Author
|
Topic: virus: The word "should" considered harmful. (Read 891 times) |
|
Alex Future Bokov
Magister
Posts: 10
Reputation: 6.01
Rate Alex Future Bokov
I love YaBB SE!
     
 
|
 |
virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« on: 2005-03-15 09:47:01 » |
 |
The other day I realized that one of my least favorite words in the
English language is "should". Why is that?
At best, "should" indicates lazy thinking-- "One litre should be
enough". Either you think it is or isn't. Yes, it would be impossible to
function without approximations, I prefer to take responsibility for
mine-- "I think one liter is enough". Another, more global, example of
lazy thinking is a statement like "People should be more environmentally
responsible". Oh yeah? And how are you going to make them do what they
"should"? Usually, people throwing around platitudes like that have no
idea... they'll just make their observation about how things "should be"
but aren't, and leave it at that, as if somehow magically it will be set
right.
"Should" does not get any better when it goes beyond vague platitudes
and starts zeroing in on who "should" do what-- "The government should
punish drug dealers more harshly"... "Companies should stop outsourcing
jobs"... "You should stop smoking". The problem is not the that the
goals in these examples are good or bad ones... the problem is that the
person who makes these statements is implying that their personal values
are universal, and also implying the existance of some kind of authority
that is listening and might, on the strength of this argument, be
influenced to force the subject of these arguments to do as they
"should". If no such authority exists (or is listening), then such
statements remain naive, lazy, and pointless. On the other hand, if such
an authority does exist, then these statements are disingenuous because
they cloak the nature, capabilities, and the speaker's degree of
influence over this authority. This also conveniently sidesteps the
discussion of this authority's legitimacy (how persuasive would it sound
to say "I intend to cast my vote for a politician who will themselves
vote for laws that will give government employees wider license to seize
private property and detain citizens under threat of lethal force, in
order to combat the problem of drug trafficking"?).
So, what's better than "should"? What's more nuanced, principled, and
pro-active? Here are a few.
"is/are"
"can"
"will"
"intend"
"must" (but only following a phrase like "in order to")
In short, if you can say how things "should" be, you are also capable of
giving your best guess for what it is that's standing in the way of them
being that way, so why not go that extra mile and actually verbalize
that guess? Yes, it feels a little wierd. That wierdness is what it
feels like when language is altering your thought patterns (in this
case, toward pro-activeness and honesty).
So "should" you stop using the word "should"? That's for you to decide.
All I've done is lay out the case against using "should", and I will try
to cut it out of my own vocabulary. If I'm right, then doing so will
make me more credible, raise the quality of my thinking, and will help
me get more done.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.49
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #1 on: 2005-03-16 13:09:32 » |
|
Another possibility is that we use the word "should" to signal values in order to find like-minded others for group creation and group cohesion. When I say "robots should rule the world" this can be interpreted as the display behaviour of a particular meme. I would then look for agreement or disagreement in the audience to discover potential collaborators and competitors respectively. Collaborators that find each other in this manner don't necessarily end up working on the espoused goal that brought them together. They probably share other goals and values which may have higher priority, or maybe they are just looking for some good company or a sympathetic ear.
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.06
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #2 on: 2005-03-17 12:13:09 » |
|
I like the word “should” - it invites people to come up with interesting examples of its definition usage.
...
An AI should “rule the world” to the extent that it is a high arbiter, not a micromanager.
There is already, to some extent, an emergent, distributed AI whose presence most are largely unaware of.
- Erik
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.49
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #3 on: 2005-03-18 15:32:26 » |
|
Quote from: simul on 2005-03-17 12:13:09
There is already, to some extent, an emergent, distributed AI whose presence most are largely unaware of. |
I confess I am an agent of an emergent distributed intelligence, though I would be hesitant to call it artificial. Maybe you are referring to another one?
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.06
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #4 on: 2005-03-22 13:47:07 » |
|
I'm referring to the “tools” which we use. Do we use them or do they use us? To what extent is our evolution, our society, our world shaped by our tools?
People who fail to maintain their PC's, who don't understand technology are becoming obsolete.
