks. Perception I thought was the main contribution in the past. But after a recent party my partner commented to me about people speaking over me.
And testosterone, that makes me curious. I wonder if I can get levels of that tested without too much hassle...
The interesting thing about this sentence is that you communicate a minimum of information by using the word partner.
As a listener I don’t know whether you refer to a business partner, you are male and refer to a girlfriend or you are female and refer to a boyfriend.
Increasing the amount of details that you communicate can increases the amount of attention that other people pay towards yourself.
When someone speaks in a way that strikes you as unusually ambiguous, consider that it may be intentionally so to avoid placing emphasis on irrelevancies.
What makes you think I didn’t? If he’s in the habit of intentionally sabotaging himself that increases the value of having it being pointed out to him.
I wouldn’t highlite it if he wouldn’t have specifically asked for ways to draw more attention on himself. The more of your attention you concentrate in withholding information the less likely people are going to give you attention.
It’s not like it’s wrong to do so, but you should be aware of the tradeoffs that you are making.
It’s not obvious that attention is being diverted to obscuring information. Maybe “partner” is the lower-effort term. It is for me: “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” have weird connotations and baggage that make me want to pause before using them and wonder if I’m really being accurate.
It makes it harder for me to build a mental image of the situation that he’s describing. If it’s harder than I will put less attention on the situation.
Here it’s a subtle choice. But it points to a pattern. A common general piece of advice on telling stories which draw listeners attention is to provide a lot of adjectives to make it more easy for the audience to picture what you are describing.
The kind that most people don’t put to practice when they hear it. Instead of describing the principle abstractly, I pointed to an example.
It takes effort to provide listeners with details. It’s still one of the pure white hat strategies to getting peoples attention when you speak.
As far as the information being relevant, when I give someone recommendation about testosterone, the gender of the person I’m interacting with matters.
I have a good idea that more testosterone in males will help with given attention. I’m less certain, that trying to increase testosterone is a good strategy for females.
You omit at least two possibilities: that he is male and referring to his boyfriend or that she is female and referring to her girlfriend. In these cases, word “boy/girlfriend” would have you interpreting the situation wrongly.
As others have commented, the fact that we do not know these unnecessary details is a feature, not a bug, of ungendered words.
In this case, it’s deliberately non-gendered language. Lower-effort, as kalium says. In my case because I cultivated the habit, in years past.
As both you and Douglas_Knight point out, there are tradeoffs involved. In the case of not gendering pronouns I expect I’ll continue thinking it worthwhile.
But it’s a helpful thing to consider- I’ll bet there are other habits I’ve developed that I’ve never considered if it’s worth the costs. Especially when I contrast my teenaged self – “I don’t care what anyone thinks of me” + “I’ll choose my words for my own aesthetical pleasure” – with the me of today – who does care, and on balance values communication higher than self-expression. I doubt my conversational habits have shifted as far as my preferences have.
I’m also interested by what you say about details. It’s not something I’d’ve thought of, worrying I tend more to being too verbose. But I like to write, and concrete detail / description is the area I’d consider my weakest there. I can think of some ways to practice this (started playing tabletop RPGs recently, for one.)
When it comes to details, the thing that count is whether the details help the person you are talking with to form a picture of the situation that you are describing in their mind.
If you are talking in “I” using colorful language that describes the qualia you perceive is nearly always good. That doesn’t mean that sentences should be long. If you can transform one sentence into two, that’s often good.
If you are talking in “you” it better to be a bit more vague. If you tell someone: “When you go to work on Monday morning at 7 o’clock and drive though rush hour, you know the feeling where you wish, you could just take a day off?”, the might be irritated if they aren’t in the habit of going to work at 7 o’clock or don’t drive.
I”m okay with non-gendered language. In text it’s nearly impossible to see what the words mean for you.
If your teenage self trained a bunch of separate word choices I would look carefully at them and judge whether they are real self-expression or whether they are more of a mask that’s supposed to provide shelter.
Authentic self-expression draws attention, wearing a mask reduces it.
May I suggest that you not consider, but just experiment?
Usually when people intentionally manipulate emphasis like this, they are trying to change relevance, not merely acknowledging existing relevance. Maybe it is worth the personal cost to achieve the political end, but it is not possible to make the tradeoff without being honest about the cost.