Vocabulary and Thinking

Generally, a larger vocabulary means a greater chance of life success. A larger vocabulary gives us access to aspects of life that we would not understand or appreciate without it. This was pointed out by E.D. Hirsch, Jr, in his fine article, “A Wealth of Words,” in which he states that “Studies have solidly established the correlation between vocabulary and real-world ability.” (City Journal, Winter, 2013). Both communicating with others and thinking can be enhanced with a greater vocabulary.

In a sense a vocabulary is a set of “facts,” learned associations between a word or words and something. The latter could be abstract, as in love, or it could be tangible, as in my grey car. Some K-12 educators disparage facts, but the problem is that we can hardly think critically, or creatively, about something if we have no facts about it. We may not even be able to think at all. If I want to have a quality conversation with someone about the novel Moby Dick, I need a vocabulary of literary methods, like plot, style, characterization, and metaphor. Failing that, I resort to subjective sensations or opinions which add nothing substantive to the conversation. I may say something like, “I don’t like Ahab” or “whale hunting is bad.” No subtlety or critical analysis. Definitely my right to have those views and to articulate them, but I should not confuse such statements with thinking or having a substantive conversation.

A vocabulary is more than simply a bunch of words---it is words that have meaning and can be applied in real-life situations to understand and think better. My ability to converse well or think about interior design, for example, depends greatly on my color vocabulary. If I have words for relatively few colors, my advice to clients will be compromised by my limited understanding, and I will be at sea in a conversation with other interior designers. I will be unable to follow the images and ideas discussed as they use terms reflecting color subtleties and nuances I do not understand. The same would happen in any situation in which my vocabulary does not approximate the other person’s. Vocabulary represents knowledge, an understanding about the world at a certain level and in a given area. The less extensive a person’s vocabulary, the more constrained his world view on that subject.

Whether it’s about a novel or colors, how to fix a car or program software, the more words we have of describing something, the more sophistication and depth we can bring to a conversation, or even to survival. The Sami people, who live in northern Scandinavia, have as many as 180 words relating to snow and ice, according to the Washington Post. Inuit in Northern Canada have been hunting seals for thousands of years, relying solely on their ability to interpret fine differences in snow and ice to navigate. Elder hunters passed on this knowledge to younger ones. Today those younger hunters often use GPS systems for navigation. Reliance on this technology has meant the loss of skill to navigate as the elders did, occasionally resulting in the death of a younger hunter when his GPS system failed. As the language and of snow and ice fell away, the skills went with it, and so did an important understanding of the environment. For the younger hunters this meant that their world expanded in one way (the vocabulary of GPS) and contracted in another (the vocabulary of snow and ice).

Ludwig Wittgenstein makes a strong point about language---“The limits of my language means the limits of my world.” My world is constrained by a limited vocabulary, just as it is by boundaries of my ability to use language in general effectively. Of course, there are lots of areas where extensive vocabulary is not needed. Not being interested in them, I don’t need much of a sailing or wood-working vocabulary. Also, intuition offers understanding or insights not easily explainable to others. With intuition, literal facts are often unimportant or non-existent. Intuitive “hits” arrive in a totally different mode than normal language and facts can account for. Intuition is another way of knowing not easy to communicate to others. Still, if we wish to convey to someone our intuitive understandings, we need a precise enough vocabulary to effectively communicate something about the experience, even if we can only offer the context or flavor.

As valuable as extensive vocabularies can be, they are of little benefit if not used. When under the stress of adversarial conflict, our vocabularies and understanding contract as fear and reactivity push us to respond to the threat. The words and affect we use reflect the need to defend or attack, not to converse. We might imagine we are thinking and conversing because we trot out our existing litany of powerfully-held opinions, but we are simply emoting. The opinions are held as unassailable truths, and brook no opposition. There is one goal---to win, prevail, or overcome, to void the threat. It definitely is not to understand, nor is it to think. As the very insightful philosopher/longshoreman Eric Hoffer once said,

We are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about.

Five "Magic" Words to Save Society

A wee bit on the grandiose side? Perhaps.

Few would disagree that society is beset with significant troubles. Increasing hostile political divisiveness, absolute certainty and rightness, inter-and intra-personal dissatisfaction, narcissistic attitudes and impulses and, especially, high levels of incivility, all of which are both causes and effects of social fragmentation.

