If individuals want to communicate they should be prepared to negotiate terminology. If there is a terminology established in some community, then an outsider's inability or unwillingness to adopt that language is suspect. There may be good reasons for insiders to tolerate that, but there may be good reasons not to as well. Thus, the outsider may want to study how to use minimal but sufficient calibrated descriptions rather than boring the insiders with needlessly complicated arrays of words designed for a more popular audience.
Trump and the like would call such insider people things like `Washington Elites' or such, without reflecting on whether they, as outsiders, are that way because they just lack relevant domain knowledge and don't deserve any particular status amongst the insiders -- and not that there was some injustice or corruption involved in their exclusion. This drive to keep talking without having anything informed to say seems to me to be a sort of narcissism. And there is clearly an audience, and perhaps a growing one, that has a preference for personality over expertise. I can't help but wonder if the proliferation of social media has something to do with this. -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Narcissism and Mass Shootings Of course. But knowing/deciding how much to cite and how much to place in context is also part of the problem. Because everyone has a unique interpretation of words (and a unique graph of concepts), it can be difficult to know how much must be spelt out and how much one can rely on common understandings. A complicating factor has to do with the ability to estimate your audience's diligence, energy, and interest in looking things up and/or thinking things through. And another complicating factor involves the semantic density of the words/phrases/expressions. If you use obscure but standard words, you assume the audience knows the dictionary. If you use jargon, you assume the audience is already familiar with the domain lexicon or is willing to learn it in order to listen to you. All the above argues against compressed/thin descriptions and for fuller/thick descriptions. On 08/01/2016 01:28 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I don't think a reader should be forced to choose between (1) or (2), but I > would prefer that the writer be aware enough to refer to context rather than > restating it as if it were their invention. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