Meanwhile, people are more poorly fed and poorly educated. The generation being born today looks like it will be the first generation to have a lower lifespan.
Technology, on the other hand, is being rapily upgraded and improved.
Who's in charge?
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Cassidy McGurk
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 128
Reputation: 6.86
Rate Cassidy McGurk
http://www.isec.info/ get me out of here!
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #5 on: 2005-03-23 06:01:57 » |
|
I'm reminded of the Dyson quote
"In the game of life and evolution there are three players
at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am
firmly on the side of nature. But nature, I suspect, is on
the side of the machines."
Funnily enough while searching for this it was virus post from 1997
that googled up with it!
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:47:07 +0000 GMT, Erik Aronesty <erik@zoneedit.com> wrote:
> I'm referring to the "tools" which we use. Do we use them or do they use us? To what extent is our evolution, our society, our world shaped by our tools?
>
> People who fail to maintain their PC's, who don't understand technology are becoming obsolete.
>
> Meanwhile, people are more poorly fed and poorly educated. The generation being born today looks like it will be the first generation to have a lower lifespan.
>
> Technology, on the other hand, is being rapily upgraded and improved.
>
> Who's in charge?
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I must remember to change this sig regularly
|
|
|
Lise Carlstrom
Initiate
Posts: 68
Reputation: 5.97
Rate Lise Carlstrom
I love YaBB SE!
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #6 on: 2005-04-15 13:39:35 » |
|
(A month ago),
--- alexboko <alexboko@umich.edu> wrote:
> The other day I realized that one of my least
> favorite words in the
> English language is "should". Why is that?
(rest of his message below for reference)
I use "should" when stating my opinion about what is
morally or practically a good idea. I often preface
it with "I think", as in, "I think we should try the
other door," or, "I think people should not bomb
abortion clinics." This is, in my judgement, a clear
way of stating a personal judgement.
If I want to simply say that I think step A would
probably help accomplish goal B, I can say that, but
if I don't include a "should" or equivalent, I have
not indicated that I think goal B is worth achieving
and that therefore step A is in fact a good idea.
Other ways of indicating judgment, opinion, or
inclination: "...is a good idea", "I want...", "It
would be nice if...", and various forms of requests
that someone do something or make something happen.
I think I should continue to use "should", and intend
to continue to do so. I also judge that it is
valuable to clearly announce and label personal
judgements.
Richard Brodie's Level-3 Communication Model, drawn
from "21st Century Leadership", lays out a general
framework for clear communication, particularly in
response to potentially tricky communications
situations. It involves stating, separating, and
clearly labelling one's perceptions, interpretations
and judgements, feelings, and intentions. Find it
here:
http://www.memecentral.com/L3Communication.htm
--Eva
>
> At best, "should" indicates lazy thinking-- "One
> litre should be
> enough". Either you think it is or isn't. Yes, it
> would be impossible to
> function without approximations, I prefer to take
> responsibility for
> mine-- "I think one liter is enough". Another, more
> global, example of
> lazy thinking is a statement like "People should be
> more environmentally
> responsible". Oh yeah? And how are you going to make
> them do what they
> "should"? Usually, people throwing around platitudes
> like that have no
> idea... they'll just make their observation about
> how things "should be"
> but aren't, and leave it at that, as if somehow
> magically it will be set
> right.
>
> "Should" does not get any better when it goes beyond
> vague platitudes
> and starts zeroing in on who "should" do what-- "The
> government should
> punish drug dealers more harshly"... "Companies
> should stop outsourcing
> jobs"... "You should stop smoking". The problem is
> not the that the
> goals in these examples are good or bad ones... the
> problem is that the
> person who makes these statements is implying that
> their personal values
> are universal, and also implying the existance of
> some kind of authority
> that is listening and might, on the strength of this
> argument, be
> influenced to force the subject of these arguments
> to do as they
> "should". If no such authority exists (or is
> listening), then such
> statements remain naive, lazy, and pointless. On the
> other hand, if such
> an authority does exist, then these statements are
> disingenuous because
> they cloak the nature, capabilities, and the
> speaker's degree of
> influence over this authority. This also
> conveniently sidesteps the
> discussion of this authority's legitimacy (how
> persuasive would it sound
> to say "I intend to cast my vote for a politician
> who will themselves
> vote for laws that will give government employees
> wider license to seize
> private property and detain citizens under threat of
> lethal force, in
> order to combat the problem of drug trafficking"?).
