Bennan, Sanford, Ph X). How to Think, Communicate, and Behave Intelligently: An Introduction to General Semantics.

San Diego: Educational Cassettes, DeVito, Joseph, Ph.D. General Semantics: Guide and Workbook. Deland, FL: Everett Edwards,

A Critical Analysis of Two Introductory Auto-Tutorial Cassette Programs in General-Semantics

by

David F. Maas, Ed.D.

A WORKBOOK FOR AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE IN GENERAL SEMANTICS

A Critical Analysis of Two Introductory Auto-Tutorial Cassette Programs in General-Semantics

by

David F. Maas, Ed.D.

Submitted to Robert P. Pula and Dr. Stuart A. Mayper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the GeneralSemantics Master Teaching Credential.

May 5, 1994

I
Acknowledgments I wish to thank my faculty aide Michael Hopf for the countless hours he has spent in helping me prepare the transcripts and putting this into final form. Also, thanks to English Department employee Shaun Harr for typing the several drafts of the critical analysis and helping to edit the transcripts and indices. I would like to also thank my friend and counselor D. David Bourland for giving me editorial advice and serving as the E-prime quality control inspector. I have endeavored to write this critical analysis entirely in E-prime, hopefully improving the crispness and punch of the original document.

i i
This book is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Irving 3. Lee of Northwestern University.

i i i i i i

"There are always in the world a few inspired men whose acquaintance is beyond price." - Plato

Dr. Berman addressing 5000 members of the 1962 National S a f e t y Congress

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments A Critical Analysis of Two Introductory Auto-Tutorial Cassette Programs in General-Semantics . Appendix I: Catalog of Cassettes Appendix II: Transcripts, Unit Objectives, Unit Indices Appendix III: Comprehensive Indices CC page.l Bl page.l BX page.l

"Dr. Berman is the most able instructor in the field of general semantics and communication in industry I*ve met. He's versed in both communication theory and practice and knows how to put his material across." John Quinn, Director Management Development Seminar, University of Chicago. It was with a great regret that I made an early departure from yesterday's communications seminar. As I explained, I had an important meeting which I had to attend. Not only did I greatly enjoy the session, but I Jell I got a great deal from it. I will admit that I entered the meeting with a degree of skepticism and left feeling it was truly valuable. I was particularly impressed by the sincerity of your presentation. Robert H. Richelson, Manager Employee Communications Corporate Industrial Relations Hughes Aircraft Company Los Angeles California "Dr. Herman's students regard him as an outstanding teacherI consider him the most dynamic lecturer since the late Professor Irving J. Lee of Northwestern University." Glenn Carmichael, Assistant Director of Training, Traffic Institute, Northwestern University.

I I I 1 I
INTRODUCTION Dr. David Maas and his assistant, Michael Hopf, have done an excellent job initiating the difficult task of transforming material from a recorded script and putting this valuable information encompassing general semantics to paper. There is much data compiled from Dr. Joseph DeVito and my audio cassettes, and we hope to pass it on to students and teachers. As you will see, this is the essence of time-binding. We are pleased to make this important and edited General Semantics Workbook available. Dr. Maas has used it in his classes with much success, as it presents many of the most important principles of general semantics in an easy-to-understand introductory manner. It is being offered at cost to those who are interested in EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION and INTELLIGENT BEHAVIOR. I feel that the unique contribution Dr. Maas has made are the excellent indexes that he has supplied at the end of each chapter. This is an exceptional aid for teachers, and I feel it is an important guide in studying the many principles of general semantics. Dr. Sanford I. Berman Ph.D. Educational Cassettes and Publishing Co. P.O. Box 98022 Las Vegas, NV 89093-8022

Appendix IV
203 Sanford I. Berman

3rd printing, 2010

The Irving 3. Lee Method of Teaching General Semantics

10 On the Teaching of General Semantics (2003 Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture) by Sanford I. Berman 23 General Semantics and the Philosophy of Science; From Pre-Aristotelian to Post-Einsteinian by Sanford I. Berman

A Critical Analysis of Two Introductory Auto-Tutorial Cassette Programs in General-Semantics

Herman, Sanford, Ph.D. How to Think, Communicate, and Behave Intelligently: An Introduction to General Semantics. San Diego: Educational Cassettes, MM DeVito, Joseph, Ph.D. General Semantics: Guide and Workbook. Deland, FL: Everett Edwards, W

Over the past several decades, self-help cassettes or auto-tutorial recordings have made a significant educational and pedagogical impact. Earl Nightingale, Paul Meyer, and Sybervision have successfully distributed motivational and self-help programs, improving everything from a faulty memory or lack of self-discipline to a better golf score. Not to allow the motivation merchants to outclass them, two veteran formulators of general-semantics have also entered the auto-tutorial educational arena. Joseph DeVito's General Semantics: Guide and Workbook (hereafter referred to as G-S:GW) and Sanford Herman's How to Think, Communicate, and Behave Intelligently: An Introduction to General Semantics (hereafter referred to as HTCBI) represent major contributions in packaging general-semantics formulations into bite-sized sound-bytes and memorable Korzybskian one-liners. A former student of S. I. Hayakawa and a teaching assistant of Irving Lee, Dr. Sanford I. Herman has vigorously taught general-semantics, management, and communication seminars at Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, and the University of California. Various corporation CEO's have described him as a major shaker and mover of success motivation seminars, in the same league as Norman Vincent

8 Peale, Napoleon Hill, and Maxwell Maltz. Having served as president of six companies and three corporations, including Educational Cassettes, a major distributor of success motivation materials, Dr. Berman now serves as a board member in both the Institute of General Semantics and the International Society for General Semantics. One could hardly consider his influence in both academia and the business community trifling. His contributions to general-semantics methodology and pedagogy have proved equally significant. My first exposure to the massive and formidable productivity of Joseph DeVito occurred during the preparation of my Specialist thesis in 1972. I used many of his articles in Speech Monographs and the Journal of Communication. Joseph DeVito has contributed numerous articles to speech and communication periodicals. Additionally, he has published major works in psycholinguistics, interpersonal communication, and nonverbal communication including The Psychology of Speech and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (1970), Communication: Concepts and Processes (1973), and General Semantics: Guide and Workbook (1971). Some of his recent contributions include Communicology: An Introduction to the Study of Communication, Communication Handbook: A Dictionary (1986), and The Nonverbal Communication Workbook (1989). He has the multi-disciplinary orientation that Alfred Korzybski favored. Currently he teaches Language, Linguistics, Speech, and Rhetoric at Hunter College of the City University of New York. Professor DeVito demonstrates a tireless capacity for output and productivity. Very much a friend and advocate of general-semantics methodology he includes general-semantics formulations in practically all of his work. DeVito serves on

Maas 9 the board of directors of the International Society of General Semantics. Cassette curricula potentially serve a useful pedagogical function, both as a supplementary adjunct to an existing classroom course or as a self-contained introduction to the terminology and formulations. When accompanied by a workbook, transcripts, sets of instructional objectives, glossaries, and annotated bibliographies, the auto-tutorial can provide the hands-on factor absent from many self-help tapes. Joseph DeVito's G-S:GW and Sanford Herman's HTCBI have provided this added dimension of participation to their cassette programs. Dr. DeVito has included a 121page workbook, replete with exercises and supplementary information, as well as an annotated bibliography. I would personally like to see added to both programs an accompanying transcript, instructional objectives, index, and a glossary of terms (similar to the one I have constructed for myself in the appendix of this review). : Both of these veteran educators have their own distinctive styles and personalities. Joseph DeVito, to me, comes across as a reserved college professor with an understated wry sense of humor. Sanford Berman, on the other hand, impresses this listener somewhat like an enthusiastic, flamboyant after-dinner speaker, occasionally approaching the fervor of a tent meeting evangelist. DeVito has made his program the more compact of the two, covering nine halfhours of instruction. As a supplement to a standard 50-minute classroom period, it doesn't dominate the entire study session and easily assimilates into other compatible pedagogical strategies. Berman has made his program more expansive with thirteen cassettes ranging from 40 to 70 minutes. As a supplement to classroom exercises, it

10 tends to dominate the study session. Occasionally the effervescent enthusiasm and the numerous examples and anecdotes would make the Berman lessons a desirable option.
The Berman cassette series could prove even more desirable as a classroom tool if he had added a workbook and study guide similar to what DeVito had provided in his GS:GW. The meat and potatoes of both programs consists of an explication of the Korzybskian structural differential as well as the extensional devices, serving as specific vitamin supplements combatting specific neuro-semantic misevaluation patterns. Consequently both Berman and DeVito provide instructional units on intensional vs. extensional orientation, fact/inference confusion, allness (etc.), indiscrimination (indexing), polarization, and the IFD disease (Idealization leading to Frustration leading to Demoralization) accompanied by the metaphorical formula H = M/E (Happiness results from keeping motivation high and expectation low) serving as an antidote. Dr. Berman includes additional units on the consciousness of abstraction, the arbitrary aspect of assigning meaning, higher-order abstractions, and phatic communion. Dr. DeVito includes a useful compendium of general-semantics research taking the listener up through 1971. It would prove useful if Dr. DeVito could regularly update his guidelines to provide an adjunct to Kenneth Johnson's Graduate Research in General Semantics. Both educators cite the seminal works of general-semantics Manhood of Humanity and Science and Sanity, but also draw from popularized renditions such as Wendell Johnson's People in Quandaries, Irving Lee's Language Habits in Human Affairs, S. I. Hayakawa's Language in Tfiought and Action, Harry Weinberg's Levels of Knowing and

Maas 11
Existence, William Haney's Communication and Organizational Behavior, J. S. Bois' The Art of Awareness, Stuart Chase's Guide to Straight Thinking, and Kenneth Keyes' How to Develop Your Thinking Ability as well as numerous other related tributaries. In their respective introductory lessons, both Herman and DeVito acknowledge Alfred Korzybski as the father of general-semantics, a term Berman points out that Korzybski had coined in his Science and Sanity. Both educators recount the thesis of Korzybski's other seminal work Manhood of Humanity in which he formulated his operational definitions of man as a time-binding organism. Through the use of symbols, man passes the accumulated experience of the species from generation to generation, something animals cannot do. Both Berman and DeVito provide perfunctory, though vivid descriptions of chemistry-binding, space-binding, and time-binding classes of life. Occasionally both educators overly rely on the example to explain the intricate process they describe. For example, in describing chemistry-binding, Berman explains, "So plants are chemistry-binding, they manufacture their energy through solar energy etc; they sustain life; they are one-dimensional, chemistry-binding." In DeVito's introduction he explains plants "can utilize chemicals in, say, photosynthesis." After using these instructional materials in my general-semantics class, I asked the students to discuss "chemistry-binding." Several students obviously ignoring Berman's "etc." and DeVito's "say," thought that photosynthesis was a synonym for chemistrybinding rather than one specific variation of chemistry-binding. I would have preferred if, in addition to the example, both DeVito and Berman had included a more abstracted definition, such as Bois would have used, "absorbing throughput, turning it into a higher

12
level of potentiality." Both educators describe the perplexing paradox Korzybski encountered when contemplating Science and Sanity, that although human beings had learned to build bridges that have lasted for centuries and have advanced theoretical constructs which have elevated the scientific progress of civilization, they have also retained some primitive animal-like evaluations which prove inappropriate in human behavior. Berman, echoing Korzybski's concern, suggests "men can behave like animals," but they can be taught to use their nervous systems scientifically like human beings. He then explores contexts in which "thinking" appears at its best, suggesting that mental institutions display regions of maximum misevaluation and science laboratories display regions of maximum sanity. In the rather vast continuum between insane and sane we can locate a vast spectrum known as unsane in which most of the human species reside. Berman believes that nudging individuals away from the unsane pole toward the sane pole, fostering an extensional orientation over an intensional orientation should constitute a high priority of generalsemantics. The structural differential serves as the center piece for both the Berman and DeVito introductions. Both systematically illustrate the orders of abstraction from the submicroscopic event level (DeVito uses J. S. Bois' acronym WIGO), the macroscopic abstraction (interaction of the nervous system with the submicroscopic level) to the symbolic level of labels, inferences, and inferences from inferences. Both differentiate between the limited animal abstracting (lacking the self-reflexive characteristic) and human abstracting. Both explain the significance of the strings connected and hanging

I
Maas 13 outside the geometric figures in the construct. Dr. Herman in his explanation of the orders of abstraction chooses to enlarge upon the differences between facts, statements of fact, and inferences. Both illustrate the differing orders of abstraction as one moves from the event to the observation to the label to the inference to the inference made from the inference. Both make the point that the probability of accuracy decreases as one moves through the orders of abstraction. Individuals who have made perennial criticisms of the popularized expositions of general-semantics complain that popularizers either ignore or distort the "circularized knowledge" formulation (the roller coaster-like behavior in which we continually move back to the event level to verify our inferences). Berman acknowledges this important Korzybskian formulation suggesting that "ultimately we can read back into the submicroscopic level. This is what we mean by theoretical physics, where you read back the inferences of the highest level, you make certain assumptions of what is going on at the sub-microscopic level of electrons, protons, and neutrons" (HTCBI:B1 p8 para26). In other words, the theoretical construct (such as the structural differential or the model of the DNA helix) we could consider a highly refined inference. I wish that both educators had provided some examples of this circularity process. Dr. DeVito makes the claim that from the structural differential diagram, "many, if not all the principles of general-semantics can be derived" (G-S:GW Dl p5 para37). Perhaps Alfred Korzybski would have preferred the adjective "most" over "all," but the metaphor of the structural differential as the map of the interrelated system of generalsemantics serves well. Showing the interrelatedness of the system DeVito uses the

i i

I I
structural differential to explain three principle formulations of general-semanticsnonallness, non-identity, and self-reflexiveness. DeVito in his explanation of the structural differential stays closer to the theoretical than does Herman who amplifies more by example. DeVito, for example, suggests that the "event level is characterized by three things: infinite complexity, constant change, and non-identity" (G-S:GW: Dl p8 para65). To be sure, Alfred Korzybski would have taken issue with the adjective "infinite," preferring instead "indefinite complexity" and "indefinite regression," etc. In his workbook Dr. DeVito has presented his own version of the structural differential. As Potter had done in Making Sense, DeVito encourages students to make their own variations of the theoretical construct. In a critique of Language In Thought and Action, Bruce Kodish expressed dismay that the map/territory analogy was apparently oversimplified to reflect a map = intensional world (words) and territory = extensional world (experience) pattern (GSB 57:68). Both Berman and DeVito make it clear that the map/territory relationships appear recursive and self-reflexive. DeVito begins the mapping on the object of perception level in which we abstract colors "when only light rays exist on the event level." As we progress through the orders of abstraction from the non-verbal levelfrom fact, statement of fact, descriptive statement, inference, inference from inference, etc.we recognize the self-reflexiveness of the map/territory relationships. As we make abstractions from abstractions, the prior abstractions become the new territories from which we make new mapswe can make maps from maps. Both Berman and DeVito have made the connection between the notion of

i i

Maas 15 abstracting to that of mapping, incorporating the formulation of self-reflexive ness. DeVito, citing J. S. Bois, uses the map/territory analogy to explain the formulation of self-reflexiveness, suggesting that "an ideal map would have to include a map of itself, if the map were a part of the territory. And then that map would have to include a map of the map" (G-S:GW Dl p9 para70). The unfortunate distortion which Bruce Kodish pointed out in Language In Thought and Actionthe. mushing together of the old elementalistic semantics with the "organism-as-a-whole" (GSB 57:67) general-semantics Berman rectifies, insisting that general-semantics starts with the assumption that meanings originate in the nervous system of people rather than in words, rejecting the inaccurate elementalistic assumption implied in the study of semantics. Berman introduces the term "ecological thinking" to describe the non-elementalistic study of man in his environment. Berman, in the Korzybskian tradition, suggests "if you forget about studying man in an environment, you are being elementalistic; you are splitting him off from his environment, which obviously you cannot do empirically" (HTCBI: Bl p5 para!6). In the context of the ecological metaphor, he introduces the non-elementalistic Korzybskian terms "semantic reaction" and "evaluation." He also makes the assertion that "people wrongly assume that generalsemantics is concerned with communication, with communication only. We are concerned with all kinds of thinking and behaving" (HTCBI Bl p5 para!6). Although he acknowledges that the non-Aristotelians use the term "semantic reaction," Berman continues to use the elementalistic term "thinking" more than the Korzybskian term "evaluation" or "semantic reaction," perhaps feeling compelled to wean Aristotelians away

I I
from their pernicious habits gradually. Dr. Berman in his introduction gives a brief description of Aristotle's laws of thought, explaining that the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle have brought about some rather disastrous misevaluations, such as identification, the "is" of identity, the "is" of predication, the blurring of contradictories and contraries, polarization and two-valued orientation. To remedy these neuro-semantic ailments, he prescribes Korzybskian non-Aristotelian orientations of non-identity, nonallness, and multi-valued orientation. Berman suggests that Korzybski's insistence upon mathematics has re-oriented our evaluations from extremes to degrees or gradations, from static orientation to process orientation. Both DeVito and Berman conclude their introductory unit with a description of the three extensional devices (date, index, and etc.) and two safety devices (hyphens and quotes). The misevaluation patterns and the extensional devices serve as the skeletal frame around which Berman and DeVito organize most of the rest of the cassette tutorial programs. Dr. DeVito develops six units around misevaluation patterns followed by the appropriate extensional devices to correct the misevaluations. The workbook begins with a brief summary of the terminology and formulations, followed by exercises, in which students record and analyze these misevaluation patterns. DeVito makes a distinctive contribution in his G-S:GW by defining and characterizing general-semantics as a meta-language: a language for talking about language. Suggesting that meta-languages possess the common property or "design

i i

Maas 19 confusion) of orders of abstractions"(185). Dr. Kenneth Johnson describes intensional behavior as the projecting of the verbal "crystallization" of our experience back onto the experience. When the "crystallization" emerges as more real than the experience itself, the order of abstraction has reversed. Berman and Devito concur that when people orient themselves to life-facts rather than by making merely verbal associations, they demonstrate an extensional orientation. Both also believe that intensional orientation reflects an absorption of people with the word, label, or verbal association or symbol, neglecting the real world these verbal symbols describe. Taking a cue from S. I. Hayakawa's Language In Thought and*Action, Berman suggests that brand names and advertising blind consumers to the non-verbal product. He suggests that advertisers encourageAintensional orientation toward brand names, enticing the consumer to react "automatically toward the brand names with little or no consideration of the non-verbal fact" (HTCBI:B3 p2 paralO). He also cleverly makes a differentiation between "reel life" and "real life," in which the day dreams manufactured by producers in Hollywood sound stages project back upon the lives of the movie patrons. Berman suggests that the "stop the presses" foolishness (and the improbability of the reporter writing the headline before the story) never happens in the extensional world. Berman makes a useful distinction differentiating the semantic environment (in which he refers to the symbols from print and electronic media impinging upon the nervous system) from the neuro-semantic environment (in which he refers to meanings created or assigned from inside the nervous system and projected outward upon the outside environment) (HTCBI:B3 p4 para 13).

ii

I
20 Joseph DeVito illustrates intensional orientation through a poem evaluation exercise in which he attaches the names of well-known poets to bogus or altered poems. He convincingly demonstrates that people respond to the names of poets, names of products, or names of politicians without going beyond the label to the extensional product or behavior. DeVito uses the famous example of the observer who refused to take Aristotle's word on the number of legs a fly possessed, preferring to turn the fly over on its back and count them. DeVito concludes his presentation on intensional /extensional orientation by providing a number of examples from history in which the gullible public accepted as truth authoritative pronouncements without benefit of scientifically observing them. I do regret that neither presenter in his respective unit on intensional/extensional orientation made a convincing connection between intensional orientation and reversal of abstraction. Product overshadowed process in both presentations. In Korzybski's chapter in Science and Sanity on "Higher Order Abstractions" he provides a diagram which differentiates first order abstractions (seen happenings) from second order abstractions (descriptions) from third order abstractions (inferences) (445). Most popular introductions of general-semantics contain units demonstrating the factinference confusion or the inference-observation confusion. Both Herman and DeVito have given thorough expositions of the fact/inference or inference/fact confusions. Dr. Herman systematically differentiates a fact from a statement of fact from an inference or, in other words, a first order abstraction (taken from the non-verbal world we see, taste and feel), a second order abstraction (a

i i

Maas 17 feature of self-reflexive ness," (G-S:GW 9: paraS) he offers a redefinition of generalsemantics as the "study of the psychological processes involved in the acquisitionencoding and decoding of meta-language involving both descriptive and prescriptive concerns" (G-S:GW 9: para5). Although it goes a long way to unmush the distinction between semantics and general-semantics, I fear that Korzybski may have considered this characterization too confining and less comprehensive than a science for and about humanity. Korzybski devotes a section in Science and Sanity to conditional reflexes, suggesting that in too many contexts, people do not use the extra little bit of cerebral cortex available to them, preferring to copy the automatic, non-survivalistic behavior of animals. Herman, in his second unit "Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think," suggests that one of the most frequent and serious misevaluation patterns he has observed manifests itself in the substitution of the reflex-like, animal-like signal reaction for a learned, delayed and human-like symbol reaction. Citing Korzybski's example of the pike which starved to death in the midst of minnows because it had previously been thwarted by a glass pane, suggests that the pike's behavior reflected conditioning for all time while humans have the option of degrees of conditionally, enabling us to break free from reflex-like behavior. Using Korzybski's characterization of some humans as CAT-egorists and DOGmatists, Berman suggests automatic signal reactions appear expectedly and naturally in animals, but prove highly inappropriate and self-defeating in humans. Berman provides numerous examples of signal reactions, including an inappropriate salute from a military

18
officer while engaged in a baseball game. Taking Korzybski's cue that people ought to extend the circuit of the human nervous system from the thalamus through the cortex, Berman suggests that people ought to allow a reflective phase in their evaluation involving a pause and analysis. The stimulus, in other words, should not govern the behavior, but the cerebral cortex should enter the evaluation loop. When humans bypass the pause and analysis sequence they regress to a second order signal reaction such as fear or panic. Berman refers to the "psychology of momentum" as a second order signal reaction, exemplified in the behavior of an individual who uses profanity and then responds to his profanity. Berman provides numerous examples of circular response panic reactions governed by self-imposed neurosemantic stimuli. Citing Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" Berman classifies panic (fearing fear) as a second order signal reaction. The appropriate human symbol reaction, according to Berman has four sequential steps: (1) pausing, (2) observing, (3) analyzing, and (4) reacting. Berman concludes the section on Signal and Symbol reactions by summarizing six conclusions relating to the symbol/signal distinction. My students have acclaimed this unit as the most impelling and useful unit of the whole series. The distinction between extensional and intensional attitudes derive from &** Korzybski's chapter in Science and Sanity "On Order" in 1MB which/^ntensional orientation equates with reversing the natural order of abstraction, projecting back to the "'sense' memory traces or doctrinal impulses"(176). Korzybski warned that "hypostatization," "reification," "misplaced concreteness" and "objectification" all reflected reversal (or

