The Uses of Language

The Uses of Language

By Bill Schaeffer

Language n 1. The music with which we charm the serpents guarding another’s treasure.

From “The Devil’s Dictionary” by Ambrose Bierce.

Recently I have become aware that many of the challenges in communicating effectively arise from lack of awareness of the different purposes for which people use language.   Even though the same words and phrases are used, the ways in which they are ordered and organized reveal different purposes.

It seems that people use language for one of two reasons, to find similarities, or to find differences; to build consensus, or to deduce truth.  Some people are Consensus Builders.   Other people are Difference Finders.   These goals are almost mutually exclusive.    Much of communication difficulties come when these two types of people are using language for cross purposes.

I first became aware of this distinction when I was selling paintings with Pete.   Pete is an intelligent and talented guy with a great vision for art.   I enjoyed hanging out and discussing art and life with Pete.  I learned some things about the artistic process by watching Pete work.  He made art constructions and collages that for the sake of discussion, I will call paintings.   If a painting didn’t sell, he just took it apart and made a new one.   This was new to me, since all my artwork is signed with date and time and I don’t change it.   He seems flexible and not attached to any particular results of the creative process.

Consensus Builders

It was while talking about Professional Sports that I realized that we use language in two opposite ways.  Pete is a Consensus Builder.   He uses language to find similarities and build bonds of friendship.   If there is a slight difference, he tries to “smooth over” that difference and concentrate on how we are similar.   This is why he loves watching Professional Sports; it gives him a topic of conversation that is essentially “non-threatening.”  Discussing sporting events gives him a way to concentrate on the “warm vibes” of togetherness without the emotional disturbance of conflicting opinions.  Pete majored in psychology in college and relationships are very important to him.

Pete told me that I am a Difference Finder.   In his view, I like to tear things apart and show how they are different.  I like to find the weaknesses, and flaws, in a person’s opinion and use that to make a topic of conversation.  Perhaps he might add that I am cold, distant, and act superior.   I don’t try to, but that may be.

However, I realize that I am trained as an Engineer and I think like a mathematician, or logician.   That is how my brain works.  I am fascinated by truth and history.  I like to dig into controversial events to see what the “real truth” is.   In logic and mathematics, it is important to realize that if you find a single solitary exception to a statement, then that theorem statement is entirely false.   The easiest and most effective way to establish non truth is to find a contradictory example.  If you are categorizing and classifying, you look for differences to make the task easier.

Unfortunately, theory building and fault finding can be extremely annoying if one is not interested in anything other than just socializing pleasantly with friends.

If one’s priority is on Consensus Building, there seems to be a relaxed and casual relationship with truth.  There is less concern with the “absolute truth” and more concern about the “truth for right now.”   The priority is about establishing smooth workable relationships with the people in the immediate vicinity and not making any intellectual abstractions or conclusive judgments.   No one is planning on finding anything important or making any significant achievement other than passing time with a minimum of stress.

I am reminded of my friend Tom C.    One day, he replied to a facebook message with a long technical explanation for a particularly fascinating phenomenon.   The “poster” asked him, “to  not post such long responses because it looked weird.”  Tom was surprised, because he thought he was being helpful.   She thought he was strange because he wrote too much with too many “big words.”   She was using language to build a network a friendly rapport, where every member of the network communicated the same way.  She wasn’t using language to find solutions.

I am also reminded of the Academic Establishment in Europe at the time of Galileo.  I’ll skip the details, but the history makes fascinating reading.  At that time, the established “scientific truth” about the composition and structure of the “cosmos” outside the Earth’s atmosphere was fanciful and imaginary.   Any seventh grader today would laugh at the descriptions of moon, sun and stars that were taken to be absolutely true with all seriousness by every single intelligent learned man in Europe.  Galileo, with the aid of a telescope and observational procedure, wrote a paper that contradicted some fundamental concepts of the accepted world view.   With only one or two guarded exceptions, the entire academic body, of all the countries of Europe, was more concerned with preserving the accepted, and erroneous, world view than they were in finding the TRUTH.  They were more interested in silencing Galileo for even trying to “disturb the peace and order” than they were in actually trying to understand what he was talking about.  

None of Galileo’s appeals for the use of thought and logic were of any avail.  His career was ruined.   He was forced to live under house arrest and not publish anything for almost 16 years.   He was forced to renounce his conclusions AND he was almost executed.

