from Coining your own terminology Who frequently use coined word in communication
- I’ve coined a term and used it, and sometimes I see people doing that in communities that deal with philosophy.
- They use it as a matter of course, but I can’t find it when I look it up, and it’s very annoying.
- If you ask what it means, the definition is vague or already defined in other words
- Very high context is there, but they don’t realize it and don’t communicate well
- is often the caseplaying smart の一種なのかなーと思う
- Yeah, well, playing smart is a fitting expression.
- He may be trying to act like a philosopher, though he may not be aware of it.
- Maybe I shouldn’t be too evil about it, but…
- Yeah, well, playing smart is a fitting expression.
- You know, playing smart.stinging (barbed) words 感ある
- Is it because it sounds like it implies that I’m not smart?
- I see
- This is exactly what the Intention to insult diagram shows.
- Implicitly, they think you’re not smart enough, which is why they use the nuanced term “not smart enough.”
- I haven’t identified the person I’m talking to, and they’re not here, but if they were, I’d be “insulted!” again. If they were here, I would be “insulted!
- It’s not good that “not smart” is vaguely derogatory.
- Objective if you’re “someone who frequently coined terms in your communication.”
- But that would involve decent mathematicians and philosophers.
- Mathematicians define concepts in language, but philosophers don’t necessarily.
- I’ve given it some thought, but I’m not sure I can identify it.
- When you observe a person “speaking with a coined word that you don’t quite know the definition of,” you don’t know if that person is smart or not.
- It’s not a good idea to say, “You must be trying to look smart,” because it’s a judgment about another person’s inner life, the same kind of thing as, “You must be trying to insult me.
- Don’t find malice in being incompetent enough to be explained away.
- You also called this one “incompetent”…
少し考えてみたけど識別はできないかも
- Suppose a person A coined a word W to express a certain concept M.
- I can’t determine if A already has a word X that expresses concept M and I just don’t know it.
- So the act of assigning the coined word W to the concept you want to express anyway is not in itself inevitable.
- Suppose a person B asks A what W means and does not understand the explanation. At this time
- Is it that “A doesn’t really know what W means” or that “the concept to which W refers is ambiguous?”
- I don’t understand why B doesn’t have the prerequisite knowledge to understand A’s explanation.
- This is not identifiable.
- When some person B thinks that the meaning of W is the same as the existing word X
- Is the meaning actually the same?
- I’m not sure if B just doesn’t understand the difference now between X and W that A is trying to distinguish.
- This is not identifiable.
- So nothing on an objective scale of “smart”, “dumb”, or “playing smart” can be determined from these phenomena.
- From Mr. B’s point of view, Mr. A’s statement is unintelligible and unhelpful, so much for the fact
- It is only an interpretation to think that the cause of the problem lies in A or in B.
- Maybe Habits from when I was a monkey would want to drag it out and decide “which is better”.
- It is probably better not to try to decide
- As a subjective measure, for Mr. B, “the probability is high that Mr. A’s statement is futile.”
- Usefulness is not an attribute of the information itself, but of the recipient of the information - Beneficial and harmful are attributes of the recipient of information
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/コミュニケーションに頻繁に造語を使う人 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.