Maas 21 description on the verbal level), and the third order abstraction (an inference made from the description). In the context of these important distinctions, Berman introduces Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, stating "there are circumstances under which the physicist cannot put himself possessing of all relevant information" making it necessary to assume varying degrees of probability. The structure of the world of reality, insists Berman, must be stated in terms of "assumptions of probability" rather than "assumptions of certainty" (HTCBI: B4 p2 parall). Berman, in Korzybskian tradition, cautions against the assumption of certainty whether it manifests itself as dogmatism or skepticism. Both DeVito and Berman provide lists of differentiated characteristics separating factual statements from inferential statements, cautioning that inferences enter the danger zone only when they masquerade as statements of fact, or leap orders of abstraction. DeVito uses a sample from William Haney's Uncritical Inference Test to demonstrate to the students that their ability to discriminate between fact and inference, in most cases, needs strengthening. Both DeVito and Berman provide ample examples from literature, newspaper reports, and personal experiences of humorous and tragic inferences acted upon as facts. Alfred Korzybski in his chapter dn Non-Aristotelian Training suggests that the more people learn to dislike the term "all," the better (472). Both DeVito, in his unit titled "Allness," and Berman, in his unit "The Closed Mind," have thoroughly described the misevaluation pattern called "allness." Both have identified from five to seven limiting factors which prevent individuals from knowing all, including the problem of (1) time (limited), (2) space, (3) complexity, (4) the limited nature of one's sensory organs,

I
22 (5) interest and point of view, (6) previous knowledge, and (7) constant change. Both DeVito and Berman illustrate each limiting factor by an anecdote or example. Berman in his unit "Allness" summarizes the Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis in illustrating how language distorts and blocks perception. Berman also echoes Korzybski's interpretation of abstracting as a screening and eliminating process. Taking a cue from William Haney (who metaphorized hardening of the categories) Berman described a disease called "psychological artlerioscfclerosisor a kind of hardening of the attitudes"a terminal allness misevaluation. Berman identifies species of allness in "common sense," self-satisfaction, the inferiority complex, and the Jehovah complex which Korzybski attributes to many philosophers. Differentiating between common sense (or assumptions encouraging identity or similarity) from uncommon sense (assumptions that encouraging non-identity or dissimilarity), Berman insists that scientific progress derives from uncommon sense. DeVito uses the narrative about Agassiz in addition to the parable about the six blind men and the elephant to explain and illustrate the allness misevaluation and the need for the "etc." Enlarging upon individual differences in perception both DeVito and Berman recount Korzybski's narrative of the Roumanian soldier who kissed his hand and slapped a Nazi officer while travelling through a dark tunnel. Both educators describe four problems the allness misevaluation creates, including (1) refusal to change, (2) refusal to learn, (3) arrogance, and (4) intolerance, and then provide two general-semantics remedies(1) the etc. and (2) the consciousness of abstractionto combat those problems.

i i

Maas 23 Berman includes three related units on the usage of language, stressing the Ogden and Richards truism that no inherent relationship exists between a symbol (or a word) and what it stands for, but the human nervous system assigns the meaning to the word. Berman provides examples of linguistic naivete' (failure to comprehend the arbitrary character of symbols) as well as examples of the monolinguistic (one word/one thing) fallacy. He also demonstrates the arbitrariness of naming or labeling in his example of SeAborg's narration describing how the elements received their names. In illustrating how the context of a symbol determines its use, Berman places the word "language" in the context of semantics, phonetics, linguistics, structural linguistics, and philosophy of language, logic, mathematics, and psychiatry. As he places the word in the context of mathematics, he reiterates Korzybski's contention that mathematics most closely fits the structure of reality and claims the distinction of our most perfect language. Evoking what the late Irving Lee referred to as the "container myth"the false to fact assumption that words contain meaningBerman explains how etymology proves unproductive when searching for the "real meaning." Berman decries what he terms the literalist fallacy, an assumption that a speaker has only one "right" way to use a word. He provides examples illustrating that the meaning of art, music, literature, painting, and sculpture derives from subjective projections of independent nervous systems. Continuing on the theme of ambiguity and variation, Berman points to regional variations in expressions. In Korzybski's chapter on the "Consciousness of Abstracting" in Science and Sanity he refers to certain terms such as "man," "woman," "husband," "wife," and "marriage" as

I
agreements by definition leaving out thousands of characteristics referred to as undefined terms (414). Korzybski warns that when the undefined terms (the characteristics left out) begin to make their appearance, disappointments also accumulate and an inevitable unhappy life begins (414). Berman gives a humorous example about one divorce case in which the defendant protested the accusation of his lacking affection by insisting "I did a lot of remodeling around the house" (HTCBI B6: pll para42).
_i_r->vipe7 UtC9 Ut*-l*'P'K

Using William Haney's term "bypassing" from Communication and Organizational Behavior, Berman defines and illustrates the process of projection in his unit seven "ProjectionHow to Lessen Misunderstanding" Berman suggests that projection occurs whenever a listener assumes the speaker uses a word the same way he currently uses it (HTBCI B7: p5 para20). MHtaQ what Irving Lee refers to as the "container myth" Berman counters with Pft'rce's maxim "we do not get meaning, we respond with meaning." Berman identifies and provides examples of different kinds of projecting, including projecting feelings of inadequacy upon others in order to establish a kind of psychological equilibrium. Other kinds of projection he illustrates would include imagined identification or empathy projection, projecting safety into a green light, projecting )ft MEftN'N 6 -) silence into noise and fluff perpetuated over the media. As part of a strategy to counteract the pernicious aspects of projecting, Berman isolates five assumptions derived from pathological projecting that impact listening and then provides a set of responses which enable the listener to engage in non-evaluative listening. In his unit on high order abstraction, Berman follows Hayakawa's example of

\tetjflSM6

i i

Maas 25 creating, in effect, an abstraction ladder. He creates several continua illustrating the ranking of terms from least inclusive to most inclusive, such as (1) Mr. Jones, (2) superintendent, (3) school administrator, and (4) educator. Berman suggests in these examples that even our most specific words actually serve as class names for more specific terms. Bruce Kodish in the General Semantics Bulletin vol. 57 suggests that such specificity continuums (or abstraction ladders) may "lead some readers to derogate higher order abstractions" or consider abstracting as a pernicious disease (75). The humorous examples of Bureaucratese or Federalese in which the bureaucrat exasperatingly resorted to "Don't use hydrochloric acidit eats the hell of pipes" could perhaps lead some naive students to this conclusion. I would recommend that when educators warn about the dangers of high order abstraction, that they remind the students about the useful aspects of abstracting and the "circularity of knowledge" formulations of Korzybski connecting the refined theoretical construct back to the event level. Berman somewhat does this after his example of a vicious high order abstraction circle (citing Hayakawa) in which he suggests "the speaker must use as many examples, illustrations, and low order abstractions as is necessary to communicate his intended meaning" (HTCBI B8: p8 para29). He suggests that verification should be made from the inference back to the description to the perception levels of abstraction. Summarizing Rudolf Flesch's advice on concretizing, he suggests that "details, facts, and figures" ought to be included as the writer or speaker focuses on the "visible, audible, and measurable." In the conclusion of his unit on high order abstractions Berman describes

26 humorous examples of people attempting to project something meaningful into meaningless statements deriving their strange "will to believe" from an expectancy factor in their perception. In commenting upon the process of change, Robert Pula has suggested that we 1 should not reflect upon "things changing" as much as "change thinging." Both DeVito and Herman have constructed units on the misevaluation pattern of the frozen evaluation or static evaluation and the appropriate Korzybskian device, the date. Dr. Herman carefully differentiates between the submicroscopic level of reality (represented by a parabola on the structural differential) and the rr^fcroscopic level (represented by the circle on the structural differential). Submicroscopicallyif we could detect with our sensory organs, we would also see change, but on the macroscopic level we cannot see change. In attempting to account for the "seeming" permanence of some processes (for example, the parent-child, brother-sister, relationships or mathematical formulas) both DeVito and Herman define and illustrate the [relative] invariance under transformation formulation. Dr. DeVito explains "these [relative] invariants under transformation" by Korzybski, who borrowed the term from mathematics, do not change in their basic meanings or structural relationships regardless of the situation or the time the laws of Nature are invariants under transformation, for example, the law of gravity" (G-S:GW D6: p5 para!6). Dr. Herman emphasizes that even though all processes and events change, the English language tends to reinforce the notion of permanence in writing, talking, and

Maas 27

behaving. Perhaps Alfred Korzybski would have preferred the more generic "Aristotelian structure of language" designation, rather than suggesting that the notion of permanence belongs to the English language only. At any rate, Berman suggests that the English language tends to imply a sense ofall-time-ness. It does not date the happening, as if the things we talk about don't change. The English language does not say when, or imply the changes one finds upon observation. It appears generally a timeless language" (HTCBI BIO: p4 para!6). According to Berman three things remain relatively changelesswords, attitudes, and relations (HTCBI BIO: p4 para20). In order to convert our evaluations from static to process, he introduces the Korzybskian extensional devicethe date. The date adds the necessary fourth dimension of time which Einstein suggested was mandatory in any measurement of an event. Dr. Berman illustrates the immediate practicalities of the dating device by differentiating dated or located hatred (which affixes to one person at a given time) from undated hatred or unlocated hatred (generalized from the original source to the entire group) (HTCBI BIO: p6 para33). He also AMMWMMfaaw people to date their evaluations, suggesting that to say "I'm hopeless" or "I'm a failure" should have a date affixed (HTCBI BIO: p7 para43). (A dose of Bourland's E-Prime would help also.) Dating, according to Berman, enables a person to limit the "all-time-ness" of his evaluations. In Joseph DeVito's "Static Evaluation" unit, he uses the Korzybski "fish-minnow" story to demonstrate static evaluation or failure to date. In addition to prescribing the

SuotfEsnr FO

28 extensional dating device, Dr. DeVito introduces and explicates the components of J. S. Bois' Semantic Reactor [transactor] model. After disposing of the dichotomous Aristotelian spirit/matter model, DeVito reconstructs the Bois transactor model. The dating or time-binding aspects Bois had illustrated by the cloud-like structure representing the past and the future. Dr. DeVito summarizes the function of the four interrelated activitieselectrochemical, self-moving, feeling, and thinking activities, and then identifies three corollaries of the semantic transactor, including the admonition that "the present is the center of gravity in the entire system." In both "frozen evaluation"units DeVito and Berman thoroughly demonstrate the need for the extensional dating device and the process orientation. The misevaluation pattern called indiscrimination or identification as well as the extensional device, the index, to correct these misevaluations appear in Joseph DeVito's unit 7 "Indiscrimination" and Sanford Berman's unit 11 'The Importance of Seeing Differences." DeVito characterizes indiscrimination as the behavior which neglects differences and overemphasizes similarities. He invokes the Korzybskian formulation of non-identity, suggesting that no two things in the world ever equate, including fingerprints, faces, and snowflakes. Dr. DeVito points out that only the human nervous system projects these false to fact similarities. He explains the printing term stereotype (a plate used to produce a replica) in the context of prejudiced behavior, implying that bigotry and racism actually thrive by the Aristotelian law of identification. Comparing an experiment conducted at

Maas 29 Princeton in 1932 and repeated 40 years later, he suggests that stereotypes are a function of laziness or the "law of least effort" when one finds it easier to categorize than to carefully analyze the behavior of any specific member of a group. DeVito provides many examples of cultural impasses brought out about by behaviors which on the surface appear similar but have widely differing meanings such as a handshake or wink which differ from culturcj to culture2 to culture3, etc. Dr. Berman vehemently blames the English language which he suggesfftends to reinforce similarities only. Citing anthropological conclusions from Kluckholrf and MHI, Berman demonstrates that languages such as Navajo have many specific terms but a dearth of generic terms. He cites Werner's principle, suggesting that the more primitive the society, the less interest they place in the generic term. He then suggests that the English language, in the view of Lehman, contains many nouns and high-order abstractions. The advancement of science, according to Berman, would have become stagnant without the seeing of both differences and similarities. Analogical comparison (as in the similes of gas particles to billiard balls) reflects a scientific advancement based upon similarity. Berman insists that "man's creative gift is to find likeness where none was seen before" (HTCBI Bll: p5 para28). He reminds the student that the investigator often projects similarity from inside his nervous system, blinding himself to significant differences. This misevaluation pattern Berman calls "habit focus." The symbols, manufactured by the nervous system, Berman also blames for blinding investigators from seeing differences.

I
30
In addition to scientific retardation, Herman cites racial prejudice as a product of the Aristotelian law of Identification (the failure to see differences). Quoting Irving Lee, ~ people, to that degree do we discriminate against them" (HTCBI Bll: p6 para33), Berman refers to the misevaluation pattern which identifies people, situations, and things as if they were the same as horizontal identification (HTCBI Bll: p6 para35). He also refers to horizontal identification as the "is" of identity. As he develops the horizontal identification with examples, he describes a process known as "hate at first sight" in which a person becomes equated with a former acquaintance. Later in the unit Berman contrasts horizontal identification with vertical definition in which an individual confuses different orders of abstraction (fact/inference, object of perception/word, etc.). Harkening back to Korzybski's explanation of marriage as a verbal definition with many undefined terms, he suggests that people confuse an imagined ideal with an actual event leading to frustration (HTCBI Bll: plO para49). Surprisingly Berman discusses a problem of identification deficiency, suggesting that some contexts emerge when people find identification useful and necessary. Berman states, "As Alfred Korzybski used to say, 'Some men can make babies, but they are unable to be a father to their children.'" This positive identification Berman calls psychological identification, in which people identify with their role in societysuch as husband, father, teacher, etc. (HTCBI Bll: pll para53). Berman again differentiates unlocated from located hatred (as he had done in the static evaluation unit) suggesting that unlocated hatred derives from horizontal

i i

Maas 31 identification. Both DeVito and Berman prescribe the extensional device of the index as a practical means of neutralizing unlocated hatred and prejudice. Aristotle's law of the excluded middle has brutally obliterated the language of degrees or variations and has yoked the entire western world with a pernicious twovalued orientation. Joseph DeVito tackles this debilitating misevaluation early in his cassette series with a unit called "Polarization" #02 while Sanford Berman places this unit toward the conclusion "The Either/Or Way of Thinking" #12. Both educators provide memorable examples from history illustrating the habitual use of polarization including that of Helen Keller who insists that life constitutes "either a daring adventure of nothing" and Charles Lamb, who saw only two races of peopleborrowers or lenders. DeVito includes a particularly chilling example from Hitler's Mein Kampf of the tendency to think in polar opposites (G-S:GW D2: pi para2). Both units thoroughly explicate the difference between contradictories (legitimate either/or classifications such as "Joe either passed the math test or he didn't") and contraries (polar terms at the end of a graded scale or continuum, such as success/failure, good/poor, etc.). After demonstrating the automatic reflex nature of antonym recognition both educators dramatize the difficulty of finding expressions in the middle portion of the continuum. Dr. Berman, for example, suggests that we could classify more things as"pood" rather than "good" or "poor." Dr. DeVito provides two thorough sets of five point parallel lists differentiating the characteristics of contradictory from contrary statements. Citing Korzybski's approbation of mathematics as structurally closest to reality,

1
32
both educators indicate that the language of mathematics adds the graded variations, turning the false-to-fact two-valued orientation to the structurally accurate multi-valued orientation. Both educators, through antonym recognition exercises, demonstrate the prevalence of polar terms in English. Dr. Berman warns that the two-valued orientation militates against maturity, making it nearly impossible to see the "badness in good people and the goodness in bad people," adding that "the two-valued orientation does not allow us to do this: people or things are either all good or all bad with no in-between" (B12 para24). He describes a process which William Haney had earlier defined as the pendulum effect, an insidious process by which moderate positions gravitate toward extreme positions. Just as DeVito had constructed two parallel lists, differentiating contradictories fftpm contraries, Berman also constructs parallel lists, one identifying five consequences of a two-valued orientation and five safeguards against the two-valued orientation, including the use of the Korzybskian extensional devices. Bruce Kodish accuses Hayakawa of elementalism when the latter differentiates the functions of science from the functions of literature, suggesting that "the semantic reactions of a scientist when she is 'doing science' cannot be divorced from 'feelings,' values, etc." (GSB:70). Some might feel the same reservation about the "phatic communion" unit of Berman in which he recommends suspension of the extensional devices for small talk, creating a possible elementalistic informative-affective split. Berman, taking a cue from Malinowski and Hayakawa, identifies a kind of verbal

evaluation behavior which falls out of the realm of communication, but serves a purely "

Maas 33 social bonding function. Small talk or phatic communion, he insists, serves solelyto break the silence barrier. "Nice day today," "Cold enough for you" and similar expressions do not seem information-oriented except in the sense of inquiring about the degrees of friendliness. Herman differentiates silencel (a good kind of silence enabling people to think, evaluate, reflect, or as Charlotte Read would term it "come to quiet") with silence2 (when people should talk, but refuse, creating tension, fear, and hostilitythe kind a spouse sometimes performs on his/her spouse known as "freezing out") (HTCBI B13: p4 para 13). For the good kind of silence Dr. Herman recommends an institution designed by ,,, Danish industrialist Axel Fabfr called a "sane asylum" (an enclave of quieta retreat from industrial noisea place where one can get away and think" (HTCBI B13: p4 para!6). Bennan, referring to the bad silencesilence2discusses the therapeutic psychological-emotional value of small talk, applying a set of rules when small talk (phatic communion) should prevail over serious talk. He also advances a technique called the "compliment club plan" in which he encourages students to engage in small talk with people they don't particularly like, paying compliments. He reported startling results demonstrating changes of behavior within the nervous systems of the complimenter and the complimentee. To round out his discussion, Berman identifies the conditions under which phatic communion or small talk flourishes, admonishing his students to carefully distinguish between social and informative uses for language. My favorite units in both DeVito's and Berman's programs apply general-

34 semantics formulations to the psychology of human adjustment, enabling people to cope with frustration and to strive toward a happy disposition. Not surprisingly, the IFD disease (Identification leading to frustration, leading to demoralization) described by Wendell Johnson and the H = M/E formula of Korzybski (Happiness results from keeping motivation high and expectation low) figure prominently in these units either explicitly or implicitly. According to Berman, the higher order abstraction called happiness has many variables rather than just one. Berman devotes a portion of the "Semantics of Happiness" unit (Alfred Korzybski would have preferred the non-elementalistic "generalsemantics") to the prospect of becoming happier and more successful. Berman discusses Wendell Johnson's IFD diseasethe malady which begins by an individual having illdefined, vague and non-measurable goals or ideals. Realizing he cannot attain these illdefined goals or ideals, he becomes frustrated and eventually demoralized. To offset the IFD disease Berman advances Irving Lee's formula for becoming happier (derived from Alfred Korzybski). In the formula H = M/E we can understand happiness as a function of keeping expectations low and "motivation high. Berman suggests that when people do w >>t* * fl n not quantify high order abstractions such as fame, happiness, and success, they will find it impossible to measure whether they have attained them or not. Berman advocates measuring "success," "failure," or "fame" in terms of degrees rather than an either/or dichotomy. Dr. DeVito makes the differentiation between the unmeasurable "I want to be famous" and the measurable "I want to publish a book." One may quantify the second fr

I
Maas 35 statement but not the first. The difference between "failing" and "failure" also reflects some serious misevaluation patterns, including allness, failure to index, identification, and the "is" of identity. By substituting "I failed my math test last Tuesday" for "I am a failure" one can replace the pathological harmful "is" of identity with a more hygienic Bourland E-prime statement. DeVito chides what he refers to as a "crippled psychology" focusing on abstracting out problems and difficulties, differentiating it from what he refers to as a psychology of wellness or adjustment. He insists that we replace unrealistic assumptions (evolving from neuro-semantic misevaluations) with patterns of evaluation based upon extensipnal devices and general-semantics formulations. Taking a cue from Wendell Johnson, he suggests that a wide spectrum of maladjustments, including poor posture and stuttering, may have a semanto-genic origin, again relieved by extensional general-semantics formulations. Taking a cue from his mentor Irving Lee, Herman places a great deal of emphasis upon the interaction of the variables "expectation" and "motivation" to predict degrees of success or motivation. I personally find Herman's Motivation/Expectation matrix (analyzing the high motivation/high expectation, high motivation/low expectation, low motivation/high expectation, and low motivation/low expectation) valuable and useful formulations. Herman demonstrates that the high motivation/low expectation profile depicts the healthiest neuro-semantic adjustment. The conclusion of Herman's "Semantics of Happiness" unit cautions distinct echoes of Maxwell Maltz's Psycho-Cybernetics or Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich. DeVito

i i

I
36 at one point cites Maxwell Maltz's analogy of maintaining equilibrium on a bicycle, comparing it to the goal-seeking process. Clearly, both DeVito and Herman see parallels between general-semantics formulations and psycho-cybernetics principles. I consider Maxwell Maltz's work extremely derivative of Korzybski's formulations on high order abstractions. I recommend both evaluations highly. DeVito identifies the common denominator in the majority of popular generalsemantics definitions as applying the general methods of science or applying the rigorous methods of science to human behavior. Unfortunately, according to DeVito, most definitions of general-semantics miserably fail when applied to designing research. (GS:GW D9: pi para03). He argues seemingly for a narrower scope than Alfred Korzybski would have preferred. Instead of absorbing linguistics, anthropology, psychology, physiology, etc., DeVito suggests that linguistics ought to absorb general-semantics as one of its divisions. DeVito defines general-semantics as "the study of the psychological processes involved in the acquisition, encoding and decoding of meta-language, involving descriptive and prescriptive concerns" (G-S:GW D9: p2 para05). I think Alfred Korzybski would have preferred to keep linguistics as a sub-set of a more comprehensive "human engineering science" rather than to have general-semantics swallowed up as a sub-set of general-linguistics. The meta-linguistic competence occupies a much more truncated range than the territory envisioned by Korzybski. The prescriptive/descriptive dichotomy also begs for an elementalistic theoretical/practical split. The particular area of focus emerges as meta-languagethe language people use to talk about their language as opposed to language people use to describe people,

i i

Maas 37 events and things (G-S:GW D9: p2 paraOS). It seems that DeVito describes the orders of abstraction which allow people to self-reflexively move from territory to map to maps of maps. DeVito differentiates descriptive general-semantics which he terms a science of discovery and description and prescriptive general-semantics which he terms an applied | science concerned with how we teach meta-language, using the processes of encoding and decoding (G-S:GW D9: p2 para 06-7). He contends that the ability to process of understanding "Never say never" reveals a knowledge of meta-language. After making the assertion that all natural languages contain meta-linguistic aspects, he proceeds to identify six aspects of meta-language which general-semantics might direct itself and poses six research questions analyzing the acquisition of meta-linguistic competence (three descriptive and three prescriptive) (G-S:GW D9: p5 para23). The descriptive questions consist of: 1. 2. 3. How does the child acquire meta-linguistic competence? Can we find psychological correlates of meta-linguistic encoding? Do we find psychological correlates of meta-linguistic decoding? The prescriptive questions consist of: 4. 5. 6. How and when can we teach children meta-language? How can we train speakers to use meta-language effectively? How can we teach receivers to deal with meta-language and how can we measure the aspects of such training? DeVito combines his six research questions with nine general areas Irving Lee had

i i

I
38
recommended in 1950. These nine areas of general-semantics research as outlined by Irving Lee consist

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

bibliographiescomprehensive, specialized and annotated techniques of teaching general-semantics effects of training in general-semantics problem situation studies (For example, "What happens in stage fright?") clinical application (For example, Semanto-genic illnesses) studies of formulations analysis (For example, how does one study extensionally competition, cooperation, and selfishness)

7.

studies in control and measurement (For example, in the Weiss Is of Identity Test and the Haney Uncritical Inference Test)

8.

side view studies (For example, general-semantics applications derived from Skinner, Osgood, and Chomsky)

9.

studies and synthesismaking intelligible ideas of specialists from other areas Alfred Korzybski intended that the entire system and methodology of general-

semantics continually develop. Suggestions for research of the kind DeVito proposed, should appear annually. I would like to see the IGS fl^HB actively provide guidelines

for research similar to the kind Joseph DeVito has suggested, though I feel somewhat skeptical about DeVito's seeming narrowing research focus for general-semantics. I do feel that if we want to survive as a general theory of evaluation, applying empirical science to human 'adjustment, we must rely on continuous research.

i i

I
Maas 39 Both DeVito and Berman express awareness that their introductions do not begin to explore the complexity of the Korzybskian general system, but they both remain steadfastly faithful to the rudiments and fundamentals.