>
> So, what's better than "should"? What's more
> nuanced, principled, and
> pro-active? Here are a few.
> "is/are"
> "can"
> "will"
> "intend"
> "must" (but only following a phrase like "in order
> to")
>
> In short, if you can say how things "should" be, you
> are also capable of
> giving your best guess for what it is that's
> standing in the way of them
> being that way, so why not go that extra mile and
> actually verbalize
> that guess? Yes, it feels a little wierd. That
> wierdness is what it
> feels like when language is altering your thought
> patterns (in this
> case, toward pro-activeness and honesty).
>
> So "should" you stop using the word "should"? That's
> for you to decide.
> All I've done is lay out the case against using
> "should", and I will try
> to cut it out of my own vocabulary. If I'm right,
> then doing so will
> make me more credible, raise the quality of my
> thinking, and will help
> me get more done.
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Future Bokov
Magister
Posts: 10
Reputation: 6.01
Rate Alex Future Bokov
I love YaBB SE!
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #7 on: 2005-04-15 17:52:17 » |
|
I think you're right. Pre-pending "I think" makes a big difference,
because now you're making a factual statement about something that you
presumably really do think, rather than sneakily slipping in a universal
moral judgement by using an unqualified "should". And thanks for the
link, I'm reading it now.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.49
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #8 on: 2005-04-15 19:13:10 » |
|
alexboko wrote:
> I think you're right. Pre-pending "I think" makes a big difference,
> because now you're making a factual statement about something that you
> presumably really do think, rather than sneakily slipping in a
> universal moral judgement by using an unqualified "should". And thanks
> for the link, I'm reading it now.
I don't see how pre-pending "I think" could make a difference because it
is implied in every assertion anyone ever makes which makes it
unneccessary to say. Sort of in my same way you can prepend "It is true
that...".
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
deadletter-j
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 84
Reputation: 5.09
Rate deadletter-j
How many Engstrom's does it take?
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #9 on: 2005-04-15 22:12:05 » |
|
It makes a difference in how it frames the receiver's intake of the
information. Speaking to our own experience places them in the
position of 'empathizing', which is an improvement over their allergic
reaction to statements of alleged truth.
On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:13 PM, David McFadzean wrote:
> alexboko wrote:
>
>> I think you're right. Pre-pending "I think" makes a big difference,
>> because now you're making a factual statement about something that
>> you presumably really do think, rather than sneakily slipping in a
>> universal moral judgement by using an unqualified "should". And
>> thanks for the link, I'm reading it now.
>
> I don't see how pre-pending "I think" could make a difference because
> it is implied in every assertion anyone ever makes which makes it
> unneccessary to say. Sort of in my same way you can prepend "It is
> true that...".
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Hijacking everything ever knew about anything.
|
|
|
Lise Carlstrom
Initiate
Posts: 68
Reputation: 5.97
Rate Lise Carlstrom
I love YaBB SE!
|
|
Re: virus: The word "should" considered harmful.
« Reply #10 on: 2005-04-15 23:54:27 » |
|
--- David McFadzean <david@ideoware.com> wrote:
> I don't see how pre-pending "I think" could make a
> difference because it
> is implied in every assertion anyone ever makes
> which makes it
> unneccessary to say. Sort of in my same way you can
> prepend "It is true
> that...".
Putting "I think" tags an utterance explicitly as
opinion or hypothesis, rather than a statement of
fact. I think that using the word "should" does so as
well, making "I think we should..." redundant, but
redundancy's not necessarily a problem, and in this
case it makes it sound more tentative and thus polite.
Yes, you could put "It is true that" in front of any
assertion, but not in front of questions or commands,
and it also works less well in front of less certain
statements such as "Maybe we have enough pizza for
everybody."
I agree that such markers are not strictly necessary
as tags of nature of the utterance, but they can help
to make intention clearer at times.
--Eva
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