While formal and informal structures of all sorts make up societies, at root it is individuals and their various associations that often matter most. If a society is fragmenting, and I fear we show signs of that, it is primarily because of the behavior of average individuals towards each other. Large-scale social problems generally arise not at the top of any social system, but at the bottom, although there are obvious connections between the two. Germany’s rise to WWII occurred in part because of the intersection of Hitler’s insane vision with the populace’s increasing fear about the world economic condition, and the perceived loss of national identity caused in part by the Versailles treaty. Lacking that dissatisfaction, Hitler could not have succeeded, as his failures in the early and mid-1920’s show. It was only after the depression had done considerable damage that his message resonated.

Some think that incivility and the associated social fragmentation can be arrested by grand designs and major programs in a top-down fashion. But each side has its own versions of what would work, and whatever is proposed will likely have significant limits and may be applied selectively, depending on one’s political allegiance. Even if everyone were to agree on measures to diminish incivility, in my view no government or societal-wide program is going to change that to any significant degree. Of course, draconian measures a la 1984 might work, but we all know the result of those tactics. Unfortunately, promoters of top-down measures rely on the fiction that those efforts will automatically filter down to us at ground level.

Social fragmentation generally starts at the bottom when one or more groups is dissatisfied enough to begin agitating, often for very good reasons. But in many cases where it may be inappropriate, the dissatisfaction is tapped into by politicos and the media. They can push the aggravated groups to feed increasingly on their own fear and discontent, accelerating the trend into incivility and societal decline. When demagogues dangerously promote other people or groups as the causes of the discontent or at least contributors to it, incivility or outright hostility is encouraged. The more such aggrieved groups there are, and the larger they get, the more severe the fragmentation, until the whole system collapses. But the key is that the promoters of dissatisfaction would, like Hitler in the 20’s, have little impact if the populace was not already agitated, dissatisfied and fearful.

Wide-scale group dissatisfaction such as we are experiencing now is important, but fixing that depends on fixing dynamics at the lowest societal level. It is at that ground level, where you and I meet, that is of greatest concern. It is only there that we have the highest leverage for changing our unfortunately growing incivility to greater caring for each other.As Mahatma Ghandi said:

As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world---that is the myth of the atomic age---as in being able to remake ourselves.

Good-hearted and sincere people see aspects of society they don’t like, including the incivility. They display their concern in many valuable ways, often volunteering or working directly on helping people with their dissatisfaction. Additionally, they promote civility to their friends, most of whom share their concerns. Sadly, some of those very sincere and concerned people act in uncivil ways toward those they do not like or whose views they find wrong. On the one hand they want civility for themselves and favored others, and on the other are often unwilling or unable to implement it in their daily lives towards those seen in a less favorable light, perpetuating the incivility problem. But you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Either civility is a beneficial social construct or it is not. In a healthy society there is no room for a double standard.

Reducing incivility depends on us, and far less on large-scale, top-down programs. We have to change how we interact with each other on a day-to-day basis starting, above all, with those we are closest to and supposedly care most about. Obvious? Sure, but it’s hard to count the number of couples, parents, and friends I have known who are uncivil and disrespectful the moment something in the relationship doesn’t go their way. Some couples or friends have developed highly uncivil patterns of behavior lasting years or decades. Once a person has learned how to be uncivil, it can spread easily. It’s a simple transition from disrespecting someone close to disrespecting someone not close, especially when surrounded with like “thinking” people who may unfortunately encourage such disrespect. If we are sincere about reducing incivility, the obligation coming with that is to change our own behavior.

Perhaps it’s too late to stop the momentum of societal dissolution. But perhaps not if we overcome our own personal contributions to society’s unfortunate state of affairs. We can control only what we do. We cannot control what others do. But maybe we can influence them in behaviorally productive directions by our own choice of actions to be civil in all settings, especially when facing disagreement. Either I am civil to you, regardless of our differences, or I am not. It is these small, personal interactions that are the main drivers of societal civility or incivility. 

Now to my (partial) solution---using 5 important words more often and more sincerely, especially with those whose views or behavior we find odious. But even before using the 5 words, our effort begins by adopting a more humble attitude and demeanor. In this challenging time, we must be especially aware of self-righteousness, taking ourselves far too seriously, which is humility’s enemy, and hostility's handmaiden. Lacking humility, it becomes nearly impossible to use these 5 words sincerely, if they are used at all. Of course, the words won’t change societal incivility much in the short run, but millions making this small, if demanding, effort has potentially great consequence in the long run.

I’m sorry. Thank you. Please.