Bibliography Berman, Sanford. How to Think. Communicate, and Behave Intelligently: An Introduction to General Semantics. San Diego: Educational Cassettes, 1974. Bois, J. Samuel. The Art of Awareness. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1978. DeVito Joseph A. General Semantics: Guide and Workbook. Deland, FL: Everett/Edwards, 1971. Haney, William V. Communication and Organizational Behavior: Text and Cases. ^

'

Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1973.

Kodish, Bruce I. "Getting Off Hayakawa's Ladder." General Semantics Bulletin 57 (19??): 65-76. Korzybski, Alfred. Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. 4th ed. Lakeville, CT: The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company (now part of IGS, Englewood, NJ), 1958. Weinberg, Harry L. Levels of Knowing and Existence. Lakewood, CT: Institute of General Semantics, 1973.

i i i i

Appendix If Catalog of Cassettes D. Maas

CC page.l

Catalog of Cassettes

Herman, Sanford I. Bl B2 B3a B3b B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 BIO Bll B12 B13 B14 "What Is General Semantics" Tape 01 "Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think" Tape 02 "Language and Semantic Environment" Tape 03 "How Words Create Meaning" Tape 03 "Why Do We Jump to Conclusions?" Tape 04 "The Closed Mind" Tape 05 "Language and Language Usage" Tape 06 "How to Lessen Misunderstandings" Tape 07 "High Order Abstractions" Tape 08 The Semantics of Happiness" Tape 09 The Importance of Change" Tape 10 "The Importance of Seeing Differences" Tape 11 The Either/Or Way of Thinking Tape 12 The Importance of Small Talk" Tape 13 "Visual Aids For Individual Cassettes" Sheet

Educational Cassettes, Inc., of San Diego, CA, distributed this tape series. DeVito, Joseph Dl D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 "Introduction" "Polarization" "Intensional Orientation" "Fact-Inference Confusion" "Allness" "Static Evaluation" "Indiscrimination "General Semantics and the Self Theory and Research" Tape 410 Tape 411 Tape 412 Tape 413 Tape 414 Tape 415 Tape 416 Tape 417 Tape 418

Everett/Edwards, Inc., of Deland, FL, distributed this tape series, 1971. The Library of Congress labels this series LCCCN 74-752991.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas What is General-Semantics?

Bl page.l

Sanford Berman Key Terms

Allness/allness orientation (Non-)Aristotelian orientation Aristoile's laws of thought Change Chemistry-binding class of life Circularity of knowledge Consciousness of abstracting Consciousness of Eic. Conirad ictory/comrary Copying animals Dating Insane/unsane/sane Order Ecological thinking Intensional orientation Orders of absiraction "Is" of identity Pause/delay/analyze Eiiher/or thinking Elementalism Self-refiexiveness "Is" of predication Etc. Semantic reaction Korzybski Extensional devices Map/territory analogy Space-binding life class Fact/inference confusionMathematics Structure General-semantics Multi-ordinality Struciural differential Identification Neuro-semantic environment Symbol reaction Identity, law of Non-allness orienlation Time-binding

(1) What I'd like to do tonight is to give you a kind of overview of general-semantics, some of which I have covered in the introductory course, some of which I lectured on lasl night, and some of which I will be covering in the advanced course. But I realize lhat again we have a heterogenous group; some people have taken the introductory course; some have nol, and I understand that one of the teachers of generalsemantics is here with some of his students and I am very, very happy to see this because in Chicago we had some difficulty getting teachers, professors interested in coming into the group and participating and this is very, very important. I am very happy that so many of you are here tonight and especially that you are starting in with the special groups. (2) So what I've done is to outline general-semantics, some of the ideas. I'm not going to give my jokes and illustrations that I do in my classes because then the speech would be about five limes as long as it will be; and this may appear to be a little bit of an academic preseniation, but I do want to consider with you some of the important ideas of Alfred Korzybski, of general-semantics, and generally whai general-semantics is about. (3) Alfred Korzybski was the father of general-semantics. He basically coined the term in a book called Science and Sanity. But before that he wrote a book called Manhood of Humanity in which he postulated the difference between man and animal. First of all, he said there are three different classes of life. Number one: there is plant life. What is the important characteristic of plant life? The important characteristic of plant life is the fact lhat they are chemistry-binding. Through the photosynthesis ihey are able 10 susiain life. He was asking for an operational definition because we define man as a rational animal. Korzybski used lo say, "Oh yeah, where the hell is it?" (4) We define man in terms of many metaphysical concepts, but we want an operational definition of man, and this is what he was looking for. So plants are chemistry-binding. They manufacture their energy through solar energy, etc.; they sustain life; they are one-dimensional, chemistry-binding. Then he asks the questions, "How about animals?" "What do animals do?" Notice we want operational-empirical distinctions, definitions, answers, not verbal. What do animals do that plants do not do? They certainly are chemistry-binding, but they are also space-binders. This was his definition of animals. So they are twodimensional, whereas plants were one-dimensional. They are two-dimensional; they move around in space. (5) How about man? You and I are taught in high school that man is an animal. Korzybski often stated lhat we can behave like animals and rationalize our animalistic behavior. But what does man do that animals do not do? Man can lake from the past, summarize, digest, and pass on to future generations, the labors of the past and present. Why is man a time-binder? Because man has the unique characterislic of being a symbolic being, a symbol-using being. He has a language.

Bl page.2 (6) Now it is true that language is also a characteristic, to a degree, of animal behavior, but as you know, orders of abstraction with animals stop somewhereKorzybski said usually after two orders of abstraction, as we will see on the structural differential here. I will refer 10 the structural differential because this was a visual diagram that Korzybski was forced into creating when he lectured in front of John Watson and other scholars in New York. This is a structural differential showing the different orders of abstraction, non-verbally and verbally. And here we have Fido, or animalistic level that I will talk about. So man, because he has the kind of language that he does, he is able to progress in a geometric ratio or in an exponential function; whereas animals, for example, if there is any progress at all, it is little or none. For example, birds build nests the way they did hundreds of years ago. Beavers buiid beaver dams the same way they did hundreds of years ago. There is no progression, especially in the geometric ratio. (7) Now we have civilizationtremendous technological advances. We have men flying to the moon. These are all due to the labors of thousands and thousands of giantsmental giants, important scientists, physicists, medical doctors, medical physicists, etc. Notice how many of these people are no longer medical doctors, they are no longer physicists, but we are bringing these together. This is what Korzybski talked about as elementalistic implications. (8) Elementalism is when you can separate things verbally, or when we do separate them verbally, but you cannot separate them empirically, such as mind and body, space and time, chemistry and physics. We now know that these kinds of disjointed studies are actually 4V interrelated. This is one of the important things Korzybski talked about. He said we need to overcome these elementalistic ways of thinking, separating verbally that which cannot be separated empirically. I wilt talk more about that because the hyphen that Korzybski was talking about is one of the working devices for intelligently structuring the world of reality. (9) In general-semantics we are concerned about making language fit the structure of the world of reality. Korzybski said the old Aristotelian way of thinking and behaving is not adequate today. It may have been adequate two thousand years ago. So language is a tremendously important tool, not only for communicating, be we actually think in terms of the structure of the language we use, the structure of the language thai we have inherited. And this is why I say, while semantics is a limited studysemantics being a study of the meaning of words, or the history of meaning changesgeneral-semantics is a combination of anthropology, neurology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, physics, philosophy, philosophy of science, ad inliniium. You cannot separate these particular disciplines, and we literally think and perceive the world of reality in terms of the structure of the language that we use. Now this is a very important concept. (10) There were predecessors of Korzybski, but no one really emphasized language as an important environment until Korzybski did in Science and Sanity. We feel that this is one of the most important contributions of Alfred Korzybskiemphasizing language asftmportam environment indicating what we think, how we think, how we perceive, how we behave, etc. Now more research in the behavioral sciences and psychiatry in other areas indicate that Korzybski certainly was right. (11) So man is a time-binding class of life. Man is not an animal because man has the unique characteristic of having the kind of language he hashe can take fjfcn the past, summarize and pass on to future generations the labors of the past and the present. Universities are a good example of man's timebinding functions. Libraries are a good example of man's time-binding characteristic. Therefore, man is not an animal, but we can behave like animals. This u is what we are concerned with, because Korzybski asked the question: "Why do we have wars?" "Why dojnave fights?" "Why do we have arguments?" Korzybski asked, "Where do we find thinking at its best?" He answered his own question, "In the sciences." What do scientists do? They analyze the structure of the world of reality first and then they make their language, their thinking, their behavior fit the structure of the world of reality. Now, notice, I use the word structure and I will only hint at it tonight, but I will cover it more fully in the advanced seminar. (12) So the scientist analyzes the structure of the world of reality, the non-verbal facts, then he makes his thinking, his language, his formulas fit the structure of the world of reality. This is thinking at its best.

1 II

i i

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas

Bl page.3

This is why scientists, this is why engineers are able to build bridges, buildings that will stay for thousands and thousands of years. They make their thinking fit the facts. (13) Then he also asked another question, "Where do we find thinking at its worst?" and what do they do? Why are there so many fights, arguments, disagreements, etc., and in what area? Korzybski's answer, the opposite of scientific behavior or sanity is insane behavior or insanity. In fact, their thinking is so bad that we've got to lock them up. Now what do the insane do? They do just the opposite of what the scientists do. They try to make the world of reality fit what is up here. They reverse the process. (14) Now, Korzybski asked a further question, "How about you and me?" We're certainly not very sane because we have so many wars and fights and arguments and disagreements. We have many misevaluations. We're not insane. They haven't caught up with us yet. Korzybski used a term that 1 think is a very fine term to define the vast continuum between sanity and insanity. Korzybski said that you and I are unsane. We are unsane. And he went further than this. He said, "You and I have unsane semantic reactions." Now he did not usef the word "thinking" because again the word "thinking" has the old elementalist-Aristotelian implications. What do I mean by this? The old implications Aristotelian-wise that you can separate ^^ thinking.the thought-processes,from biological function^neurological reactions, etc.that you can separate the mind from the body. This is what we mean by elementalism again. So Alfred Korzybski used a non-elementalistic term. A non-elementalistic term is a term that does not separate verbally that which cannot be separated empirically. His non-elementalistic term was semantic reaction. By this he means that we have meanings inside of our nervous system. "**.: (15) This is the difference between semantics and general-semantics. Semantics in the more limited studies starts with the assumption that meanings are iruwords. General-semantics starts with the assumption that meanings are in people, they are imour skins. As Charles Sanders Pfifrce, the famous pragmatic philosopher said, "You do not get meaning; you respond with meaning." So whenever you see the word semantic you can substitute the word meaning. Obviously by the word reactions we can think in terms of neurological responses. So you must think of the "organism as a whole," and that isn't enough"organism as a whole in an environment." (16) Now this is what Korzybski, long before we talked about ecology as a popular term. This is what we mean by ecological thinking. If you are going to study man, you must study man in an environment. If you forget about studying man in an environment, you are being elementalistic; you are splitting him off from his environment which obviously you cannot do empirically. We all live in an environment, and as you well know, you can generalize about men, about women, about children, about hippies, about everyone, but you put them in a different environment, and I think you will agree with me that they behave differently in different environments. So, too often we say that a person is "such and such." So we have to think in terms of ecological thinking. We must at all times try to analyze people in an environment. So this is why Korzybski used the words "unsane semantic reactions." (17) So, people wrongly assume that general-semantics is concerned with communication, with communication only. We are concerned with all kinds of thinking and behavingwhen you are on the job, when you are driving your automobiles. This is why in 1962, I gave the early morning lecture series to the National Safety Congress, where I showed the barriers to effective communication are exactly the same as the causes of accidents. The causes of accidents are ninety-percent human error, human misevaluations. Most of our problems are due to human misevaluations, and this is what Alfred Korzybski was concerned with. So remember, semantics, the more limited study, deals with the meanings of words. In generalsemantics we are concerned with semantic reactionshow you and I react to other people's verbalizations. (18) We are also concerned with how we react to our own assumptionsattitudes, verbalizations, because the most important kind of communicating or talking that you and I do is the kind of talking that we do to ourselves about ourselves, even when you don't open your mouthor especially when you don't open your mouth. This is why Korzybski said many of us are intentionally, or verbally, oriented. What we try to do in general-semantics is to truly make individuals factually, or extensionally, oriented. In fact, what they try to do in a training session is to have you stop talking, not only overtly, but covertly. How can you stop talking? How can you truly become extensional? Charlotte Schuchardt, one of Korzybski's

Bl page.4 early assistants has had for many years at the Institute of General-semantics training sessions in extensionalization. This is why I constantly say there is a big difference between learning something intellectually or theoretically and learning something extensionally or neurologic-ally. You haven't learned until you behave in terms of general-semantics. (19) One of the important things for our San Diego chapter of the International Society of Generalsemantics is to look for better and better ways of training peoolfi in how to become extensional. Dr. Lee and I were interested in this important question at Northwesiruniversity. Dr. Lee used to say, "How can we train a person, an executive for example, to be extensionally, or factually, oriented in exactly the same way a football coach trains his players, that a golf pro trains golfers. How can you and I as teachers get off of the verbal level and set up training situations for our students to try to perform in?" Now I give many of you quizzes as you know, but my quizzes are still verbal. How can you and I devise non-verbal, experiential tests, things to do to test people to see how intensionally or extensionally oriented they are? (20) My speech tonight will be defining what do we mean by an intensional orientation, what do we mean by an extensional orientation. More specifically, an intensional orientation is a verbal orientation. Here we have a non-verbaOact or facts. Here we have a label, and too many of us react to the non-verbal facts or the world around^via (or in terms of) the label. Put a label on the person, and brother, you've got him, to the verbally-oriented person. That is the intensional orientationpeople who respond to words, people who respond to people via or in terms of labels; whereas the factually oriented, the extensionallyoriented person will react to non-verbal people, situations, and things in terms of the person, the situation or the thing. He will not be controlled by the label. (21) Unfortunately our educational systems are confusing words with things. One of the important things Korzybski kept talking about is "the word is not the thing." Those of you who took my seminars, remember I had you pinch your finger and tell me what you felt. We went through the training session, that you cannot tell me what you felt. Whatever you tell me you felt, this is not what you felt. These are words that describe what you felt, but they are not on the same order of abstraction. This is why Korzybski built and drew the structural differential. Here at thfc top is what we call the sub-microscopic level of electrons, protons, neutrons. Underneath, all matter is#nad dance. This is why we say this isfn* event level, or the process level. Things are constantly changing. Remember that word change, because this is very important to general-semantics. (22) What we are trying to do is to make our thinking and our behaving fit the structure of the world of reality. If we know that a structure of the world of reality is change, we must change our ways of thinking, but as we will see, too many people have static, non-changing orientations in a changing world. People who have hates, dislikes, prejudices, envy, jealousy toward others for five, ten, twenty years or longer, or worse than that, they have the same static, non-changing orientations about themselves. This I think is even a worse kind of an evaluation, a misevaluation to have. It's bad enough to have a static, nonchanging orientation toward others, but we must learn to reevaluate ourselves. Korzybski has some extensional techniques, some extensional devices with which to accomplish this. (23) This is the sub-microscopic level. The lines coming down to the macroscopic level (macromeaning large), this is what we abstract or select from the sub-microscopic level. The macroscopic level is what we see, observe, feel, etc. The chair you see, the table you see, the person you see, this is the macroscopic level. Now notice these strings hanging away. This indicates what we leave out. Can we ever know all about anything? The answer, of course, is no, as far as we know. Korzybski has these strings hanging out which means these are the things that we miss. This is what our nervous system misses. (24) We cannot abstract or select everything. So the guy who thinks he knows it all, the guy who is afflicted with "allness" the assumption that we know it allthis of course, scientifically is a misevaluation, because neurologicallybecause of all of the variables involved neurologicallywe cannot know all about anything. We cannot abstract everything in any situation. So, Korzybski drew a diagram to illustrate how the nervous system works and in terms of the structure of the orders of abstraction. Then we can make a statement, for example, we can make a statement that all of you in this room are now listening to a lectureI'm giving a lecture. This is a descriptive statement. This is a statement of fact. A statement of fact is not on the same order of abstraction as non-verbal facts.

I II

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas

Bl page.5

(25) This is a non-verbal fact. Here we draw a line through separating the non-verbal world of reality from the verbal world of reality. I have made a statement of fact, now we can make an inference. We can say, for example, that at ouRmeeting tonight we will take in three-thousand eight-hundred dollars. I think you will agree that's an inference. That goes beyond the facts. That is an inferential statement. That is on a different order of abstraction. Now you or someone else can say that I said that we would take in $3,800 tonight. That is a statement about my statement. Notice how man, because he has language, can make statements about statements about statements indefinitely, going further and further away from the non-verbal world of reality. (26) One of the definitions of circularity of knowledge that Korzybski has talked about, and Bertrand Russell, (although there are several different definitions)but let me just give you the one hereis that ultimately we can read back into the sub-microscopic level. This is what we mean by theoretical physics, where you read back the inferences of the highest level; you make certain assumptions of what is going on at the sub-microscopic level of electrons, protons, neutrons. Notice the important thing, a statement of fact is not on the same order of abstraction as an inferential statement. This indicated again that you will not jump to conclusions if you know the two. Also, a statement of fact or a word is not of the same order of abstraction as the macroscopic level. That means you will not identifyand I will talk about identificationyou willjjftfas if the word were the thing. Too many of us react to people, situations, and things via (or in terms of) a label. (27) Only man can truly keep his orders of abstraction separate. Animals don't know the differences between facts and inferences. This is why Korzybski did not have these strings going from the submicroscopic level down to Fido's level of the macroscopic level, this factual, non-verbal level. As far as we know, animals, Fido, they know nothing about the sub-microscopic level. Keep this in mind that these are all different orders of abstraction. This will be very important in terms of understanding generalsemantics. This was enunciated in Korzybski's book Science and Sanity; his time-binding theory was in his first book, Manhood of Humanity. Alfred Korzybski at first did not call his new system "general-semantics." He called his system "the science and art of human engineering." Only when he found out that he was in the area of semantics, when he found out that he was in the area of meaning, he went through and throughout the whole book, almost UKUUEht before it was published, he substituted the words "generalsemantics" where "the science^rt of^ngmeering" had been. So he called it "general-semantics," which was a non-Aristotelian orientation of man. (28) What do we mean by non-Aristotelian? Basically he is contradicting, to a degree, Aristotle's laws of thought. I will enunciate three of them. Two of them are important. His law of thought-Aristotle's laws of thought-which is called the law of identity: "A" is "A" What Korzybski was primarily MB critical of w^cS not so much the laws of thought, as laws of thought, but in general-semantics we are concerned with orientations. By the word "orientations" we mean ways of behaving. As a limited law of thought some of these in the limited sense are okay, but not as a way of behaving. But the law of identity, when we say "A" is "A," "convict" is "convict," "Negro" is "Negro," "ice cream" is "ice cream"Oh yeah? Leave some ice cream out in the sun for a moment, and it ain't the same! When we think and behave only in terms of the first law of thought, "A" is "A," "redhead" is "redhead," the implication [is] they are all the same. This doesn't show the difference and this also leaves out ecological thinking or the relatedness. (29) Another one which is a little more technical, the law of contradiction, "A" is not "not A," or cannot be and not be. For example, if all things are process and changing and all things are related, any one thing may conceivably be "A" to one set of circumstances and not "A" to another. Thus something may be both "A" and "not A" (30) Let's tie this up basically with the third one, which is related to it, the law of the excluded middle (and I will be talking about the two-valued orientation which this gets into): "A" is either "B" or "not B." This law asserts that one thing is or is not something with nothing in betweenthe "either-or" way of thinking. Basically, this is what this deals with, the either-or way of thinking. 1 will not go into tonight the difference between contradictory statements and contraries or opposites. Tonight I am only going to be talking about contraries or opposites, but in the advanced seminar 1 will be talking about the difference

