Hey, it's Sarah K.
Language in Action, the original version of Hayakawa's text, was written in "response to the dangers of propaganda" (Hayakawa xi). By reading the text, the reader is suppose to be more aware of biased language. Hayakawa focuses on what is said, how it is said, and why it is said (i.e. reports, directives). The book, in a way, is a tool to help filter through biased speech and writing. As humans, however, aren't we naturally biased? Don't we listen and receive information with just as must bias as when we give information? Everyone has a unique voice, so doesn't everyone also have a unique ear and hear something completely different than a person sitting right next to him did? Is it possible to be biased in one respect and not the other? Or is there a balance of biasness between giving and receiving information? In which way is it worse to be biased?
Okay, I know there are a lot of questions, but here's one more: if I gave my answers to the questions, would it, in a way, be a report to help you form your opinions or would it corrupt your answers?
6 comments:
Great points, Sarah!
I do believe as humans, our experiences influence our opinions and how react in similar situations, which does limit looking at a certain topic with an “open mind”, so to speak. By listening to someone telling us something, I believe we never fully empathize the true meaning behind that person’s words, because it is to them something different than it is to another. Now, we may get the general gist of the words, which is why vocabulary and context is essential, but the connotations behind the words are molded in the form only the one speaking can identify with – that is, Donna mentioned that a word can never mean the same thing twice, and so the passing of that word to the listener means a different thing. Thus, our own bias interferes with the communication.
If you did give post your answers to those questions, Sarah, then I think it would (to an extreme sense of the word) corrupt my answers; once I have seen your outlook, yet another angle to the situation has been added to my overall opinion, and it is not in my control nor anyone else’s to avoid being influenced by that information.
Very true! We all have biases, especially listening biases. I have an example of this and it has to do with my running...
I never like to change the way I train and for years people had suggested changes to my training plan and I would always listen half-heartedly and dismiss their advice (no matter how well they explained the simple logic behind their suggestions), because they weren't very good runners themselves. Well, about two months ago, I was talking to the guy who coached two Olympic silver medalists and because his background was so much different then everyone elses I listened intently and did everything he said. Suprisingly, though, his advice was the EXACT SAME as what the recreational joggers had been telling me for years...but I listened to his advice with a different bias (more intently and less skeptically) because of his experience.
I know I always have communication biases that relate to my relationships to the people talking. I'd be more prone to disagree with whatever my "enemies" say, no matter how much it makes sense.
We also have speaking biases, and most of them I think happen subconciously. One example of a speaking bias is the vocabulary we use based on who we're talking to. If I was talking about running to my coach, I would tell him I did "5 repeat K's at threshold", but If I was talking to my sister I would tell her I did "5 times around a 1,000 meter course running pretty fast but not too fast."
It's my opinion that almost all biases are subconcious based on who were talking or listening to.
Everyone has their own point of view. If our collective experiences make us who we are, and our experiences in fact affect our thought process / connotations of words, of course our opinions will be unique because no two people are exactly alike.
This is precisely why we are blogging! By discussing Hayakawa's text in this manner and having each student post their own comments, we are exposed to new and different opinions. I have read many interesting points on this blog. I've discovered questions I didn't even know I had! My interpretation of the text is completely different from when I started blogging. Before I logged into the site, my opinions of Hayakawa's text were purely my own and based solely off of what I had read. After reading multiple comments, my understanding of the book was greater because I was no longer limited to my own opinions
But though light was certainly shed on grey areas of the text for me, I was affected by biased opinions. As I considered my classmates’ thoughts, my opinion changed. What everyone writes will ultimately help formulate my opinion. My interpretation of the book will be based on our pooled knowledge instead of just my own thoughts.
Bias is ubiquitous. It affects not just our English class, but every student. Sometimes it is helpful, other times it is harmful. We all have had class projects before for various subjects. How many of us have begged the teacher for an example from a past student? How loudly do we moan and groan when they refuse to show us a finished product? Our teachers always promise us help if we need it, but that does not rid us of self-doubt. I constantly worry that I am doing the project incorrectly, or someone else’s project will be much better than mine. But when teachers do show examples, we feel limited to assembling the project that specific way. If I create something original, I am afraid to turn it in because that also might be incorrect.
So, it is impossible to avoid some bias. Then how do we as writers give “just the facts”? As Hayakawa writes, (page 29 - 30) “We cannot attain complete impartiality while we use the language of everyday life. Even with the very impersonal language of science, the task is sometimes difficult. Nevertheless, we can, by being aware of the favorable or unfavorable feelings that certain words and facts can arouse, attain enough impartiality for practical purposes. Such awareness enables us to balance implied favorable and unfavorable judgments against each other”
Great post! As Sarah asked, "Everyone has a unique voice, so doesn't everyone also have a unique ear and hear something completely different than a person sitting right next to him did?" Of course, everyone does hear spoken language in their own unique way. The way I like to think about it is a game of 'whisper down the lane.' One person begins the game by speaking aloud a phrase or sentence; then the participants parrot those words as best they can to the person sitting next to them. As we know, the end phrase is usually something that is quite different from the original. If we think about the person who creates the phrase as a speaker, and the last person to hear the phrase as a listener, we can get a (caricatured) example of biases. The point is, there is a difference between what a speaker intends to say and what is interpreted by an unintentionally biased listener.
(Alright, the 'whisper down the lane' analogy is confusing, but isn't this just an example of not being able to reproduce in words what our thoughts are?)
Jumping around to one of the last questions, I do not believe it is in any way possible to be biased in one respect and not in another. For any person, place, thing, or idea, we can be biased positively or negatively. Even for such persons, places, things, and ideas to which we have never been introduced we may have biases; however, these biases may be more subtle. It is fitting in these cases to think about "first impressions." If I were to walk down a street and encounter an individual wearing a t-shirt bearing the words "Legalize marijuana," all kinds of judgments come to mind. Without even previously meeting this person, I believe I have formed a complete outline of a human being based on only two words which I have associated that person with. There is no such thing as a completely 'open mind,' because as much as we might like to be unbiased, every word (written or spoken) can be interpreted as something different to each person. The best (and only) way to become as close to impartiality as is possible is to discover how we are biased.
Hey everyone, it's Erin. I think everyone made some good points. The topic Sarah brought up is really interesting. I think that everyone does have a unique ear. One person will hear something and interpret it slightly differently than the person next to them. Different words have different associations for one person, and that would affect what the person understands to be the meaning of what is written/said. I remember once reading in a book that when we repeat what someone said to us, we don't always repeat it exactly, but paraphrase what we understood to be said. Sometimes it has the same meaning, other times it might not.
Even the same exact words can be interpreted differently when said by 2 different people. You might exchange insults jokingly with a friend or sibling, but those words take on a whole new meaning when spoken to you by a stranger. It's not just the words that matter, but the context.
Post a Comment