Trade-offs

In Christopher Marlowe’s play, “Doctor Faustus,” the latter makes a critical trade-off. Successful but very unhappy, Faust desires great wisdom and riches. Lucifer---in the form of Mephistopheles---offers Faust what he wants in exchange for his soul at a later date. Faust agrees, valuing what he can get now over what will happen many years hence. Presumably aware of his ultimate fate, at least we can say that Faust made an informed, if ill-advised, choice.

Important or minor, life is choices, and every choice means a trade-off of one thing (or more) for something else. We make trade-offs constantly, some consciously and some not, some beneficial and some not. Even at the most positive level, whether to go to Mexico or Hawaii on vacation, the situation involves giving up one thing for something else, at least at that moment. Naturally, trade-offs occur in less desirable settings, as when a person with little income must pay the rent or fix the car, but cannot do both.

Many choices are made with conscious awareness and intention. But others are not. Some are made with little thought to what we are really doing and the consequences, bad ones being ignored or denied. Think of parents who fail to instill limits in a child because they have an unconscious need to be seen by the child as a friend, or because they unthinkingly imagine that limits will stunt the child’s emotional growth. Positive outcomes are unlikely for either parents or child. The parents are not looking at their actions and motives with a true critical eye. Thinking they are doing a good thing, they are really trading their needs to feel good or their concept of emotional growth for the true well-being of the child, whose healthy growth requires limits.

At the personal level, cooperation and competition are two important personal and societal elements that can also be inversely related. For a real test of balance, can a person be competitive and cooperative in the same situation? Imagine spouses having a spirited conversation about a conflict they have. Is the posture to be cooperation or competition? Yes, both. First, each partner has right to a view, and to putting that forward. Those views often conflict, and airing of that difference is a partial key to successful resolution. Competition can be factor as each partner seeks the maximum appreciation for a view or position. Second, cooperation can simultaneously exist if the partners do not let the natural and often beneficial competitiveness take precedence over each partner’s wellbeing. Both aims can be achieved by thoughtful and sensitive people in control of their behavior. Creating safety and trust is a pre-requisite to positive outcomes for both.

Trade-offs are also part of both our mental and emotional universes. For example, occasionally we can hold two contradictory thoughts in our minds at one time. But acting effectively often requires that one be at least partially and temporarily dominant, or we will be paralyzed or act inappropriately. A balanced thinker will see that paradox is often at work. She understands that generally both aspects of the issue have merit, and that one should almost never overwhelm the other. Even if she has a strong allegiance to one position, that does not overcome her ability to weigh them fairly. Not needing to be right or to win, which could push her into emotional imbalance, she has open and fearless conversations with those who differ. Fear and its handmaiden anger push people far off balance into self-righteousness and the need to prevail at all costs. The more fear, the more absolute the stance, and the more anger, the harsher the implementation. True both for societies and for individuals, and sadly evident when the social fabric is dissolving or when the emotional bonds are fragmenting. Absolutism is the result, generally anathema to personal interactions as well as to social systems.

Like individuals, a society cannot be healthy if it fails to understand and make appropriate trade-offs. Politics is the process of reaching outcomes through tradeoffs. Consider those inherent in the relationship between freedom and equality, two very important societal values. The challenge is that these two values are generally inversely related---as one goes up, the other goes down. If the proponents of one value attempt to push outcomes that supporters of the other value see as radical, push-back will occur. This will either be resolved healthily through the political process of trade-offs, or the society will experience polarizing fragmentation, with increased hardening of position on both sides. If one side succeeds in imposing its value beyond a certain point, much worse than hardening of positions occurs. Consider a society with unrestrained freedom, or one with complete equality. Nightmares both, without mentioning the possible violent push back.

Finding a functional balance between two important societal values generally does not mean a literal balance. At times, one side will need to be more heavily weighted. If terrorism is rampant, aspects of privacy will have to take second place to societal safety via crime detection and prevention. But such changes in weightings should usually be temporary, responding to current conditions. If terrorism decreases, less emphasis is placed on crime detection and prevention, and more on privacy. A danger for any society occurs when proponents of a particular policy assume that what worked for a while should work forever in the same form and to the same degree. This would be the case if significant encroachment into privacy becomes permanent, or even expands, when the need for it is clearly less.

Trade-offs are a necessary part of the human condition, impossible to avoid. For individuals and groups, as well as societies, a major goal is to maintain a reasonably healthy state by carefully managing a variety of trade-offs. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. We must accept that we are unlikely to ever get everything we want, or that a person or society will achieve a perfect state. Working astutely and honestly with trade-offs means we move with the river’s flow, not against it.

“There are no solutions to human problems, only trade-offs.”

Thomas Sowell