Bl page.6 between contradictory statements and Aristotle himself was the first one AMHV to point out the difference between contradictory statements and contraries or opposites. (31) With a contradictory statement, you are legitimate in using the either-or way of thinking. For example, you either came to this lecture tonight, or you did not. There is no middle ground. This is a contradictory statement. But a contrary statement is a statement at opposite ends of the scale: dumb, intelligent; good, bad. Too many of us use the either-or way of thinking, assuming they are contradictoriesassuming that they both cannot exist simultaneously. But the important thing relative (notice it's an extension of the law of thought again), we can for example, and here's one of the reasons why this is dangerous and I will talk further about the either-or way of thinking. (32) You and I may have a difference of opinion, let's say right here in the center. Because of the "allness" language that we use, for example, a husband and wife are having some kind of disagreement and the wife will say, "You always leave the toothpaste off of the ..." "Yeah, but you always want to visit your relatives when we go out . . ." "Yeah, but you do such-and-such . .."; and with this either-or way of thinkingthe assumption that you are either for me or you are against methis is an either-or way of thinking. I may be a moderate, and when we think in terms of the either-or, then we do not allow a third, fourth, or fifth alternative. (33) What is the answer to this? We must think in terms of degreefor graded variations. People aren't just tall or short, they are five-one, five-two, five-three, five-four, but as long as we only use our English language which has no words, or very few except the mathematical language, this is why mathematics is our most perfect language. If I were to ask you to give me (which I do in the advanced class, by the way) to give me a word that stands for "right in the middle," neither to the left nor to the right of the continuumdumb-intelligent, good-bad, hot-coldyou'll find out that it is pretty difficult because most of our words in the English language are one extreme or the other. No wonder we have polarity today because of the either-or way of thinking. That will be one of the intensional-orientations that I will be talking about. (34) Korzybski called his system a non-Aristotelian way of thinking. Many of the people wrongly assumed that Aristotle was a villain, according to Alfred Korzybski. This is not true. Korzybski dedicated his book, Science and Sanity, to many scholars, first of whom was Aristotle. Aristotle was undoubtedly the greatest intellect in the history of man. He probably wrote more and most of what he wrote was lost through time. He was a brilliant man. He made brilliant observations. But his observations, obviously, were limited in terms of his time. (35) So, Korzybski said, just as we can have Euclidean geometry in a narrow sense, we also, with flMMMMMMMB Riemann and other mathematicians who have extendMiuclidian geometry. We have nonEuclidean geometriesthey are an extension of Euclidean geometry. Here we have Newtonian physics, which is okay up to a certain point, but then Einstein added further theories and we have non-Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. Korzybski said relative to man, here we have Aristotelian assumptions, which are limited, which are inadequate today. So, Korzybski added further, broader assumptions or orientations which he called non-Aristotelian orientations. This basically is what we are concerned with and what we will be talking about. (36) I said that language was a very important word to the genera 1-semanticist. Korzybski, in defining the use of language used what he called a map-territory relationship. Korzybski said that just as a map is related to the non-verbal world of reality, languages also relate* to the non-verbal world of reality and woik4* exactly the same way in the following manner: (37) 1. The map is not the territory. The map that you and 1 use in driving our automobiles is not the non-verbal territory. Also, as an analogy, the word is not the thing.

n i

(38) This is one of the things that we general-se man Heists constantly talk about. The word is not the thing. Do not identify the verbal level as if it were the non-verbal level. Do not react to words and verbal associations as if they were the non-verbal thing. That is one similarity between a map-territory relationship and a language-territory relationship.

i i

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas (39) 2.

Bl page.7

The map does not cover all of the territory. This is also true of language. No matter how much we describe a particular non-verbal event, our language does not exhaust everything we observe. In other words, you cannot say all about anything.

(40) Therefore we must have a non-allness orientation and realize the limitations of our language. He said another characteristic of a map, as well as language, is what he called self-reflexiveness. For example, here we have a map, and then you can have a map of a map. And you can have a map of that map, and a map of that map, and we can go on indefinitely having maps of maps of maps, indefinitely. This is also true of language. You can have words about the non-verbal world of reality. Then you can have a word or a statement about that statement; you can have a statement about that statement, indefinitely. This is another similarity between language and a mapthe self-reflexiveness. (41) 3. To be accurate a map must represent the structure of the world of reality. Remember, I said the word "structure" was very important. How do we define the word "structure?" You define the word "structure" in terms of order and relations.

(42) This is a very important word in the philosophy of science. One example that Korzybski used was in terms of a map of the United States. Here we have Los Angeles, here we have Chicago and here we have New York. Now looking at the flat surface, we would say the order (here we have Chicago in between Los Angeles and New York), or this also a relationship. This indicated structure. This map fits the structure of the world of reality. Now if I were to have a map and let's say, I put Chicago over here, and Los Angeles here, the map does not fit the territory, right? So we would have a lot of difficulty with our particular map if we wanted to follow it to get to New York, Chicago, or what have you. (43) In exactly the same way, sometimes our language does not fit the structure of the world of reality. Therefore we have a low degree of predictability or probability, which is the modern scientific definition of truth. So, if our language, our talking, our behaving is going to have a high degree of probability, or truth-value, or predictability, it must be in correspondence with the non-verbal world of reality. It must fit the facts. (44) So we are concerned, therefore, with language structure as an important part of the environment. What are some of the words that get us into difficultysome of the words that have false implications? Bertrand Russell recognized this quite a few years ago, as well as Alfred North Whitehead. It's the little word "is." The little word "is" implies a false-to-fact relationship. There are at least four different uses of the little word "is." (45) (46) 1. 2. "Is" as an auxiliary verb. When we say, "He is running," "They are doing such-and-such," this is an auxiliary verb. "Is" of existence or the existence "is." "Washington DC is in the United States," You are in this room now."

(47) But the two kinds of "is's" that we have difficulty with, said Korzybski, is the "is" of identity and the "is" of predication. I think that Korzybski was a genius in talking about this. What do we mean by the "is" of identity? (48) "Is" of identity. When you say, "John Jones is a Negro," "Bill Johnson is a doctor," notice what we are doing here. You are identifying (and remember the word "identifying"). This will be verbal identification. (49) I will talk about two important different kinds of identification. You are identifying an individual person with a group or a class-label or class-name. John Jones is a Negro, is a communist, is a Democrat, is an anything. Depending upon your attitude toward the high-order abstraction, it is the easiest thing in the world for you and for me to react toward all Negroes, doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, as if they are all 3.

Bl page.8 the same. In other words, here again, our language structure does our thinking for us. It is the easiest thing in the world to go through life, not observing people, not seeing differences. This is tremendously important. This is Korzybski's theory of non-identity. He said that there are no two things in the world of reality identical to each other. This is the principle of non-identity. (50) But what creates identity? Our minds. If you observe the structure of the world of reality, no identical twins are identical. No grains of sand or salt are identical. By identity, he means identical in all respects, because obviously they are in different environments. We are always related to a particular environment. So, non-identity is very important in the system of general-semantics, because our language tends to imply similarities only, especially our high-order abstractionswords such as Negro, Catholic, teacher, diskjockey, model, actress, any word you want. If I were to ask you, "Do these words point out the differences to be found in the world of reality?" I think you will agree that they do not. Notice how the structure of our language does our thinking for us in the false-to-fact way. What Korzybski wanted was literally to change the structure of the language, as we will see. He had some novel and some most important ways of doing that. This is the "is" of identityhow it identifies different orders of abstraction as if they were the same.
(51) 4. The "is" of predication is where we predicate qualities into the world of reality that are

really in us. When we say, for example, "Jane is lazy," we predicate a quality in us into someone else. (52) "The pie is sweet." Have twenty people taste the pie, maybe fifteen will say that it is sweet, five people will say it is sour. Where is the sweetness, really? Now that is a meaningless question if you say "really." Because the "is" of predication again fails to include the human observer. This implies what we may call an objective philosophythat the real world of reality is out there. The subjective philosophy would say the real world of reality is in my mind, or in me. But Einstein would say "Uh-uh, we need at least three variables, we need something out there, we need an observer and from a point of view." This indicates a relative position. (53) In order to overcome this "is" of predicationthe tendency of you and me to make evaluations and predicate or project into the world of reality our own assumptions, biases, likes, dislikes as if they really were the world of realityyou and I must add two words: "to me" or "I think." To me, she is smart, dumb, lazy." "I think, to me, she is smart, dumb, lazy, good, bad, or what have you." Notice that until or unless you include the words "to me," the structure of your language does not indicate the relatedness. This is due to this little word "is"the "is" of predication. (54) Now we don't have much difficulty, as I've said, with the auxiliary verb or the "is" of existence, but we do have difficulty with the "is" of identity and the "is" of predication. Now, these two cover up the relationship between the observer and the observed, both the "is" of identity and the "is" of predication. Korzybski was concerned with the basic misevaluations. What are the basic nrneyaluations thai lead toward what he called an intensional orientation? The intensional orientation JV all of these misevaluations involved. Some people were critical of Alfred Korzybski for using a new kind of a wordintensional, with an "s" instead of saying, well, the scientific method, but he is using a new word for a new concept. The intensional orientation is basically a verbal orientation, whereas an extensional orientationagain with an "s"an extensional orientation is a factual, non-verbal orientation. (55) How do you and I achieve an extensional or a factual orientation? By being conscious of certain things. (56) Our language or our semantic environmentnewspapers, radio, television are constantly creating pictures inside of our heads and meanings inside of our nervous systems. This is our language or our semantic environment. The pictures inside of our heads, the meanings inside of our oervQiis systemthese are called our neuro-semantic environment. "Neuro," of or pertaining to the nervQtf|jgpMiBBi<i," of or pertaining to meaning. The important thing for you and me is to recognize our neuro-semantic environmentthe meanings that we have inside of our nervous systemswhich are productive or not productive. They lead toward agreement or disagreement, good communication or bad communication, listening or not

i I

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas

Bl page.9

listening. We control our own destiny according to the assumptions we live by. What assumptions do you have inside your nervous system? When you go to listen to a speaker do you say, "Well, that's a bunch of. . . , I've heard that before?" We cut people off, we don't really get on their channel of communication. We don't observe the world of reality because of certain attitudes or assumptions inside of our skins. We all carry around inside of our skins. We all carry around inside of our skins this neuro-semantic environment. (57) So the question is, "Is your neuro-semantic environment producing good effects/ results for you or bad effects?" The bad effects, of course, the worst effects, these are the ones that end up in mental institutions. The good neuro-semantic environment, these are the individuals who are usually productive. These are the ones who are living up to their fullest potential. This is why I have said constantly that the most important kind of communicating that you and I do is not the kind of communicating that we do with other people, but the kind of communicating you and I do to ourselves about ourselves. (58) Some people you can never get to. They are the ones who need the training the most. They are the ones who are afflicted with "allness," the closed mind, the refusal to listen, the refusal to learn, the refusal to change or keep up-to-date. This is part of their neuro-semantic environmentthe meanings inside of their nervous system. So, our semantic environment, language, movies, radio, television, parents, family, religion, culture, this all makes an impingement on our nervous system and these are the assumptions that we live bythe pictures inside of our heads, or the meanings inside our nervous system. (59) What is the first basic misevaluation? (I have put this at the beginning of my seminarin fact. Dr. Lee at Northwestern University had this at the end, and I remember we had about a three-hour discussion on this and he agreed that this should be at the beginning). (60) 1. Training people in terms of having a symbol reaction. Most of us (and this is what we mean by an Aristotelian way of thinking) behave in an automatic, trigger-like manner. Stimulus-response. The conditioned response of Pavlov's dogs.

(61) Only man can truly respond in terms of a symbol reaction, where he will pause, where he will delay, where he will analyze, our semantic environment around us^Jp an automatic, trigger-like manner we are literally neurologically copying animals in their neurological responses. This is why Korzybski had a little bit of humor in him.! He said this is why some human beings behave like animals. They become otfegorists and dogmatists. To me this is tremendously important. Are you andlgoing to behave in a human kind of way? You know just as well as I do that this world needs human-kind of responses today more than it ever has in the past. With all the fights, arguments, the disagreements, the riots we find more animalistic behavior today than we ever have in the past and it is not easy to train people, not at all. This is a very, very difficult task, (62) Those of you who are teachers, in training, in training sessions because you and I have created our world of sanity out of this world of complexity and change. We are not open to change. We are resistant to change. This is why to ask people to change their neuro-semantic environment, to change their ways of thinking, communicating and behavingthis is not easy to do, but it is so tremendously important. This is why a teacher's job from the kindergarten level up and even more important than the teacher's job, the parent's jobthis is why it is so tremendously important. It is paramount. I still feel, of course, that the parent is the most important teacher in our society. So number one, if we are going to have an extensional-factual orientation we must manifest a symbol reactionwe must pause and analyze. The first misevaluation under an intensional orientation is this automatic, trigger-like reaction. (63) 2, The second barrier to effective communication, or the second characteristic of an intensional orientation is jumping to conclusions. Or as you see here, passing off inferences as if they were statements of fact.

Bl page. 10 (64) The extensionally-factually oriented person is able to separate his inferences from statements of fact. He knows the differences; he doesn't jump to conclusions. Now I'm not saying that he doesn't make inferences or assumptions. Your life, my life, our lives are lived on the inferential level, but wisdom begins when you know the difference between the two. Make all the inferences you want, but check your inferences; don't act on inferences as if they were statements of fact. Notice how this first barrier to effective communication the signal reactionleads into jumping to conclusions. If you and I learn to pause, to delay, to analyze a little longer than we normally do, we will not tend to jumpfb conclusions.
(65) 3. The third barrier to effective communication, the third characteristic of the intensional

orientation is the allness orientation. The assumption that we know it all. (66) Again, the important thing is that this allness orientation is so tremendously subtle. It keeps us from listening, from observing, from looking again, from changing our ways of thinking or communicating, from asking questions. The allness orientation, this is the person who is not conscious of abstracting. There are two characteristics, two things that you and I must do if we want to lessen or eliminate allness. (67) A. We must become conscious of abstracting, conscious of the fact that we have or are selecting some characteristics and eliminating others. The guy, the woman who is afflicted with allness, they assume that they know it all. They wrongly assume that they have abstracted everything. They fall victim to the Jehovah complex. This is why you and I, in being conscious of abstracting realize that we cannot abstract everything because of the limitation of time, nervous system, xnumber of limitations with our acquaintance with things. Being conscious of the "etc."this is the other device to lessen or eliminate "allness." This is one of the working devices, one of the extensional devices that Korzybski devised to become factually oriented"Etc." If we are conscious of the "etc.," we will not assume that we know it all.

(68)

B.

(69)

4.

Then we get into another barrier to effective communication, or an intensional orienta-

tion, and this is the assumption that meanings are in words. If you and I wrongly assume that meanings are in words, we will project our meaning into someone else's words and assume that they mean what we would mean if we were doing the talking. (70) How many of you were taught in high school that words have meanings? This is the assumption in more limited semantics. As we have said, general-semantics starts with the assumption that meanings are in people. Don't stop or short circuit the process of communication loo soon. Before you disagree, before you argue, before you fight, before you go off and misinterpret what the speaker says, ask one question, "What do you mean? Am I right in assuming that you mean such and such?" Before you ask questions, you have to manifest a non-allness orientation, because the allness-oriented person doesn't ask questions; he knows what you mean. This is the subtle allness orientation that we have been talking about. (71) All of these misevaluations and proper evaluations can be listed in terms of the intensionat orientation or the extensional orientation. You must remember that words don't mean, people mean. You must be conscious of the ambiguity of language, that words mean many, many different things, but the intensionally oriented person has what we call a one-valued orientation toward language. He thinks that a word has only one meaning. Whose meaning? His meaning. Notice how I've used the terminology, a one-valued orientation. In another place I will point out how this one-valued orientation is a misevaluation; it is also characteristic of an intensional orientation. (72) Korzybski talked about the fact that most of our important words are what he called multi-ordinal. He talked about the multi-ordinality of the most important terms. This merely means that terms mean different things on different orders of abstractionas you use them differently in different contexts, they will obviously mean different things, and especially to different people, words such as "peace," "coexistence," "love." In fact I have one case where a husband and wife were getting a divorce up in Michigan

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas

Bl page.ll

and the judge asked the man, "Don*t you love your wife? Your wife claims you don't love her." He said, "Sure I love her. I take out the garbage every week." This is his definition of love. (73) Many of the reasons why we have problems on the family or personal level, all the way up to the international level (on the international level the Russians have a completely different meaning for the words "peace," co-existence" and the men in our State Department had better become conscious of the multi-ordinality of the most important terms). This is why I say we need an anthropologist-linguist in the United Nations, because, especially on the international level, meanings are not in words; they are in people conditioned by their particular culture. We have talked about a static orientation. What we are trying to do in general-semantics is to make us have an orientation that fits the structure of the world of reality. (74) Up here in the sub-microscopic level we have said that this is the process level. By process we mean change. The important thing in our culture, too many of us have static, non-changing orientations in a changing world. Why do we have^Static, non-changing orientation in a changing world? One of the reasons why is because our language does not imply the changes to be found in the world of reality. Take your name: John Jones. Is there anything in that name that implies the differences to be found in the person? If you don't think you are changing, take a look at a picture of yourself twenty or thirty years ago. So, Korzybski said what we must do is date our evaluations. In other words, you must date yourself, events, other people. John JonesI%3 is not John Jones1971. In other words, recognizing that our language has static, non-changing implications. & (75) If you are going to make an intensionally oriented structure of language fit the structure of the world of reality, you must use dates to make it extensionally oriented. I think you will agree that most words imply a static, non-changing world. So I think this is a genius of an idea in literally changing the structure of the language that we use from an intcnsional structure to an extensional structure by the use of the date. f J f ~ ; fi (76) As Einstein has said, "You cannot talk sense until or unless you include the fourth dimension of time." For example, if I ask you how many dimensions you need to find the center of that (pointing), you'd say, one. How many dimensions do I need to find the center of that (pointing), you'd need the width and the height. Here we have a cube. How many dimensions do you need to find the center of that? You need three dimensions. These are the three spatial dimensions. How many dimensions do you need to find a happening? Obviously, you need all four dimensions. The three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time. So Einstein said that if you and I are going to be precise in our thinking, behaving, communicating, we must say "when." (77) If we want precision in our talking, we must date our evaluations, we must say "when." The important thing if we are going to lessen hate, prejudice, disagreement, envy that we carry around inside of our nervous systems for ten, twenty, thirty years, it is important that we date our evaluations. You've got to date your mother, your father, your husband, your sister, your friends. They are not the same today as they were twenty, thirty, forty years ago. Even more important than dating other people, you and I must learn how to date ourselves. Too many of us have a static, non-changing orientation about ourselves. Too many people have inferiority complexes. They lack self-confidence because they have the same neurosemantic environment as they did when they were 10 or 12 years old. (78) Too many people think, behave, respond toward other people in exactly the same way they did when they were young. This is a failure to date themselves. 1 think that this is one of jthe] most important principles that you and I can apply. The failure to date is what I mean by the intensional orientation. When you do date your evaluations, then you are becoming extensionally or factually oriented. Notice, we can put a whole long list of intensional orientations and extensional orientations and when we behave in terms of the sOmtlS or 20 extensional principles all together, this is what we mean by behaving in a scientific, factual, mature way. (79) Another one of the misevaluations, or intensional orientations, Korzybski said, was identification. I have given you what is the vertical identification, where we identify, we react to words as if they were the nonverbal things. When we jump to conclusions, we are passing off our inferences as if they were factual. We are identifying different orders of abstraction. This is a vertical identification. We can also have a

Bl page. 12 horizontal identification. This is identifying two different people, situations, and things in time. Let's say that two years ago or five years ago, you had an unfortunate experience with a dentist or a doctor. It is so easy for you to carry over from last yearfive years agothe same old ways of evaluating, neurologically, toward a completely different doctor or dentist. This is called identification. (80) This is why Korzybski said, "God can forgive your sins but your nervous system won't." Unfortunately we carry around inside of us too many of these negative attitudes. An unfortunate aspect of our neuro-semantic environment. This is what we mean by identificationwhere we identify two things that happen to look alike, or have the same namedoctor, teacher, dentist, etc. Technically, what we mean by the word "identification," in this respect, is when we see similarities only. We identify when we see similarities only. (81) As you well know, a characteristic of the structure of the world of reality is that of differences. You and I must see both similarities and differences. Too often our language and our language structure implies similarities only. How can we be trained in the seeing of differences. We^ don*t have to worry very much about the seeing of similarities only, because too often in our intensional orientations we react to people, situations, and things in an automatic, trigger-like manner. If we had more studies and tests, you would see how, in our culture, most of us react in terms of similarities only. We are deficient in the seeing of differences. (82) The good doctor, the good psychiatrist, the good physicist, the wise man, the mature person, he sees differences where other people see similarities only. This is why it takes time to get down to facts. It takes time to be trained in being a wise person. By wise I mean, one definition is, "the abilities to see differences." That is the difference between an intern and an experienced medical doctor. The intern will try to identify people in the world of reality out of his textbook. But the wise doctor, and I could quote the Menningers, I could quote many, many doctors (and I have them in my files), to show how they were able to discern, to see differences that the neophyte missed. (83) That is what we mean by the scientific method, and you and I as "non-scientists" can learn exactly the same scientific method. If you, Leo, try to train all of your workers or act toward all of your workers as if they are all the same, there is something wrong with your ways of evaluating, right? A good supervisor, the good executive, the good teacher will index his evaluations. (84) Here is the third extensional device. He will index. The good executive will realize that Worker 1 is not Worker 2. A good mother will realize thai Child 1 is not Child 2. Differences are so tremendously important in the world of reality. There was something wrong with ThorstrttfVeblfhpKevaluations when he was/professor at the University of Wisconsin. He didn't enjoy leaching that much, he wanted to do more research. He didn't like giving exams. He didn't like testing and giving grades. He gave all of his students "CV. This is the kind of thinking we do when we don't do any thinking. There are important differences in the world of reality. It lakes timea certain intellect, a certain grfiy matterto become factually, nonverbally, extensionally oriented, to observe the differences to be found in the world of reality. Our language creates similarities, our minds create similarities, but there are only differences to be found in the world of reality, and they are of tremendous imporlance. (85) One final kind of misevalualion that leads into an intensional orientation is a one-valued orientation. The one-valued orientation is more extreme than the iwo-valued orientation. The one-valued orientation, very often, can be spotted with such words, "all," "every," "never," "all such-and-such are suchand-such," "all red-heads have a temper," "all women are no good," "all men are no good." Some men and women have these kinds of evaluations. There is something wrong with our ways of thinking when we have one evaluation toward thousands and thousands of unique and individual people. This is the easy way to go through life. This is the simple way to solve problems, and you usually don*t solve problems, of course, you only create more problems. That's the one-valued orientation. (86) Another kind of an intensional orientation, not quite as extreme as the one-valued orientation, is the two-valued orientation. This is where we only allow two values to x-number of people, situations, and things. This is two-valued orientations, where . .. they are not all crazy, they are not all bad, they are good or bad. That's not enough either, because theKhre degrees of goodness and badness. Again, we must substitute mathematics as the more perfect language. Another characteristic of the structure of the

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas

Bl page.13

world of reality (and this is what we are trying to do in general-semanticswe are trying to make our ways to thinking, communicating, and behaving fit the structure of the world of reality. (87) What do we know about the structure of the world of reality? 1. 2. 3. 4. The structure of the world of reality is tremendously complex, therefore, the non-allness orientation fits the complexity of the world of reality. We also know that a characteristic of the structure of the world of reality is change, process. Therefore we must date our evaluations. We also know that a characteristic of the structure of the world of reality are differencesnon-identity. Therefore, we must index our statements, our evaluations, continually. Degrees or graded variations. We must not classify people, situations, and things in either one extreme or the other. We must think in terms of degrees or graded variations.