This story represents the degree to which people that prioritize similarity building and social cohesiveness will go to ensure that their opinion is correct.  This is the type of Consensus Building that the majority of people want – to have everyone agree to the same thing even though that opinion may have no relation to “actual facts” whatsoever.

Difference Finders:

On the other hand, Difference Finders are less interested in the human relationships, than they are in the subject being discussed.   They use language to discover facts and knowledge.  They have relationships with people to help them find facts.   They don’t have relationships, just for the sake of being connected.  There has to be an intellectual purpose for the relationship to exist.    These people dislike trivial small talk, and cocktail chatter.   They think of themselves as being intelligent.

They think, “Life is short and there are thousands of fascinating problems to think about and to solve.   So much of popular discussion and popular belief are comprised of misstatements and outright lies.  How can we know WHAT is TRUE?  We need to work together, and share our opinions, if any of us can establish any sense of real TRUTH.” 

In mathematical proof, a single contrary example will invalidate a theorem and prove it absolutely wrong.  These contrary examples are very powerful tools to find truth with few resources being used (resources of time and effort).   Therefore, someone concerned with scientific or absolute truth tends to look for contrary examples.   A contrary example yields a true statement (of falsehood).  A supportive, or agreeable, fact tells us nothing new at all!    Contrary examples move knowledge forward.   Supportive facts tell almost nothing new, or of value, toward discovering truth; as paradoxical as this sounds.

For example, there is not today one single government institution that is not politicized, inefficient, and ineffective.  But we rarely hear about it, and if we do the news is silenced to cover up the crimes in the name of “propriety.”  The recent Veterans Administration scandal, foster home abuse, vote fraud, General Motors recalls, the “economic bailout,” Obamacare, Iraq, GMO food, EPA, Vioxx, SSRI’s, ADHD, “weapons of mass destruction,” and a hundred other examples where  we are being lied to about diet, health, exercise, business, money, the stock market, foreign policy, global warming, nuclear power, pollution, genetically modified foods, race, age, intelligence, credit, taxation, inflation, pesticides, preservatives, unemployment, and our own history.   Almost nothing we are told on TV is anything more than the shadow of the truth, unless it is an actual education program, or a movie promotional event; and even then the truth is suspect.

How can we know when we are being manipulated and lied to unless we ask what other people’s opinion and experiences are; and then critically examine the answers?

Although I can respect the talent, I don’t want to watch prime time comedies and professional sports every single night so I can be lulled into a pleasant complacency about life.   I don’t want to drink a glass of forgetfulness and then just sleep on it.   I don’t want to lie around the pool getting a good tan, or attend a party to talk about superficialities with attractive strangers that I’ll never see again.   I want to live a vital, engaged, and meaningful life.  I want to understand what is going on.

I am reminded of the time that a Vandal Army was threatening to invade a Roman City.   Upon arriving, they found there were no guards at the posts, and the city was almost deserted.  Marching further into the center of the town, they found the whole population and the armed guards themselves were inside the arena watching gladiatorial games.  The people were easily surprised and the town was taken with very little effort.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter much how correct and logically precise the Difference Finders are.   They comprise only a small percentage of the population of humans on Earth.   The vast majority of people are Consensus Builders.   These Consensus Builders don’t care about truth, or objective reality, as much as they just want to make sure that everyone agrees.  They just want to establish some feelings of companionship with their fellows and are not very concerned about the specific details.  An approximate solution is more than good enough.

And these are the people who rule the world.  Their natural facility for building networks of relationships in business, government and society ensures that they are always at the center of what is happening.  They are the ones who convince everyone else to follow them even if they are not really sure where they are going themselves.

Difference Finders will always find themselves to be one step behind the crowd and trying to catch up socially.   Even if the Difference Finder had designed a new invention, the Consensus Builder will probably have already formed a team to administer the patent rights.

Therefore, recognizing the social environment and mode of communication being used is vital to successful relationships and a feeling of connectivity with your companions and compatriots in life.    Difference Finders can try “lightening up” in social situations and pay more attention to others.   They can look for academic circles of discussion instead.   Consensus Builders can work on being more tolerant and not so easily offended.   And we all could learn to be better listeners.   What do you think about that?

Copyright©2014 William A. Schaeffer