(88) This is very important today because the two-valued orientation leads into this polarity of thinking, leads into disagreement rather than agreement. We find this among different families, individuals, groups, racial groups, Democrat/Republican. A characteristic of the structure of the world of reality, very often, created by man is a two-valued structure of things. We have Democrats/Republicans, black/white, etc., etc., without looking to see what they have in common or similarities. What we must therefore do if we are going to eliminate the one-valued orientation or the two-valued orientation is to apply a multi-valued orientationa many-valued orientation. How do you do that? (89) You do that by applying the extensional devices: 1. 2. 3. Having a non-allness orientation. Whenever you and I respond to unique and individual people, we don't respond to them with a closed mind, but with an open mind so that we can see the unique individual differences and characteristics that they have. We also apply the dating. We reevaluate our evaluations. We index our evaluations so we see them differently, even the same person is different every day, every minute. You are different every day, every minute. You and I must use the Etc. toward ourselves, date ourselves, index ourselves, and even go one furtheryou must chain-index yourself. By chain-indexing, we really mean ecological thinking. Because you in one environment are not the same as yourself in another environment. By chain-indexing, we just add another index. This is why I've been saying that we've had ecological thinking for a long time, and it's very important.

(90) The multi- or many-valued orientation is what we mean by the scientific way of behaving. I think you will agree that most of us in our culture either have a one-valued or certainly a two-valued orientation. Am I right? We literally need to be trained in having a multi-valued orientation. Every time I meet you I should have a different evaluation. I should reevaluate you in terms of you today. (91) I could give you so many examples and case histories of people who have static, non-changing orientations. They didn't like their mother-in-law 30 years ago, she may have changed tremendously, or a mother-in-law dislikes her daughter-in-law and she may have changed tremendously. But what doesn't change? The mental attitude. The world of reality changes, but sometimes words don't change, meanings don't change because words have approximately the same meaning th^foristotle gave to them 2,000 years ago, but the important thing to remember is that attitudes, unfortunately, do not change and they should change. (92) All of the misevaluations that I have been talking about are what we call the intensional orientation. All of the proper evaluations that I have been talking about lead into an extensional or factual orientation. I think that you will agree that this is far-removed^a great extension over the more limited aspect or definition of the scientific method. This is why Korzybski was entirely right and legitimate in using a new word, "intensional orientation" and "extensional orientation" to describe or apply toward a totally new concept in terms of human behavior.

Bl page. 14 (93) Korzybski entitled his book Science and Sanity, the scientific method as the sane way of behaving. As Wendell Johnson has said in his book, People in Quandaries, "science as sanity, the scientific method as the sane way of behaving, not in a limited area of our scientific method as the sane way of behaving, not in a limited area of our scientific laboratories, but in terms of every thing that we do." Alfred Korzybski said, "there is a scientific method that can be applied on the kindergarten level, on the high school level," and many teachers are doing so today, and especially in the parental level, because all you need is one island of sanity in the familyand usually it is the mother. We need more islands of sanity, not only in the family, but throughout the world, and that is why I hope all of you will continue to carry on the work that we have started here. (94) Only when we as individuals, families, groups, companies, and nations have learned to apply (an0 notice I emphasize the word "apply") only then are we truly becoming extensional. We talk about manifesting the principles of general-semantics, of manifesting the principles of extensional behavior in contradistinction to only professing them. Only when we have learned to apply the methods of science, the factual or extensional orientation in all of our inter-relationships will we be able to live in harmony with good communication and with peace among all men. It is not an easy task because of the many more misevaluations that I have not even begun to refer to . You go into anthropology, psychiatry, sociology, and you will see how complex all the human problems really are. All that we hope is that we appiy some of these principles more than we now do. We can lessen or eliminate some of the problems, arguments, conflicts, disagreements, hate, prejudice, jealousy, and ultimately wars that have been so much a part of human nature.

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

Bl page.15

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Summarize the thesis of Alfred Korzybski's Manhood of Humanity. [Bl para.03] Differentiate among chemistry-binding, space-binding, and time-binding classes of life. [Bl para.03] Provide an operational definition of man. [Bl para.04] Identify the specific characteristics which distinguish time-binders. [Bl para.05] Differentiate between human abstraction and animal abstraction. [Bl para.06] Explain the relationship between time-binding and progress., [Bl para.06] Explain or describe what Korzybski referred to as cIcmcniatiAM [Bl para.07] Differentiate between semantics and general semantics. [Bl para.09] Explain the relationship between science and structure. [Bl para.ll] Explain where Korzybski sees thinking at its best. [Bl para,12] Explain where Korzybski sees thinking at its worst. [Bl para.12] Illustrate how the process of abstraction is reversed. [Bl para. 13] Differentiate the terms insane and unsane. [Bl para,14] Define and describe the Korzybskian term semantic-reaction. [Bl para.14] Describe the process known as ecological thinking. [Bl para.15] Define and describe an unsane semantic reaction. [Bl para.16] Define and illustrate the term "misevaluation." [Bl para.17] Differentiate between extensional and intensional orientation. [Bl para. 19] Define and illustrate intensional orientation. [Bl para.20] Define and illustrate extensional orientation. [Bl para.20] Describe and characterize the event or process level of reality. [Bl para.21] Illustrate examples of static/non-changing orientation. [Bl para.22] Differentiate between submicroscopic and microscopic levels of reality. [Bl para,23] Explain the functions of the strings on the structural differential. [Bl para.23] Describe the pathological affliction known as allness. [Bl para.24] Provide illustrations of allness language. [Bl para.32] Describe and illustrate the non-aflness orientation. [Bl para.40] Define and describe the allness orientation. [Bl para.24] Differentiate a statement of fact from a fact. [Bl para.24] Differentiate between fact and inference. [Bl para.27] Explain the Korzybskian understanding of the circularity of knowledge (abstraction). [Bl para.26] Define and illustrate the process known as identification. [Bl para.26] Explain what is meant by non-aristotelian. [Bl para.28] Summarize Aristotle's Laws of thought. [Bl para.28] Define and illustrate Aristotle's law of identity. [Bl para.28] Summarize and illustrate Aristotle's law of contradiction. [Bl para,29] Summarize and describe Aristotle's law of the excluded middle. [Bl para.29] Differentiate between contradictory and contrary statements. [Bl para.31] Explain the context in which Korzybski has described mathematics as our most perfect language. [Bl para.33] Explain the prevalence of polarity or extremes. [Bl para.33] Illustrate what is meant by Non-Aristotelian orientation. [Bl para.36] Explain and describe the map/territory relationship. [Bl para.35] Identify three corollaries of the map/territory analogy. [Bl para.36] Define the word "structure" in terms of order and relations. [Bl para.41] Differentiate the "is" of identity from the "is" of predication. [Bl para.49] Define and illustrate the "is" of identity. [Bl para.49] Define and illustrate the "is" of predication. [Bl para.49]

Bl page. 16 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. Summarize Korzybski's principle of non-identity. [Bl para.49] Explain the process of identity. [Bl para.50] Define and illustrate non-identity. [Bl para.50] Define and illustrate the "is" of predication. [Bl para.53] Illustrate how the words "to me" neutralize the "is" of predication. [Bl para.53] Identify the basic misevaluations which lead to intensional orientation. [Bl para.54] Define and illustrate the term "neuro-semantic environment." [Bl para.56] Explain the relationship of a positive neuro-semantic environment with productivity. [Bl para.57] Explain what Berman referred to as the first basic misevaluation. [Bl para.59] Define and describe the symbol reaction. [Bl para.60] Differentiate the symbol reaction from the signal reaction. [Bl para.60] Differentiate facts from inferences. [Bl para.63] Explain what Korzybski referred to as the consciousness of abstraction. [Bl para.66] Explain how the consciousness of the ETC may neutralize allness. [Bl para.68] Identify the pathological assumptions found in the semantics of linguistics. [Bl para.70] Define and illustrate ambiguity in language. [Bl para.71] Define and illustrate multi-ordinality. [Bl para.71] Describe the extensional working device known as dating. [Bl para.74] Illustrate how the English language has static non-changing implications. [Bl para.75] Explain what Einstein referred to as the fourth dimension. [Bl para.76] Explain the consequences of failure to date. [Bl para.77) Describe and illustrate the misevaluation pattern known as identification. [Bl para. 79] Define and illustrate the extensional device known as the index. [Bl para. 84) Explain and illustrate the one-valued orientation. [Bl para.85] Explain and illustrate the two-valued orientation. [Bl para.86] Identify four characteristics of the world of reality. [Bl para.27] Explain or illustrate multi-valued orientation. [Bl para.88] Contrast multi-valued orientation from two or one valued orientation. [Bl para.88] Explain how people can chain-index themselves. [Bl para.89] Illustrate the relationship between multi-valued orientation and the scientific way of behaving. [Bl para.91] Illustrate how general semantics can help people make the scientific method a way of life. [Bl para.93]

Appendix II, Section Bl: What is General-Semantics? D. Maas Index Allness/AHness language/Allness orientation Ambiguity of language Aristotelian orientation (way of thinking and behaving) Aristotle's laws of thought Cat-egorists Chain index Change Chemistry-binding class of life Circularity of knowledge (abstraction) Class label Consciousness of abstracting Consciousness of the etc. Contradiction Contradictory/contrary Contrary/contradictory Copying animals Dating Degree (s) Dog-ma lists Ecological thinking Einstein Either/or thinking Elementalism Eta Excluded middle (law of) Extensional devices Extensional orientation ' Extremes Fact/inference confusion Failure to date Fourth dimension General semantics Graded variations Human engineering Identification Identity (law of) Index Inference Inference/fact confusion Insane/insanity Intensional orientation "Is" as auxiliary verb "Is" of existence "Is" of identity "Is" of predication Johnson, Wendell Korzybski Manhood of Humanity

Bl page. 17

24, 32, 65 71 9 28 61 89 87 4 26 49 67 68 29 30,31 30,31 11 74, 78, 89 33,87 61 16 76 36 7,8 68 30 22 18, 20, 94 33 24 78 76 15, 18, 27 33 27 79,80 28,49 82,87 25,64 24,64 13 18, 20, 54, 63, 75, 79 45 46 48 51 93 3 3

Bl page. 18 Map/territory analogy Mathematics Menninger, Karl Misevaluation(s)/misevaluation patterns Multi-ordinality Multi-valued orientation Neuro-semantic environment Non-allness orientation Non-Aristotelian orientation Non-Euclidean geometry Non-identity Non-Newtonian physics One-valued, orientation Operational definition of man Order Orders of abstraction Pause/delay/analyze Polarity Process level (of reality) Relation(s) Science/scientific approach/scientific method Science and Sanity Self-reflexivism Semantic environment Semantic reaction Semantics Space-binding (class of life) Statement of fact Strings (on Structural differential) Structure Structural differential Submicroscopic level Symbol-reaction Time-binding (class of life) To me Two-valued orientation Unsane . Veblen, Thorstek 36 33,86 82 17 72 88 56 40, 86, 89 35 35 49, 50, 87 35 4 40 27 61 33 21 41 11, 12, 93 3 40 56 14 14, 18, 70 4 24 11,41 6 21, 23 60 5, 11 53 30, 86 14 84

Appendix II, Section B2: Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think D. Maas

B2 page.l

Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think Sanford Herman Key Terms
Anti-survival behavior Reflex-like behavior

Circular response Conditional response Conditioned response Copying animals Human evaluation Panic Projection Psychology of momentum Reflex action

Signal reaction Speed neurosis Symbol reaction

(1) A lady in our town who may best be described as a perpetual talker was asked by one of her londkuffering neighbors if she ever thought about what she was going to say before saying it. (2) "Why, no," said the lady, solemnly. "How on earth could I know what I think about a thing until I've heard what I have to say on the subject?" (3) How often have you seen individuals who behave like that? There are too many of us who do not take the time to pause, delay, and analyze before bursting out into speech. There's enough psychological evidence to point out that it is the individual who is not sure of his facts, and the grounds upon which he is making his statements, who bursts out into speech, who defends his position vehemently, who cannot or does not take time to pause and reflect objectively on a matter. (4) Let us make an analysis of three different kinds of responses, and see how they can be applied to all situations. (5) Number one is the reflex action. Shine a light into the pupil of your eye, and what happens? It closes or constricts, doesn't it? Now this response is the simple reflex action. It is not learned or conditioned. This unconditioned reflex action is immediate, quick, automaticthe stimulus controls the response. This is stimulus-controlled or reflex behavior. There is nothing that the person can do to stop it, although some psychologists have been able to modify reflex actions to a degree. YaforzXinski in his book, Medical Psychology, says: "A puff of air or any tactHttstimulus delivered to the cornea of the eye will produce the reflex closure of the eyelid. This is one of the protective mechanisms of the eye." Now there are many other forms of the unconditioned reflexes or responses, such as chemical changes after the swallowing of food, heart and pulse beats, the patellaflreflex elicited by striking the patellafttendon, the plantar reflex to a blunt object drawn over the plantar surface of the foot, salivation to food or acid, gastrointestinal secretions to food, etc. These are all reflex responses which are unlearned, automatic, immediate, or quick, where the stimulus controls the response. The stimulus automatically and immediately controls the response. (6) Now there is not much that we can do about the reflex action, and we will not be concerned with it here. But there is much behavior that looks like the above reflex action, and the kind that we will be very much concerned with. Let us call this reflex-like behavior a signal reaction. And this is the second behavioral reaction. The signal reaction is reflex-like behavior. It, too, is quick, immediate, automatic, but the important thing is that it is learned or conditioned. You and I have learned to respond impulsively, or without thinking. We have been trained in this reflex-like response exactly the same as animals or Pavlov's dogs. I'm sure that you all know how a dog can be conditioned to respond immediately to your words. There is a stimulus and then a quick, immediate, automatic response. For example, when a neighbor telephoned Mrs. Clara Wood of Pocatellft, Idaho, that the Wood police dog was romping in her yard, Mrs. Wood told her to put the dog's ear to the phone.

B2 page.2 (7) "Ted," she said, "you come right home." Ted was off like a shot and back in his own yard a few minutes later. (8) Here's another example illustrating the conditioned, automatic, signal reaction: I was to feed and milk my neighbor's six Jersey cows during her absence, and she said, "Play these records for them. They love music. If one of them gets troublesome, play this one." She indicated a small disc. At my first attempt, two of the cows refused to stand still while I attached the milking machines. I remembered the little record and put it on the player. To my amazement, my friend's voice said sharply, "Stand up there and behave yourself, young lady!" The cows became meek as lambs and gave no farther trouble! (9) Now this kind of an immediate response controlled by the stimulus is characteristic of animal-like behavior. A groom trains a horse to go into a stable, even without the groom around. But what happens to a herd of horses who have been so trained, when they are outside of the barn and the barn catches fire? The automatic response is to run into the stable. You undoubtedly have read about such cases, where horses were burned to death after having run into a burning barn. (10) This signal reaction is what we mean by anti-survival behavior, conditioned responses more characteristic of animals, but inappropriate for humans in that particular situation. The field rat is trained to freeze in the face of danger. He freezes no matter where he is; the situation makes no difference. In some instances, however, this freezing response would be improper, and contribute toward its death. (11) Fish have automatic signal reactions toward minnows. To them, all minnows are alike. They do not perceive the important differences between minnow, and minnow,, minnowj, etc. But I think you'll agree: a minnow at the end of a fishing line is not quite the same as a minnow not at the end of a fishing line. (12) This is why rat traps are so effectivebecause, to a rat, cheese in one situation is the same as cheese in another. To a rat, cheese is cheese. As we shall see, too often humans respond in the same fashion. (13) In Utah, a total of 1,537 young chickens were scared to death by a lone hoot owl at the Wally Durphy Ranch. Durphy said the owl got into a coop of four thousand ten-week-old chicks after ten p.m. He found the owl still flying back and forth, trying to get out the next morning. As he untangled the mass of chickens piled up in a corner, he counted 1,537 of them dead. He estimated the loss to $1,350. (14) Now this is not much different from those humans who freeze their responses when a fast-moving car or train is descending upon them. You have undoubtedly read about many cases similar to the individual who is killed by a train. Witnesses told police the crossing-gates were down, and the person appeared as if frozen, when the train approached. The stimulus controlled the response. The stimulus, not the person, controlled the situation. (15) Anyone who looks around him can see the signal reactionsthese frozen responses toward people, situations, and things. How often do we have these frozen responses toward new people, different situations and things? Look in the newspapers, and you still find many examples of these automatic, conditioned, signal reactions. While they might be appropriate for animals, they are inappropriate for humans. They reduce the human level of response to the animal level. (16) The following examples appeared side by side in a newspaper: A 26-year-old policeman early today shot his wife in the head when he mistook her for an intruder in their bedroom. A housewife, firing at a man she thought was a burglar, shot and killed a downstairs neighbor today, police reported. A policeman shot and killed his roommate and lifelong friend Saturday, not realizing that what he thought was a robbery attempt was only a practical joke. Policeman Jonathan Hunt drew his gun when a man came up behind him, pressed something against his back, and said,

Appendix II, Section B2: Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think D. Maas

B2 page.3

"This is a stick-up." Hunt fired as he whirled. As the man fell, he recognized him as his roommate, Ivan Doyle. Doyle had held a finger against Hunt's back. The shooting occurred in the home of Hunt's mother, when Hunt, on duty, and presumably walking his beat in the Chicago station, went home to get his wallet. He said the wallet contained his identification cards and lunch money. He stopped at his mother's home and was standing in the living room, talking to another friend, Arthur Thomas. Thomas recognized Doyle as he walked into the room behind Hunt, and was not alarmed when Doyle, smiling over Hunt's shoulder, said it was a robbery. Hunt turned and fired before Thomas could tell him it was just a prank. (17) Here, too, just as in the reflex action, we have a stimulus and a quick, immediate, automatic response. The signal reaction allows no time for proper evaluation. The stimulus controls the response. The signal reaction can get individuals into difficulty in many different ways. What person has not put his foot in his mouth by responding too quickly? (18) For example: As we drove through a small Texas town, we were stopped by a patrol car. My husband, who loves an argument, rallied his forces and met the patrolman with: "Now look here, officer, I was only going thirty-five miles per hour!" The officer, who had had his mouth open to speak, clamped it shut. 'My husband went on: "You must have made a mistake. I have been watching my speedometer for the last ten minutes, and we've been only going thirty-five miles an hour ever since we left Galveston." Sure that he had made his case, he turned on the ignition. The officer held up his hand, and said: "Now, wait a minute, son. I stopped you to warn you of a detour ahead, but you've convinced me that you're doing thirty^five miles an hourguess I'll have to give you a ticket. The speed limit here is thirty miles." (19) Notice how easy it is to make unjustified assumptions and snap judgements when a signal reaction is involved. It requires little or no thinking at all. In fact, this is the kind of thinking we do when we don't do any thinking. We bypass phase threethe human evaluation phasein a reflex-like manner, going directly from the nervous impact to talk and/or act. With a signal reaction, we do not have proper evaluation, because we hardly allow any evaluation at all. There is an evaluation, but not based upon the facts. It is usually based upon our false assumptions. It is a contributory factor toward many of the misunderstandings and problems that we find in the world today. (20) Notice how easy it is to jump to conclusions when the signal reaction is involved: In Vancouver, to take a new job, a young woman was searching for a room. She answered several ads, but each time, the vacancy had already been filled. Then, on a suburban street, she saw a "Room for Rent" sign, and dashed through the gate at the same time as a young man obviously on the same mission. The landlady greeted them with, "We don't take married couples," and promptly shut the door in the/face. The young woman looked at the young man, blushed and smiled, then hastily rang the doorbell. When the landlady appeared again, the girl began: "I'm afraid you don't understand. You seeI'm not married to this young man." The landlady gave her a brief, blajtfk look and this time slammed the door in her face. (21) This is what we might classify as stupid behavior. It is easy to assume knowledge that one does not have, but to acquire the uncommon sense of realizing the limitations of one's knowledgethis is much more difficult. This form of misevaluation manifests itself in many different ways, such as in the ability to adjust one's responses from one situation to another.

B2 page.4 (22) Some signal reactions might lead to disaster; others, little more than humor. For example,
meteATBfiT

We enlisted men ** in a hotly contested baseball game with our officers, when a private hit would look like a single to short right field. Instead of stopping at first, however, he foolishly started a wild dash for second. Realizing then that he couldn't make it, he scrambled back toward first. Now he was being chased in a rundown between the lieutenant playing first and the colonel playing second. It looked like a sure out, but just as the lieutenant flipped the ball back to the colonel, the private snapped to attention, saluting the colonel. Automatically, the colonel snapped a salute back, and muffed the catch. (23) I think you*ll agree that this is a kind of stupid behavior, in this situation. There is something wrong with this kind of reaction. When individuals are little able to move above the conditioned, animalistic responses of a controlling environment, they cease to behave in a human manner. They literally lower themselves to a lower form of response, adequate, perhaps, for animals, but not for the complexities and variabilities of human existence. (24) There is one other danger in the signal reaction, and this is commonly rationalized into "letting off steam." As an example of this: (25) As my taxi left New York's Penn station, the driver slammed on the brakes to avoid a pedestrian who darted into our path. When the driver leaned out the window, and hurled a string of uncomplimentary epithets, the pedestrian snarled, "Drop dead!" This set my driver off on another round of verbal fireworks, which continued for the next few blocks. "Don't you think you'd better calm down?" I said finally. "Just think what this is doing to your blood pressure." At this, he turned around with a broad grin. "Ya got it all wrong, Mac," he said. "You ain't up on your psychology. I got no cause to worry about hypertension. I know how to release my aggressions."

(26) Well, upon first glance, this might appear to be a legitimate way to overcome the complexities and problems of daily living, but there's one important danger in such a philosophy. While dogs can be angry and stop instantly, babies can cry and change into laughter immediately, adults manifest what is called "the psychology of momentum." The madder we get, the more swear words we use; the more swear words we use, the more we respond to them, and the more angry we become. So, in a circular fashion, we can literally talk ourselves into a quandary, or yell ourselves into a fit of rage, by reacting to our own reactions, each time building it up out of all proportions to the original anger or hurt. (27) Psychologists will agree that everyone needs a safety valve, but, too often, we compound our own problems by not realizing the psychology of momentum inherent in adult reactions. And it's the signal reaction that starts one off in all directions at the same time. In this day and age of atomic and hydrogen bombs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the ominous threat of a third world war hovering over our heads, it is not totally inconceivable that an enemy might use panic as the ultimate weapon. We might very well ask ourselves, what would we do in the face of an atomic blast? Or a false and misunderstood warning of attack? Would we take calm emergency action, or would we dash, screaming, into the streets, victims of our own terror, as we saw on Orson Welles* fake "Men from Mars" radio broadcast of October 30, 1938? (28) Even in a war, the whole country's survival might depend upon our reaction to disaster, because mass panic might be far more devastating than the bombs themselves. Several defence officials state that ninety percent of all emergency measures after an atomic blast will depend on the prevention of panic among the survivors in the first ninety seconds. (29) If humans manifest signal reactions, panic can be fissionable, just like the atomic bomb. It can produce a chain reaction more deeply destructive than any explosive known. Just as a single match can burn a dry forest, so a trivial incident can set off a monstrous disaster when the confusion and uneasiness of the population have added to it.

Appendix II, Section B2: Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think D. Maas

B2 page.5

(30) Some of you might recall the Coconut Grove Nightclub fire in 1942, where 491 people were killed by panic. Safety experts say that if they would have not panickedtaken a fraction of a secondpausedwalked out slowlyonly a handful of the individuals might have died. Some of the other exits to safety were overlooked in the panic. A fallen man jammed the revolving door at the entrance as the panicked guests tried to get out the same way they entered. (31) In the famous Iroquois Theater fire in Chicago in 1903, the actual fire was so small that performances could have been given there a few days afterward. But one woman's scream started a panic just as the lights went out. Most of the two thousand patrons surged toward the same inadequate exits. Only one person used a fire escape. Almost all of the 575 who perished were crushed in the frenzied crowd. (32) On June 5th, 1941, in Chung King, China, Japanese bombers returned unexpectedly, while thousands of civilians were pouring out of the city's largest air-raid shelter. Frantically, they fought their way back into the cave, and the guards quickly closed the gates. The ventilation was poor. The oil lamps went out in the foul air, and suddenly panic swept the shelter. People struggled in frenzy toward the air inlets, and succeeded only in blocking them. By the lime the gates were re-opened, nearly one thousand men, women, and children had died in one of the most horrible civilian panic episodes of modern times. (33) For many years, some federal officials had treated the subject of panic as if it were taboo, or as if nothing could be done about it. But there is much that is known about panic, and there is something that can be done about it. With the proper education and training, we can keep ourselves from acting in panic and signal reactions in situations. We can train ourselves in human responses in situationswhether war, fires, driving in automobiles, communication or management. (34) Experiments have shown a great difference between animal and human nature. The most active and intelligent animals, such as dogs, monkeys, horses, are frequently the most panic-prone. Men appear to be less panicky when they're alert, well-informed, and intelligent. Less intelligent people are much more panicprone, while children, apparently, are naturally panic-resistant. They are, however, highly susceptible to the fears of parents, teachers, or other adults to whom they look for guidance. (35) It must be emphasized that fear itself is not panic. Panic is responding to your fear in a fearful manner. It is a circular response. It is reacting to our own reactions. Panic is a second-order abstraction, or, fear of fear. As the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Fear in a fearful situation is proper evaluation, but fear of fear, or fearing fearespecially when not in a fearful situationthis is something else again. Fear is merely the raw material of panic. When you are under attack, fear is natural, even healthy or necessary. But you must use fear, not let it use you. (36) The Japanese were conscious of the relationship between ignorance and fear during the Second World War. An official post-war report on the Hiroshima disaster said: To prevent the spread of rumor and brace morale, 210,000 copies of out-of-town newspapers were brought in daily, to replace the destroyed local newspapers." (37) It is no wonder, then, that safety and fire prevention experts are concerned about panic. It should also be of greater concern among government officials and management generally, because signal reactions are both the beginning and the fission of accidents and panic behavior in peace, as well as in war. The following example will illustrate this: In Fort Bragg, North Carolina, an assault raft loaded with trainees capsized on a lake at this huge military base, drowning twenty soldiers. It was the worst non-aerial military training tragedy since World War II. The inexperienced recruits, most of them taking basic training, drowned after confusion, fright, and panic broke out when the raft tipped over Wednesday. The pontoon-type craft was one hundred yards from shore in Smith Lake, but only two of the twenty-two soldiers aboard survived. Many of the soldiers were pushed under the twenty-fivefoot-long raft by their buddies, who struggled frantically. Rescuers reached the scene within minutes, and ambulances, helicopters, and small boats were used in trying to get the soldiers out. The soldier whose body was the twentieth found, was identified as a man who had managed to swim to safety, but seeing struggles of his buddies, swam back to try to help them. A witness said, "He was pulled under."

B2 page.6 (38) Now the Educational Policies Commission has stated that: "The purpose which runs through all other educational purposesthe common thread of educationis the development of the ability to think." (39) (40) What do we mean by "thinking?" A famous philosopher, F. C S. Schiller, has said: Thinking actually occurs only when an intelligent/capable of thought finds that he has to thinkthat is, finds himself in a situation where his habits and impulses no longer seem to suffice to guide his actions. He has then to stop to think. Thinking is thus a definite stage in the process of knowing, and the knowing has for its origin the stoppage, and for its aim the guidance, of action. William Alfcison White has further stated: In the most primitive animals, there is nothing that corresponds to thought. These animals are truly systems of reflexes. The translation from stimulus to action is immediate, smooth, and effective. As we advance in the course of evolution to more complex, higher types, this immediate translation of stimulus into action is ever more and more interrupted, until not only the interval between the two is or may be considerable, but the resulting action becomes less and less predictable. It is in this interval between stimulus and action that thought occursthat ideas and concepts are formed and formulated into symbols. (42) These definitions of thinking or thought, and the difference between man and animal, human responses and animalistic responses, beautifully illustrate what Korzybski has defined as the symbol reactionthe human kind of response. (43) This third kind of a response is the self-controlled or person-controlled response. Intervening between the stimulus and the response is you. You control the stimulus; the stimulus or environment does not control you. (44) For example, do you know what to do if you find a poisonous snake in bed with you? Berry Bradder, 15, can tell you. Berry, sleeping on the lawn of his parents' home, awoke at 6 a.m. to find a two-and-a-halffoot copperhead curled up on his stomach. He waited two hours until the snake slithered away, and then shot it with a rifle lying beside him. (45) Man is the only one who can truly react to situations with a self-controlled or person-controlled response. We call this human response a "symbol reaction." And this is the third kind of human reaction-the symbol reaction. (46) Now the symbol reaction constitutes a delay, an observation, an analysis, and then a reaction controlled by the person. A signal reaction, however, is just the opposite. It is immediate, automatic, triggerlike, without delay or observation, and is controlled by the stimulus, not the person. While the signal reaction is an animal-like response, the symbol reaction is a human response, with at least the following four characteristics: 1. 2. 3. 4. (47) Pause or delay Observation Analysis, and finally, Then the reaction.

(41)

Notice, in the following example, one situation, but two different ways of responding. Probably the most imperturbable man in the United States was Dr. George V. O'HanUn, appointed by former Mayor Frank Ha^J/ director of Jersey City's medical center. When Orson Wells made his scare broadcast, a student nurse who had tuned in during the middle of the program, and had not heard the explanatory introduction, became hysterical. She ran

Appendix II, Section B2: Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think

B2 page.7

D. Maas screaming to Miss Murdoch, superintendent of nurses. 'The men from Mars have landed, Miss Murdoch! It's fearful. They're killing everybody and they're approaching Jersey City!" Miss Murdoch switched on a radio, and only one minute of the carnage was enough for her. She called Dr. O'Hanlta. The men from Mars landed near Princeton!" she said. "Some of them reached New York, and it is totally destroyed! What shall we do. Doctor? Order out the ambulances, doctors, and nurses? It's fearful. We may all die!" There was a moment's pause, and then the dry voice of Dr. O'Hanlfc came precisely over the wire. "Let me see. My appointment book is well filled. Tell the men from Mars that I will be able to see them Tuesday morning at eleven." (48) Notice the difference between the nurses* response and the doctor's response. With the nurses, there was a stimulus and a very immediate response. But with the doctor's response, in between the stimulus and the response was the doctor. There was a pause; there was a delay; there was an analysis. (49) Just as we have learned to react in an automatic, quick, impulsive manner, so can we learn to pause, delay, observe and analyze just a little more than we normally do. While the reflex action is an inborn, or unconditioned, response, the symbol and signal responses are learned or conditioned. We can do something about them. If we have learned to respond automatically or too quickly, we can also learn to pause or delay those responses, if only for a few seconds, to allow the cortex to play a human role. (50) But while man can rise above the animal in his learning, knowledge, and person-controlled response, so man can copy animals in his reflex-like, immediate, automatic, signal reactions. The major difference between man and animal here is that man can know that he is behaving like an animal, and he can stop it, but the animal cannot know that he is being animal-like. As Mark Van Doren has said, "No other animal besides man knows what class it belongs to." No cat knows it is a cat, and never has to worry about whether it is doing all right as a cat Man can be un-human, but a dog can't be un-canine. (51) The point is that animal-like behavior, for the animal, is natural, but not so for man. By copying the behavior of animals, man is reverting back to animal behavior, rather than behaving in terms of what we know about human behavior and intelligence. (52) Perhaps the distinction between human responses and animal responses, and the use of the terms "signal" and "symbol" reaction, will become clear by quoting Alfred Korzybski directly. It will also help to clarify two very important terms in differentiating between animal and human responses. I am now referring to conditioned and conditional responses. (53) In Science and Sanity, Korzybski states that One of the most important functions of the cerebral cortex is that of reacting to innumerable stimuli of variable significance, which act as signals in animals and symbols in humans, and give means of very subtle adjustment of the organism to the environment. For example, we can train a chimpanzee to respond appropriately to a green or a red traffic light. He can be trained to go at the sight of a green light, and stop at a red light. To him, or any other animal so conditioned, it is a signal. It is "go" or "stop." He would go or stop no matter what the situations was. To human beings, however, it is a symbol. It means "go" or "stop"maybe. It stands for, or represents, "go" or "slop," depending upon the situation. (54) Now, while the signal response might be appropriate for animals in a psychology laboratory, they are not appropriate for humans while driving an automobile, but how often have we seen human beings act as if the green light is "go," or the red light is "stop," no matter what the situation is. Recently, a man driving a large semi truck killed a mother and six of her children when the woman had gone through a red light. Obviously, it was the woman's fault for having gone through the red light. Whoever's fault it was is not the

B2 page.8 point here, however. The point is that too many drivers project safety into a green light. They act as if green always means "go." As this driver explained to the police, "I had the lights with me." (55) But human responses must be capable of changing the moment the facts of the situation change. Human responses must be conditional, not conditioned. While the signal of the animal is less conditional, absolute, or conditional responses of a lower order, symbols for the human should be many-valued, and indefinitely conditional, not automatic. The meanings, and therefore the situation as a whole, or the context of a given situation, become paramount, and the reaction should be fully conditional, that is to say, reactions of a higher order, capable of seeing differences and changing according to the unique and changing characteristics of any situation. To quote Alfred Korzybski again, in Science and Sanity, he said, "In human regression or underdevelopment, human symbols have degenerated to the value of signals, effective with animals, the main difference being in the degree of conditionality." (56) Korzybski used to humorously refer to those humans with animalistic or conditioned responses as "dogmatists and categorists." The famous philosopher George Santayana has said, The aim of education is the condition of suspended judgement on everything." I should like to emphasize the word "condition." To me, that means a psychological predispositionthe ability, psychologically, to say, "I don*t know." (57) How easy it is for us to assume knowledge that we do not have, and, on the contrary, how difficult it is for us sometimes to admit that we do not know the answer. Too often, however, when we say, "I know," learning stops. We don't search f&ther for the answer. But when we say "I don't know," two words often dangle on. They are: "Let's see." We go out to search for the answer. (58) Obviously the quotation from Santayana is extreme and overgeneralized. But as a general orientation toward life, and as a specific application for effective communication and intelligent behavior, the values of the pause, delay, and analysis are innumerable. This uncommon sense must be learned, not only intellectually, but neurologically, or as a way of response. (59) This does not mean that one should procrastinate, or wait until all of the facts are in, before making a decision or taking action. Greater problems are created when we are so hesitant that we take no action at all. To quote Strecker and Acker in their book Discovering Ourselves, (60) There are people who appear to think not merely to ensure effective action, but apparently for the sake of delaying or avoiding action. They are the individuals who analyze situations, problems, and motives ad infinitum. This is the type of person who gets lost in details. They see too much pro and con. There is indecision and wavering. They become so entangled in problems that action rarely or never occurs. If attempts at action are made, they are often feeble and inadequate. Fundamentally, these people seem to lack the ability to face problems and make decisions. We all know those who cannot say "yes" or "no" to a fairly simple question. There are others who are given problems and plans to execute, but they come to nought. A man may try to write a book, and become submerged in details, or see too many debatable points. To this group, too, belong the people who appear to prefer to talk rather than act.

(61) Thinking, then, employed to check spontaneous and hasty action, and to clarify issues, is fulfilling its proper function. When, however, it is used to dodge issues and avoid making decisions that should be made, it is not only not performing its proper service, but it is untrue to its own reason for being. (62) We must react, and we must take action, but if all reactions to situations are going to be mature, intelligent, and fitting, we must take a two-second activity delay. We must allow the cortex enough time to differentiate, distinguish, and see the important differences. We should not react automatically, impulsively, or without thinking. For example, if we are driving a car on a snowy day, the pavement is slippery, and someone runs out in front of the car, what is the impulsive thing to do? That's rightslam on the brakes! Is that the appropriate thing to do? Well, safety experts point out that one of the causes of accidents is this automatic, signal reaction. (63) It is also a barrier to effective communication. It leads one into jumping to conclusions, misunderstandings, and other kinds of misevalualions, which might be eliminated or lessened if we were to

Appendix II, Section B2: Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think D. Maas

B2 page.9

pause, delay, and analyze just a little more than we normally do. (64) One of the executives in the University of Chicago's management development seminar wrote in our class the following example of his own signal reaction: Without hesitation I have always said "No, thank you," when offered broccoli. The odd part about this is that I have never tasted broccoli. After giving this weighty problem considerable thought [he said] I believe that this signal reaction is due to the fact that several people have told me about their distaste for this food. Yet even this thought has not come to mind in my past refusals to eat broccoli, and, without thinking, I have refused. Even upon reflection of the above sins, I still don't like broccoli, and doubt if, in the future, I will even handle the question of "Would you like some broccoli?" by employing a symbol reaction. If I am insane, please help me. (65) Well, while this person is not insane, this is certainly an u/isane semantic reaction. But he is not alone. How many of us dislike foods we have never tasted, or react signally to the names of foods we dislike, although the food might have been prepared in a most palatable manner? (66) But notice, not only from this example, but from our own behavior, how difficult this is to apply. We might understand something intellectually, but to behave in terms of the principlesthis is much more difficult! (67) The symbol reaction should play a more prominent role in communication and human relations. One of the reasons why we have so many disagreements and arguments is because we don't take the time to listen to peopleto hear what they say, or listen from their point of view. Just listen to arguments between labor and management, the United States and Russia, husbands and wives, and you will find a gold-mine of signal reactions. (68) In Chicago, Judge Julius Min6r introduced a sixty-day cooling-off period before filing for divorce. His law requires that persons planning to file such suits first file a declaration of intention sixty days before the suit. Judge Minr said, "The figures indicate that the law is helping to reduce the number of broken homes. Divorce suits filed in haste often lead to ruptured family ties, whereas reflective and more considerate action may keep the families together." (69) Notice how a symbol reaction might even lead to longevity. A ninety-year-old man was asked, "What is the contributing factor toward your long life?" He replied, "Well, when my wife and I got married, we used to argue a lot And so we decided that whenever I got mad, that I would take a walk around the block. And so the one major reason for my long life is plenty of fresh air and outdoor exercise." (70) Well, perhaps more husbands should take a walk whenever they got mad. Perhaps we should all take a walk to get away from our own anger or hatred in certain situations. Sometimes it is the best way to reevaluate our evaluations, or objectively see the other person's point of view. (71) It is well known among psychiatrists that we are living in a neurotic age of speed. We are the victims of a speed neurosis, which is a contributing factor toward many of our ills as well as misunderstandings. How can we understand people, situations, or our own children, when we do not take the time? How can we get down to facts, when it is so much easier and quicker to act on inferences as if they were factual? (72) Someone once said, "Why is it that there is never enough time to do it right, but there is always enough time to do it over?" Much time, money, and energy is wasted due to having to re-do a job that should have been done correctly the first time. "Haste makes waste." While this might be an old saying, it makes more sense today than ever before. (73) The symbol reaction will give one a greater awareness and appreciation of the world around him. If we could but pause, delay, analyze, and see, we would have a deeper and truer appreciation of essentials, and the differences to be found in all situations. We could learn how to get down to facts, and our decisions would have a higher degree of predictability. Dr. Sidney BlaTt of Mount Sinai's Psychosomatic and Psychiatric Institute has tested almost one hundred persons, mostly scientists, on an electronic problem-solving device that reveals the methods by which decisions are reached. People who make decisions efficiently act on intuition or hunches, but educated hunches, he says. They gather information first by questions, but use few unnecessary

B2 page. 10

questions. They assimilate and analyze a great deal of information before moving on into the unknown with a hunch. Actually, according to Dr. Blafi, "the efficient decision-maker takes longer to gather facts and reach the point of intuition than the inefficient one. But, once at the hunch stage, he moves rapidly, while the inefficient executive continues to guess and flounder." (74) In another study, a similar conclusion was reached. A snap judgement is likely to be a bad judgement. This was found in an eighteen-month study on decision-making among two hundred and two U.S. Air Force R.O.T.C. cadets at Catholic University, Washington D.C, in a joint project of the university's psychology laboratories and ACF. Electronics, a division of American car and foundry industries. Those who consistently made good decisions used all the time available to them, the study showed. And, as might have been expected, it was found that intelligent individuals make better decisions. (75) In terms of efficiency, we might define a genius or a fully functioning person in the following way: Genius is the ability to evade work by doing something right the first time it has to be done. By taking more time and pausing, delaying, and analyzing, we can save countless hours in time, and a great deal of energy. In essence, we can make time and energy work for us rather than against us. (76) These are two of man's most important related factors, and the good executive or worker, in getting greater productivity and efficiency, will use all available means at his disposal. This obviously presupposes an understanding of what constitutes efficiency, and therefore the means of achieving it. Without this knowledge, no person can truly be called a fully functioning individual. (77) Let us present some summaries and conclusions to this signal reaction/symbol reaction principle: (78) 1. When we behave in terms of signal reactions, we are copying animals in our responses. We are reducing the human level of response to the animal level. 1 think that this is a tremendously important principle. We are reducing the human level of response to the animal level. Most of the misevaluations start with a signal reaction. Signal reactions lend to produce misevaluations, whereas misevaluations follow from signal reactions. In other words, the signal reaction will lead into jumping to conclusions or misunderstandings, etc. When we do not orient our lives by symbol reactions, we do not observe the world of reality. We tend to have an immature and superficial perspective and understanding of things. We do not take time to observe, analyze, and understand. The signal reaction leads toward ignorance or lack of knowledge about many things. Signal reactions not only lead toward misunderstandings, conflicts, and confusions, but they may lead toward injurious actions against others. Our tendencies to behave in terms of signal reactions may hurt others also. And Therefore, signal reactions tend to be anti-time-binding. Symbol reactions tend to fulfill man's time-binding functions and potentialities.

(79) (80) (81) (82) (83)

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Appendix II, Seciion B2: Signal and Symbol Reactions: How to Stop and Think D. Maas
Instructional Objectives

B2 page.ll

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

Describe and provide illustrations of reflex responses. [B2 para.05] Compare and contrast the reflex action with the signal reaction. [B2 para.06] Provide examples illustrating conditioned, automatic signal reactions. [B2 para.08] Explain the context in which the signal reaction could be considered anti-survival behavior. [B2 para. 10] Illustrate examples of the regressive frozen response. [B2 para. 14] Illustrate examples of signal reactions. [B2 para. 18] Explain what Berman refers to as the human evaluation phase. [B2 para. 19] Discuss the context in which signatreactions could be classified as stupid behavior. [B2 para.20] Describe the process known as the psychology of momentum. [B2 para.26] Trace the development of panic as a function of signal reactions. [B2 para.31] Illustrate the circular response characteristic of a panic reaction. [B2 para.35] Explain how the circular response of panic could be classified as a second order abstraction. [B2 para.35j Define and illustrate what Korzybski referred to as a symbol reaction. [B2 para.42] Discuss the role of the pause or delay in the symbol reaction. [B2 para.46] Summarize and order the four sequential characteristics of the symbol reaction. [B2 para.46] Discuss the context in which humans through signal reactions pathologically copy animals. [B2 para.50] Differentiate between a conditioned and conditional response. [B2 para,53] Describe what Korzybski referred to as conditional response. [B2 para.53] Relate the process of projection to signal reaction. [B2 para.54] Explain the context in which pausing and delaying are inappropriate. [B2 para.61] Explain why procrastination could be considered inappropriate behavior illustrating coping with inadequate data. [B2 para.61] Illustrate what Berman (and Korzybski) referred to as an unsane semantic reaction. [B2 para.65] Illustrate from political speeches examples of signal reactions. [B2 para.67] Describe and illustrate what Berman refers to as a speed neurosis. [B2 para.71] Summarize Dr. Blatf s conclusion about decision making. [B2 para.74] Explain the relationship of genius to pausing, delaying, and analyzing. [B2 para.75] Summarize six conclusions relating to the signal/symbol reaction principle. [B2 para.79] Explain the context in which signal reactions tend to be anti-lime-binding. [B2 para.83] Explain the context in which symbol reactions help fulfill time-binding functions and potentialities. [B2 para.83]

B2 page. 12 Index Ability to think Anti-survival behavior "Broccoli" example Cat-egorists "Cheese is cheese" example "ChungKing China" example Circular response "Coconut grove nightclub" example Conditioned response Conditional response "Copperhead" example Copying animals Decision-making Delay (two second activity) Divorce "cooling-off period" example
Dog-ma t is is

39 10 64 56 12 35 30 53 44 50, 78 74 62 68
56

Fish/minnow example Fission analogy Frozen responses "Hoot owl disaster" example Human evaluation phase "Iroquoistheater fire" example Korzybski "Letting off steam" example Orson Wells "Man from Mars" example Panic/panic reaction Pause/delay/analyze Pavlov's dog Procrastination Psychology of momentum "Red/green light" example Reflex action Reflex-like automatic response Reflex responses "Room for rent" example "ROTC" example "Saluting" example Santayana, George Science and Sanity Second order abstraction Signal reaction Speed neurosis Symbol reaction Unsane semantic reaction "Walk around block" example

11 37 14, 15 13 19 31 11,52,55,56 25 27 27, 35 46,75 6 59 26 53 5, 17 50 5, 50 20 56 11. 53, 55 35 6, 8, 17, 67, 78 71 46 65 70

Appendix II, Section B3a: Language and Semantic Environment D. Maas

B3a page.l

Language and Semantic Environment Sanford Herman Key Terms

Connotation^. Neuro-semantic environment Real/reel life Semantic environment Stereotypes Symbol cluster (1) The human race lives in language. Language and symbols are one of the most important differentiating characteristics between man and animals. It is this unique symbolic characteristic that makes man what is distinctively human. (2) Man has not only created a language; it is this same language that, to a large degree, controls man himselfhis ways of thinking, communicating, and behaving. Human beingjreact to a verbal environment, whether written or spoken. Animals do not react to a written or verbal environment, at least certainly not in the same degree. (3) Man is a symbol-using and symbol-creating being. It is this language or semantic environment that largely separates him from other forms of life. This is what we might call the human environment: an entirely different worlda human worldmaintained and created by language. (4) Language is only one aspect of our semantic environment which creates meanings in our nervous systems, values that we might guide our lives by, and pictures inside of our heads that may or may not fit the world of reality. These are what we are concerned with in general-semantics, for if our facts are not factual, and if our truths are not very truthful, we might very well experience frustrations, demoralizations, and unhappiness, which we have created for ourselves. (5) The language or semantic environment is an extension of our nervous system. It is an informationgiving agency, giving us second-hand informationand if we think about it, much of the information that we gel is second-hand. Much of what we know is not by direct experience. This means that we must have a certain attitude or assumption about the linguistic habits of ourselves and others if we are to achieve the highest degree of predictability in our statements and our behavior. (6) An important difference between the animal environment and the human environment is that the animals can receive communication in a very limited way. Human beings, however, constantly receive communication from others through radio, television, movies, advertisements, books, newspapers, magazines, etc. Our language environment has been an important part in man's education or progress. But there are, unfortunately, aspects of our language environment which do not contribute to cooperation, understanding, and progress. (7) More specifically, there are certain assumptions or attitudes that make man unable to cope with this continual barrage of the semantic environment. If man confuses the symbolic world with the factual world, and accepts everything that he hears as true, then he will find it most difficult to adjust to the world of reality. (8) One of the basic premises of general-semantics is that we should become oriented by facts rather than by words and verbal associations. The generalized, factual orientation Alfred Korzybski has called an e\tension;i] orientation. People who are controlled by labels, by words, and verbal associations, are intensionally oriented. Unfortunately, most people in our culture are verbally orientedwe respond to people, situations, and things via, or in terms of, the label. (9) One of the most important parts of our language or semantic environment is advertizing. Advertizing has had its share of criticism from semanticists, notably S. I. Hayakawa in his book, Language in Thought and Action. Hayakawa has said that, among the forces in our present culture contributing to intensional

B3a page.2 orientations, advertizing must be counted as one of the most important. He says that the techniques of advertizing are rarely informative. The main endeavor of advertizing is to glamorize the objects you wish to sell, by giving them brand names, and investing those names with all sorts of desirable affective connotations, suggestive of health, wealth, popularity with the other sex, social prominence, domestic bliss, fashion, and elegance. (10) Hayakawa says that the process is one of creating intensional orientations toward brand names, so that the consumer will automatically react toward the brand name with little or no consideration of the nonverbal fact that it represents. In other words, advertizing has become, in large part, the art of overcoming us with pleasurable, affective connotations. Many advertisers prefer that we be governed by our automatic reactions to brand names rather than by thoughtful consideration of the facts about their products. And these automatic reactions, which we call signal reactions, lower us to the animalistic level of automatic, trigger-like responses toward our language environment. Hayafcawa says, Within recent years, the advertizing of brand names has climbed to a higher level of abstraction. In addition to the advertizing of specific products by their brand name, there is now advertizing of advertizing. As the pamphlet of the Brand Names Research Foundation urges, "So it's up to you as a salesman for a brand name to keep pushing not only your brand, but brands in general. Get on the brand-wagon!" A whislw advertisement says: "America is names. Seattle, Chicago, Kansas City, Elm Street, North Maine, Time Square, Wrigley, Kellogg, Squibb, IpanaM, Heinz, Calvert, Goodrich, Chevrolet... names America has always known, names of things he's bought and used. Believe them. Yes, America is namesgood names, familiar names that inspire confidence. For America is namesgood names for good things to have.'" (11) This sort of advertizing of advertizing has become increasingly common. The assumption is dinned into us that if a brand name even sounds familiar, the product it stands for must be good. "The best in the landif you buy, by brand." (12) A graver example of systematic public miseducation can hardly be imagined. Intensional orientation is elevated to a guiding principle in>iifc of the consumer. Hayakawa goes on to say, Because advertizing is both so powerful and so widespread, it influences more than our choice of productsit also influences our patterns of evaluation. It can either increase or decrease the degree of sanity with which people respond to words. (13) Words are the important stock-in-trade of the advertizing profession. Advertizing agencies pay high salaries for those advertizing men and women who are able to string these beautiful-sounding words together to create the affective connotations to make the consumer buy their product. As we have seen, there is an important educational principle involved. When we respond to words as if they were the nonverbal fact, often the response i greater toward the word than the fact. (14) Commercial advertisers use words to sell their products, and the competition is keen for advertizing copywriters' jobs. A few years ago, the Reader's Digest printed a letter which won the writer an interview and a job in a leading New York advertizing agency. The letter read: Gentlemen, I like flat, buttery words such as "ooze," "turpitude," "loady;" I like solemn, angular, creaky words such as "strait-laced," "cantankerous," "pecunious," "maledictory;" 1 like spurious, gold-plated, black-is-white words such as "gentlefolk," "mortician," "freelancer," "mistress;" I like crunchy, brittle, crackly words such as "splinter," "brittle," "jostle," "rusty;" 1 like solemn, crabbed, scowling words such as "sulk," "glower," "scabby," "churl;" I like pretty, flowered words such as "elegant," "artiste;" I like wormy, squirmy, mealy words such as "crawl," "blubber," "squeal," "drip;" I like sniggly, chuckling words such as "cowlick," "gurgle," and "burp." I like words. May I have a few with you?

Appendix II, Section B3a: Language and Semantic Environment D. Maas

B3a page.3

(15) Even the classified advertisements found in the newspapers cannot escape the affective connotations created by language. Seldom is the language used one of factual reporting, but one of sweet-sounding words trying to create a more favorable impression. As a special journalism project at the University of New Mexico, a senior wrote a thesis on classified ads in newspapers. In a survey of 8,000 ads in eight major U.S. dailies, he found no sectional differences in language except for "smog-free" California real estate. A house is "cute," "a cutie," "adorable," "exquisite," "elegant," "a dandy," "magnificent," "glamorous," "spick and span," "clean as a pin," "a rare find," and, inevitably, "near everything and a real bargain!" A farm is never a farm, but a "rural hideaway," "rustic retreat," or "secluded estate." Automobiles are "jim-dandy," "slick as a whistle," "A #1," "just like new," "never a wreck," "peachy-keen," and "loaded." "All the extras." The highest praise is, "You will simply drool." "Help Wanted" ads seldom offer "jobs"only "openings" and "positions." Babies to be cared for are always "darlings." Lost dogs are inevitably the pet of an invalid grandmother, or belong to a heartbroken little girl. Dogs for sale are recommended variously in classified newspaper ads as "love that money can't buy," "darlings," "cuddlies," and "swell pets." The most refined touch was a bitch with a litter of pups, listed as a "matron." (16) Today, television is one of the most important parts of our language or semantic environment, for many. While it has contributed greatly toward entertainment and education, it has also created new problems for educators, juvenile authorities and psychiatrists. It has created pictures inside of our heads, false to fact, or misinformation, which do not fit the world of reality. It has added to an already stereotyped world new stereotypes which have no basis in facts. Television's space shows are making life difficult for science teachers. Before schoolmarms can drum basic concepts of gravity, space and time into pupils' spongy minds, they must first erase weird ideas some youngsters have absorbed from such pseudo-scientific video programs as "Captain Video" and "Space Cadet." TV's space people sail through space with the greatest of ease, blithely ignoring laws of nature. (17) A suburban science teacher we know well reports that some of his pupils who religiously follow the TV space operas are confused by the school text, which in most cases is at variance with what they see on the screen. "Not only are they confused," he said, "but a couple of youngsters have doubted my word." (18) The moon is a favorite picnicking area for spacial characters. The scientific sins committed on this satellite are legion. Space travellers walk on the moon with nothing on their heads but a fish bowlor nothing at all. The science teacher explained, They have little trouble with gravity, and a light summer suit seems to suffice. When I tell my pupils that the moon has no atmosphere, that the temperature on that half of the moon facing the sun is almost hot enough to boil water, and on the dark side it approaches 200 degrees below zero, and that the gravitational pull is only about one-sixth that on earth, some of the youngsters give me that "Oh, quit your kidding" look. Laws of time and distance, also, are ignored for the most part. In a half-hour show, TV rocket jockeys cover interstellar distance that, in reality, would require several generations of living to traverse [he added). (19) The world of science is so full of wondrous facts that it should not be necessary for television to deviate from fact to hold the attention of youngsters. "Mr. Wizard" and "Jet Pilot" prove this. "Mr. Wizard" conducts laboratory experiments in physics and chemistry. "Jet Pilot" educates small fry (and some of their dads) in the basics of flight. "Mr Wizard actually helps science teachers," our critic added. "Many of my pupils follow him religiously. He sticks to the truth and presents scientific facts in such a dramatic fashion that my students are way ahead of me in some of the lessons." (20) Dr. JMvMlb, who is a scientist, states that "many thousands of children today are suffering from TV neurosis, a farm of apathy which alienates them from parents at home and leads to reading difficulty at school." Dr. Mill says:

B3a page.4 I have seen children from four to six years of age who could communicate with a TV screen but not with their parents. True, the parents started the problem by being fixed to the TV screen themselves, hardly speaking to one another because of the hypnotizing effect of the new toy. Ntu^ (21) Dr. MHMB observation, that children can communicate with a television screen but not with their own parents or each other, might have an important effect in adult life. For there arg&n2ygh other factors inside of us which keep people from adequately communicating with each other. Dr. Mmm reels that automatic tools have taken over the job of giving affection. A technical, mechanical world has crept between children and their parents, to keep them psychologically far apart. This break of the family circle and lack of communication between its members prevents children from learning to read, as well as other psychological problems. "What we call a reading block," says Dr. Mlii^Ts an expression of the child's inner wish for a warmer, direct, verbal communication that he lacks so badly at home. It is his passive resistance to the parents' addiction to gadgets and automats." (22) S. I. Hayakawa has shown what a tremendous impact television, as an important part of our semantic environment, has had on the youth of America. In a speech delivered to the American Psychological Association, Hayakawa said that the present generation of young people is the first in history to have grown up in the television age. A significant proportion of children born after 1945 have their imaginative lives, their daydreams, their expectations of the world, created by television. A child who watches television for four hours daily between the ages of three and ten spends something like 22,000 hours in passive contemplation of the screenhours stolen from the time needed to learn to relate to siblings, playmates, parents, or strangers. An important fact about television is that you can have no interaction with it. Is it any wonder [he asks] that these children, as they grew to adolescence, often turned out to be complete strangers to their dismayed parents? What do the young people learn from watching television? They learn that social problems are never complicated; they are simply the conflicts between good guys and bad guys. Bad guys can never be reasoned with; you can only shoot it out with them. (23) Young people also learn, from the commercials, that there is an instant solution to all problems. Alka-Seltzer. Unpopularity can be overcome by using Ban. Feelings of sexual inadequacy can be banished by buying a new Mustang, which will transform you into an instant Casanova. Hayakawa says that the world makes all sorts of demands that the television set never told you about, such as study, patience, hard work, and a long apprenticeship in a trade or a profession before you may enjoy what the world has to offer. Disillusioned young people may at this point reject or rebel against the culture and its materialism, not realizing that what they are rejecting is not the culture as such, but merely the culture as depicted by Madison Avenue and the networks. Even as they reject the culture as they understood it from television, they miss the pleasant fantasies they enjoyed as children when they turned on the set. So they "turn on" in other ways. Having scornfully rejected the notion that they can achieve instant beauty and radiance with Clairol, they espouse the alternative view that they can achieve instant spiritual insight and salvation with LSD. The kinship of the LSD and other drug experiences with television is glaringly obvious. Both depend [concludes Hayakawa] on "turning on" and passively waiting for something beautiful to happen.

Appendix II, Section B3b: How Words Create Meaning D. Maas

B3b page.l

How Words Create Meaning Sanford Herman

Key Terms Advertising Brand names Brand wagon Consumer behavior Exteriskmal orientation Human environment Intensional orientation Verbal environment (1) Two researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have found that watching too much television can distort your view of reality. Dr. George GfirBner, Dean of the School of Communications, and a doctorate Larry Gross, a psychologist, concluded that many people live more in the world of TV than they do in the real world. To many people, the world that is outside their immediate personal experience is what they see on television. (2) Television is our most widely used entertainment and information source. Dr. Gtfr<kier said, "We found that, for most people, it is the only cultural participation they have. It presents a complete world of ideas, values, thoughts, and information. (3) During their six years of research, Dr. GArflner and his team videotaped and evaluated 656 plays and dramatic programs, 1,907 leading characters, and 3,505 acts or episodes. We gained a lot of information (Dr. Gardner said). For example, in the world of TV, half the people commit violence, a fifth [perpetrate] some crime, six percent kill someone, and three percent are killed. The killers are young males, and the victims are young females and older males. Most people pictured in the TV world are professionals, unmarried, and in the prime of life. Business, government, entertainment, law enforcement and crime are the major occupations. Results of the survey (said Dr. Gtfnfher) indicate that people who spend four hours or more a day in front of the tube live in a world created by television script writers. For example (he said) they overestimate the number of professional people and law enforcement workers in America. More important, heavy TV viewers overestimated the amount of violent crime in the country, and so exaggerated their chances of becoming a victim of a crime of violence. This makes them more frightened and easily manipulated by fear-producing political campaigns. (4) While there are many negative aspects of television, it must be remembered that there are undoubtedly many positive aspects also. And there is a long way for television to go in order to reach its educational potential. Television can become the most important educational medium man has ever created. What are some of the positive aspects of this most important semantic environment that create! pictures inside of our minds and meanings in our nervous systems? (5) We know that television is changing and increasing the youngsters' vocabulary. The speaking and comprehension vocabulary of many TV tots is far beyond that of their parents and grandparents at the same age. We have seen that teachers are learning to use television in their leaching, instead of condemning or avoiding it wholesale, as some still do. My old professor at Teachers' College, Columbia University, Dr. Harold Rugg, used to pride himself on the fact that he did not have a television set. And, more recently, one of the most brilliant syndicated writers in any of the newspapers, Sidney J. Harris, also noted with pride that

B3b page.2 he did not own a television set. (6) While there are many negative aspects about television, there are also many positive and important educational aspects as well. The news and educational programs are extremely valuable in creating an enlightened populace. Psychologists will admit that, to many people, the entertainment, dramatic series, and sports are an important psychological escape and emotional release. (7) On the other hand, the parent who uses television as a baby-sitter or pacifier is inviting trouble. A child who is overexposed to television may tend to become a listener and sitter instead of a doer. He may acquire the habit of sitting out life on the sidelines. (8) The late Bernard Baruch has said that what once was seen as the coming age of enlightenment in America is fast becoming the age of distraction. Television and other forms of the communication media have greatly influenced man's ability to think. Thinking has become a generally neglected an (he said). All the modern miraculous forms of communicationhigh speed presses, radio, movies, television, seem less conducive to thought than a log in the woods (he said). Almost, in fact, these jet-propelled, streamlined means of communication appear the enemies of thinking. They bombard us daily with fresh distractions and new alarms. (9) Baruch, financier, park bench philosopher, and advisor to presidents, made this statement in an address at City College in New York. He said that a main weakness of modern education is that it doesn't teach the know-how of thinking. Our colleges and universities have tended more and more to emphasize technical skill rather than thinking ability. This, he suggested, is why we perform miracles almost daily in our laboratories, but fumble like children when governing ourselves. (10) The charge that television is helping to make us a nation of stereotypes is an old one. One that has often been made against movies, novels, radio, and other parts of our semantic environment. This difference between reel life (R-E-E-L) and real life (R-E-A-L) has been perpetuated by the movies for many years. Columnist Irv KupfiineThas said, Hollywood is about to release a flock of movies dealing with the newspaper profession, which is enough to scare us poor working stiffs right out of our turned-up hats and trench coats. Have you ever seen a reporter in the movies who didn't affect a turned-up hat and trench coat? Hollywood's portrayal of newspaper people in the past has been more of a betrayal, but we now have the personal assurances of two starsHumphrey Bogart in Deadline USA and Bill W'den in This Is Dynamitethai theirs will be accurate roles with none of the usual foolishness tossed in. This we gotta see. Most of the real newspapermen it's been our pleasure to know give the dear old Daify and Sunday all they've got, but in a quiet, businesslike manner (says Kup(ine|). Usually they're so efficient that the casual observer in the sitting room couldn't tell whether they're working on a sensational page-one story, or just another party that this never would do for the movieswhich deal essentially with entertainment, and thus must hype up their stories to give the public the excitement it demands. But still there is little need for some of the silly newspaper scenes that have come out of Hollywood. The newspaper boys howl every time they recall the scene in North Side 777, which showed Jimmy Stewart typing a headline on the same sheet of paper he was about to write the story. That was a major blooper the press never will forgive. Reporters don't write headlines, and writing it before the story compounds the error. The art of headline writing belongs to the copy desk and editors. And why do the movie moguls have to include that old bromide, "Stop the press!" in every newspaper film? The only time we ever heard anybody use that expression around a newspaper shop was the day one of the pressmen fell into the presses!

Appendix II, Section B3b: How Words Create Meaning D. Maas

(11)
f

B3b page.3

In the book The Stereotype of the Single Woman in American Novels, Dorothy Dljgan indicates that

most novelists consciously select names that are unromantic or unglamorous for the unmarried adult woman. Names, for example, like Hephzibah, Punchin, or the three sisters Xina, Taxana, and Tabitha Snede, who appear in Ellen Glasgow's Barren Ground, must have been chosen with some conscious thought or purpose. Other names, such as Selina TibbsJ Melissa Bustead, Euphrasia Cotton, Zillah Sanders, Kezia Blount, Anastasia O'Hern, Olinda Pepper, and Octavia Hyatt, which might be classified as strange and unfamiliar names, were found for the spinster in novels. Miss Dllgan concluded in her study of the single woman in American novels, Scanning the whole roster of 150 names, one finds few which could be said to be either attractive or desirable. Few convey anything of a romantic quality. The preponderance of quaint, odd-sounding, if not to say peculiar* names is impressive, and one seems justified in concluding that they may reveal some bias on the part of novelists which they, in turn, have wished to convey to their readers. It must be stated that the names chosen represented only certain kinds of single women in American novels, and, probably, more representative of those several decades ago. Today, however, we find more romantic and suggestive names for the kind of unmarried adult woman in the cheaper novels found in paperbacks in drugstores. But the stereotype is still there. A study of these would undoubtedly reveal that the names chosen represent a bias on the part of the novelists which they wish to convey to^the readers.
*t

(12) There are many individuals who think in terms of stereotypes, who orient their lives in terms of these false-to-fact generalizations and misinformation created by our semantic environment. Too often, we think in terms of these stereotypes, and allow them to do our thinking for us. In fact, as Wendell Johnson has said, this is the kind of thinking that we do when we don't do any thinking. Hayakawa has likewise indicated how our stereotypes are substitutes for thought. He says: What are stereotypes anyway? They are, it seems to me, traditional and familiar symbol clusters expressing a more or less complex idea in a convenient way. Every culture is rich with them, and popular humor, cartoon and comic strips, and moving pictures play endlessly upon the stereotypes existing in the public mind. Ninety-nine out of 100 cannibals in comic strips are shown boiling a missionary whole in a large cauldron. Ninety-nine out of 100 Indians say "Ugh." On the covers of popular magazines, Ninety-nine out of 100 small boys with fishing poles have red hair, freckles, no shoes on and hold their suspenders in place with a nail. Any individual who does not know these stereotypes of thought and feeling, the widely current misinformation about cannibals, Indians, negroes, dentists, policemen, mothersin-law, old maids, college professors, and so on may be said to be a stranger to our culture. For a culture is the accumulation and passing on of traditional nonsense as well as of traditional wisdom. (13) We have been talking about our language or semantic environmentnewspapers, radio, television, novels, magazinesthat part of our language environment that creates meanings inside of our nervous systems, the environment outside of our skins Korzybski called our semantic environment. The meanings inside of our skins created by our semantic environment is our neuro-semantic environment. In an article called "Linguistics and the Future," Dr. Hayakawa has said: As psychology, the distinctive feature of general-semantics is that it regards the symbolic process as the basic differentiation between animal and human behavior. In accounting for human behavior, it postulates the neuro-scmantic environment. The environment, that is, of dogmas, beliefs, creeds, knowledge, and superstitions to which we react as the result of our

B3b page.4 trainingas a fundamental and inescapable part of our total environment. (14) In general-semantics, we are concerned about these stereotypes and other false-io-fact information that too often control the way we think, communicate, and behave. We are concerned about a general scientific method to break through these stereotypes and pictures inside of our heads to facts and the nonverbal world of reality. We are concerned with a generalized, factual orientation toward language, people, and the world around us. Until Alfred Korzybski's book, Science and Sanity, this idea of language as an environment was not too seriously regarded by many. This was, however, one of his most important contributionsthe explicit recognition and emphasis of the importance of our symbolic and linguistic environments as important environments, regarding man's thinking, communicating, perceiving, and behaving. (15) From newspapers, we respond to ink marks and nothing else. But the meanings inside of our nervous systems or inside of our skins provide the rest. We have responses to an outside language or semantic environment from an inside, neuro-semantic environment of meanings in a reciprocal manner. Each one reacts to, reinforces, and, in essence, creates the other. Alexis Carrfili, in his book, Man the Unknown, says that In all organisms any modification in their environment disturbs considerably their behavior. What we need, therefore, is an understanding of the meanings inside of our skins and the effect of our language environment upon it. Secondly, an awareness or consciousness of these factors on our behavior, and, thirdly, a program of defence for dealing with the language and semantic environment. It is our hypothesis that, if we can change our neuro-semantic environment to some degree, through the awareness and consciousness of its dynamic factors, we can change human behavior. (16) We may never have thought about it before, but now more than ever, man needs a freedom from his environment. He needs to learn how to think on his own, without our high-paid specialists in the communication medianewspaper, radio, television, advertizing, etc.doing his thinking for him. He needs to develop a technique to combat the affective connotations, verbal hypnosis and other substitutes for reality, so that he can learn once again how to get down to the factsthe nonverbal world of reality. (17) Man's freedom to observe and to think freely is as essential to his survival as are the specific methods of survival of the other species to them. Birds must fly, fish must swim, herbivorous animals must eat grasses and cereals, and man must observe and think freely.

Appendix II, Section B3: Language and Semantic Environment & How Words Create Meaning B3c page.l D. Maas Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Differentiate between extensional and intensional orientation. [B3a para.08] Illustrate how advertising encourages creating intensional orientation toward brand names. [B3a para. 10] Identify some of the positive educational potentials for television. [B3b para.05] Differentiate between reel life and real life. [B3b para. 10] Differentiate between semantic and neuro-semantic environments. [B3b para.13]

B3c page. 2 Index

"Ad copy writer letter" example Advertising Animal environment Brand names Carrfeff, Alexis Connotations Extensional orientation Gerbner, George Hayakawa, S. I. Human environment Intensional orientation Korzybski, Alfred Man the Unknown Neuro-semantic environment Reel life/Real life Science and Sanity Semantic environment Stereotypes Symbol cluster Television as semantic environment Television neurosis Verbal environment

14a 9a 6a lOa 15b lib 8a 2b 9, 10, 22, 23a 6a 12a 13, 14a 15b 13, 15b lOb 14b 3, 16a, lOb 12b 12b 16a 20a 2a

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions D. Maas

B4 page.l

Why Do We Jump to Conclusions? Sanford Bermart Key Terms

Assumption(s) of certainty Assumption(s) of probability Calculated risks Certainty, demand for Degree of probability Dogmatism Fact/inference confusion Inference Probability Psittacism Skepticism

(1) There are many areas in which we jump to conclusions or act on inferences as if they were factual. How can we stop jumping to conclusions? How can we recognize the difference between a statement of fact and one involving an inference? And, more importantly, how can we apply it to our own behavior, or teach it to others? We shall consider these questions, which lie at the heart of the problem of effective communication, good human relations, or intelligent behavior. (2) Let us, then, consider five important differentiating characteristics between a statement of fact (a descriptive statement) and one involving an inference (a guess, opinion, belief), and why we jump to conclusions. (3) 1. A statement of fact can only be made after observation, whereas an inferential statement can be made any timebefore, during, or after observationor, as is usually the case, with no observation at all. A descriptive statement, or a statement of fact, can only be made after you have observed the thing. Any one or more of your senses comes into direct contact with the nonverbal world. Your nervous system abstracts, or selects directly from the facts of the nonverbal world. Let us call this world that our nervous system abstracts, or the world that we see, a first-order abstraction. The nonverbal world that we see, feel, taste, etc., is the world of facts. From a deeper level of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., which we call the submicroscopic level, our nervous systems create the level of things, which we call the macroscopic levelmacro meaning large. Touch your chair, feel your jaw, taste a piece of cake, observe a car, or a person. These are all first-order abstractions; this is the level of facts.

(4) An important point must be made at the outset. This is that a statement of fact is never a fact. A statement of fact is on the verbal level; facts are on the nonverbal level of things. All right, for example: If I observe a car parked in front of my friend's home, this is the fact. If I say, "That car is Dgrked in Jront of my friend's home," that is a statement about the fact, or a statement of fact. If I have a Mpb, that is the fact. If I say, "I have a toothache," that is a statement of fact, to mebut as we shall see, it is inferential to you. I may or may not be telling the truth. It is important to remember thus far that a statement of fact can only be made after observation, whereas an inference can be made any time. (5) The second differentiating characteristic is, perhaps, the most important characteristic or feature between the two. (6) 2. A statement of fact stays with what can be observed, whereas a statement involving an

B4 page.2 inference goes beyond observation. Notice how easy it is to make inferences, or to go beyond what can actually be observed: My mother rented a room in her house to two boys whom she did not know. She was a little worried at first, but in a few days, she stopped fretting. They must be nice boys, she explained, They have towels from the YMCA. (7) Whenever I ask my students to make a statement of fact about the above story, they say, "The boys stole the towels," or, "They took the towels from the YMCA," or. They are thieves." These statements are obviously inferential. They go beyond the mother's observation. To say that they have towels from the YMCA is also inferential. Bui to say they have towels with "YMCA" printed on them stays with what the mother observed. (8) Notice, in the following example, one situation, but two different ways of responding. A well-filled bus was proceeding down a Boston thoroughfare, when a truck cut sharply into its path, and only the bus driver's quick wits and action prevented disaster. Pale and shaken, he voiced his estimate of the vanishing tuck-driver's character, origin!, and mode of life in words appallingly stark. Then, remembering the audience at his back, he turned to face them. A little white-haired woman forestalled his apology. My congratulations, she said, upon an admirable presentation of what we may reasonably assume to be the facts. (9) 3. A third differentiating feature between a statement of fact and an inferential statement is that a statement of fact approaches certainty, whereas statements involving an inference have low or high degrees of probability.

(10) Why do we say that a statement of fact approaches certainty? Why wouldn't we say that a statement of fact is certain? Perhaps a quotation from Einstein's Sidelights on Relativity will indicate an answer, when he says: "In my opinion, the answer to this question is briefly this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." (11) Physical science has been unable to maintain its philosophy of determinism, particularly at the submicroscopic or sub-atomic level. Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy, or Uncertainty Principle, states that there are circumstances under which the physicist cannot put himself in possession of all relevant information. If he chooses to observe an event, he must relinquish the possibility of observing another. In our present stale of knowledge, therefore, certain events appear to be unpredictable. (12) Within the past fifty years, there has been much new information added to the physical nature of life. With regard to man's understanding of his own nature, several facts have emerged that are worthy of special note. According to the accepted science of 1900, man's every act was completely determined in advance by the motions and forces of the elemental atoms. This is called the philosophy of determinism, with its accompanying assumptions of certainty. The science of today, however, recognizes that there is no complete predetermination of man's actions by physical law. If we take into account all of the physical factors introduced through the external world, and the physiology of the nervous system, there still remain areas within which man's actions are unpredictable. (13) We can never be certain when talking about man's behavior or the world of reality. We can have certainty in mathematics and logic, but this is certainty by definition. But, as Einstein has indicated, the moment we talk about the world of reality, we are in the realm of probability. If our assumptions or evaluations are going to fit the facts, or fit the structure of the world of reality at the latest date, we must therefore orient our lives in terms of the assumptions of probability rather than the assumptions of certainty. (14) Let us first talk about assumptions of certainty. It is this assumption of certainty that leads toward jumping to conclusions, or acting on inferences as if they were factual. For example:

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions D. Maas

B4 page.3

In North Little Rock, Arkansas, when a jealous husband found a man's billfold in his car, he immediately drove to the address shown on an identification card in the wallet. He rang the bell, and, when a man answered, he gave him a sound thrashing and a warning. Monday, the husband was fined and given a suspended 30-day jail sentence in municipal court. The owner of the billfold had moved from the address on his identification card. (15) Notice the assumption of certainty underlying this kind of behavior. How easy it is to assume knowledge that one does not have. If the man had stopped to ask only one question, the thrashing might not have occurred. But we do not ask questions when we are certain. (16) Dr. Nathan M. Pusey, President of Harvard University, in considering the problem of certainty relative to nuclear physics, stated that the certainties of a few years ago are inadequate to cope with facts as they are now known. There is a similar breakdown in the older assumptions of certainty in medicine, law, theology and the sciences. But this new doubt, and the hesitation to speak out which it perhaps engenders, need not represent defeat or retreat, nor suggest that we have ceased to care. It could be a very natural and commendable concomitant of deepening knowledgeespecially of deepening self-knowledgethat one can have. (17) Philosopher-mathematician Bertrand Russell, in his book on popular essays, presents the certainty problem in the following way. He says, The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice. If you take your children on a picnic on a doubtful day, they will demand a dogmatic answer as to whether it will be fine or wet, and be disappointed in you when you cannot be sure. The same sort of assurance is demanded in later life, of those who undertake to lead populations into the "promised Land." Liquidate the capitalists, and the survivors will enjoy eternal bliss. Kill the Croats and let the Serbs reign. Kill the Serbs and let the Croats reign. These are samples of the slogans that have won wide popular acceptance in our time. Even a modicum of philosophy will make it impossible to accept such bloodthirsty nonsense. But so long as men are not trained to withhold judgment in the absence of evidence, they will be led astray by cocksure prophets, and it is likely that their leaders will be either ignorant fanatics or dishonest charlatans. To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues. For the learning of every virtue, there is an appropriate discipline, and for the learning of suspended judgement, the best discipline is philosophy. But if philosophy is to serve a positive purpose, it must not teach mere skepticism, for while the dogmatist is harmful, the skeptical is useless. Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, 'absolute' philosophies. One is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of ignorance or of knowledge. (18) Now let us talk about the assumptions of probability. If certainty is impossible to attain in a scientific world of probability, then the assumptions of certainty must be discarded. In a world of uncertainty and indeterminacy, the assumptions of probability fit the structure of the world of reality as we know it today. In our thinking, communicating, and behaving, we must take into consideration other variables which might come into play. We must continually question our facts, the adequacy of our decisions, and search for more variables in situations. We should not be more certain in our behavior than the facts call for. Just as inferential statements have low to high degrees of probability, our behavior must indicate this also. (19) There are two extreme attitudes that make no sense in our modern world. One is the complete believerthe person who believes in everything. The other is the complete skepticthe one who believes in nothing. The complete believer, or the person who believes too readily, will fall victim to the charlatan. To him, if a statement sounds true, it is true. The world is full of those with a proclivity or readiness to believe. We need to question more than we normally do. Peter Abelard said: "It is through doubt that one comes to truth."

B4 page.4 (20) On the other hand, a person who goes through life a complete skeptic is as sealed off from the world of reality as the person who goes through life adhering to one closed system of thought. The complete skeptic who believes in nothing is living in his own empty world. There are some things that we must believe in, but we must manifest what Bertrand Russell elsewhere calls "intelligent skepticism." This means that the degree of skepticism or belief moves up and down the continuum depending upon the situation, facts, lime, importance, need, and other variables involved. Whether we like it or not, all of our future behavior is purely inferential, and therefore probable rather than certain. We cannot be certain about the future. We cannot control all of the variables involved in any situation, nor can we even know all of them. This means that our assumptions must be tentative. Our thinking must be in terms of probability, and our behavior must be in accordance with these facts. (21) We create problems for ourselves when we think in terms of the assumptions of certaintywhen we are too certainbecause then the results are not in accord with what we had hoped or plannedwith what we were sure of. Then we are usually frustrated and demoralized. Therefore the assumptions of probability are a sort of safety valve to keep us from giving ourselves the frustrations and defeats that come with being too certain. (22) Here's a kind of happy philosophy with the assumption of probability rather than certainty: The bill for his lunch in the dining car was $1.45, and my boss pulled out two $1 bills. The waiter brought in change: a 50c piece and a nickel. My boss looked up at the waiter, who gazed solemnly at the change tray. With a grunt of annoyance, my boss pocketed the half dollar, and, to his astonishment, the waiter grinned widely. That's all right, sir, he chuckled. I just gambled and lost; just gambled and lost. (23) Now, while we cannot control all of the factors outside of us, we can control our own assumptions. It is these assumptions that make us happy or unhappy, successful or unsuccessful, productive or unproductive. (24) As we have said, we must make inferences. Most of what we do is purely inferential. But difficulty arises when we confuse our inferences with factswhen we give our inferences the same degree of certainty as a fact, and we act on it with that same degree of certainty. Life is a series of assumptions. Whenever we try to predict the future, we cannot be certain. This means that we must take calculated risks. Our behavior must be in terms of low to high degrees of probability, depending upon the facts or lack of facts at hand. If we are conscious of the fact that our behavior or predictions are inferential rather than a fact, we will not get hurt as readily. Realizing the calculated risk, with the probability involved, will allow us to handle whatever future eventuality occurs. (25) When we confuse our facts with inferences, however, we act on the assumptions of certainty. When we act on inferences as inferences, we are able to calculate the degree of probability, and our behavior becomes scientific, and, therefore, intelligent. (26) Undoubtedly, one of the reasons why we do not tend to assess the degree of probability in our behaviorwhy we behave with the assumption of certainty rather than probabilityis because we don't even recognize our inferences as inferences in the first place. Therefore we are led to assume that our inferences are factual, true, and certain. It is no wonder that we have so many arguments and disagreements with these kinds of false assumptions. (27) 4. A fourth differentiating feature between a statement of fact and one involving an inference is that we can only make a relatively limited number of descriptive or factual statements, but we can make an unlimited number of inferences. It takes relatively no time, energy, or thought, to make inferences. It is the easiest thing in the world to do, and, as someone once said, "Jumping to conclusions is the poorest form of exercise."

(28) We can make an unlimited number of inferences, guesses, opinions, judgements, or beliefs, on anything. But we can only make a relatively limited number of factual statements about any situation or thing. It is much more difficult to stay on the descriptive or factual level. This may be one of the reasons why we don't do it as often as we might. Try this as an interesting intellectual challenge or educational game:

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions D. Maas

B4 page.5

(29) Observe something in the world of realityanything that you wish. Make some statement of fact about it until you have pretty well exhausted all of the descriptive statements. Now make as many inferences as you can about the same thing. Notice how you open uphow easy it is to go beyond observation into the inferential. (30) Try this on a friend, and you will see how we are generally ignorant of the difference between a statement of fact and one involving an inference. (31) 5. The fifth and last characteristic is that statements of fact will more often lead toward agreement, whereas inferences, especially if they are made as if they were factual, will lead toward disagreement.

(32) Politics is one area where there are many inferential statements made as if they were factual. Make an analysis of the major debates or arguments among men, and you will find this confusion prevalent. (33) How can we solve problems or resolve disagreements? Let us set up a hypothetical situation. Let us assume that I have a matchbox in my hand. I say that there are matches in the box, and you say that there are none. Which one of us is right? We can argue till doomsday, and never settle the problem or come to an agreement, because we are staying on the inferential level. How do we come to agreement? Obviously, by opening up the box and looking. We get down to the factual, or descriptive, level. (34) It must be readily admitted that most problems do not lend themselves to factual observation, and are, therefore, on the inferential level. However, most of the difficulty arises when individuals make these inferences as if they were statements of fact. (35) Where do we find this barrier to effective communicationconfusing inferential statements with statements of fact? We find it everywhere. It an?ars that this is one of the most common forms of misevaluation. It appears not only on the verbal^confusing factual and inferential statements, but it also is seen on the behavioral level, where we act on inferences as if they were factual. For example: L. M. Sutherland, complaining that Birmingham police handcuffed him as a drunk when he actually was suffering from a spastic condition, said: This is the sort of thing I moved out of Birmingham to get away from. Let a spastic come to town, and the cops swarm all over him. In Atlanta, an elderly woman who was about to be embalmed opened her eyes after lying in a morgue for almost seventeen hours and announced, I'm not dead. W. L. Murdoch, Murdoch Brothers Funeral Home, said two of his employees were struck speechless. The woman, Julia Stolling, 70, seemed dazed after her long coma ended, but otherwise she appeared to be in good condition, Murdoch said. A guy named Patterson, in charge of a Fulton County almshouse where the woman had lived, said, I don*t know what to think about it. The night man said she passed on late last night, and he couldn't tell if she was breathing, so he called the funeral home. Murdoch said an apprentice embalmer went into the darkened morgue to bring out the woman to prepare her for embalming. When he turned on the light, the woman raised an arm to shield her eyes. Young Murdoch called in another employee and announced, This woman is not dead. No, I'm not dead, the woman said. Where am I? To spare her a shock, he said, he told her that she was in a hospital. (36) Another example happened in Chicago: Mrs. Therese Butler, 60, was found in her bath by a maid Thursday morning. A doctor pronounced her dead at 11:45 am., and police listed her as an apparent suicide from an

B4 page.6 overdose of sleeping pills. But, just before 2 pm., as Deputy Coroner James Leonard pulled her stretcher from a coroner's ambulance at the city morgue, he said he heard gasping sounds and saw thin signs of life in Mrs. Butler's face. She was rushed to an emergency hospital, and, Thursday night, after being given oxygen, blood plasma stimulants, and artificial respiration, she was reported "improving." Dr. Jonathan Gates, who first pronounced the woman dead, gasped in amazement when informed by a reporter that she still lived. She looked as dead as they come, he declared. (37) Well, although medical doctors, morticians, officers, are trained in the scientific method, we still find these kinds of misevaluations prevalent. Police officers have been brought into court for false arrest, because they acted on inferences as if they were factual, without checking their inferences first. (38) I'm not saying that we should not make inferences. Far from it. Our lives are lived on the inferential level. Most of what we do is inferential. But wisdom begins when we know the difference between statements of fact and statements involving an inferencebetween facts and assumptions. One of the important characteristics of mature and intelligent behavior is not jumping to conclusions or acting on inferences as if they were factual. As Dr. Hayakawa has said, The question is not whether or not we make inferences. The question is whether or not we are aware of the inferences we make. Usually we act on inferences rather than facts. This is all that we can do most of the time. Difficulty arises, however, when we confuse the two. (39) We get into difficulty when we think that our statements of inference are statements of fact. We jump to conclusions and don't know it. We guess and think that our guesses are factual. We have opinions and confuse our opinions with the nonverbal facts. We make judgements, and think that our judgements are objective reports. (40) One of the most important things that we can do to improve our communication is to recognize that we do make inferencesto be conscious of our inferences as inferences. We do not want to do away with inference making, for we couldn't if we wanted to. But we must be trained in knowing the difference between the two, and behaving in terms of it. (41) When we are crossing the street, we are making certain inferences. When driving our automobiles, we are inferring. This barrier to effective communication or intelligent behavior is also a cause of accidents. From the point of view of general semantics, the barriers to communication are the same as the causes of accidents. (42) The first barrier to communication and cause of accidents considered is the signal reactionthe tendency to respond impulsively, automatically, or without thinking. The second is acting on inferences as if they were factual. Automobile drivers make many assumptions or inferences about the other driver, or about his own carespecially the brakes! Sometimes he doesn't even check his inferences by testing his brakes. Passing another automobile without looking behind, or over a hill, are some inferences made as if they were factual. Just as there is a scientific method (mature or intetligent behavior which can be applied to interpersonal relations), so there is the same scientific method that can be applied to traffic safety. From our point of view, most causes of accidents in industry, as well as in all forms of transportation, are due 10 human misevaluations. And it is this fact/inference confusion that is one of the important causative factors in accidents. In business and industry we find that one of the reasons why we have poor human relations and misunderstandings is this tendency to jump to conclusions, making inferential statements as if they were factual. I'm sure that you can recall many examples of individuals who acted on an inference as if it were factual, like Dave Brown here, for example: Changes in job assignment call for particularly careful explanation. A supervisor shifted his best milling machine operator from a complex machine to a simpler model. The next day, he received a call from Personnel. It said, "Dave Brown isn't coming in today. He quit." To the supervisor, the move had been a temporary expedient to get his best worker

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions D, Maas

B4 page. 7

on a simple but exacting job. To Dave, however, it meant sudden and humiliating demotion. For some reason he couldn't fathom, he was no longer good enough to operate his old machine. (43) If students, executives and workers could be taught the important difference between their inferences and statements of fact, and how to behave that way, there is not only a change in their behavior, but in the people around tnem, for this is the kind of uncommon sense that can be transmitted to others. We have found, for example, that if you can train a top executive, or head of a department, or a parent, not to jump to conclusions or pass off inferences as if they were factual, their behavior will be picked up by otherssomething like osmosis. We have found this way of communicating and behaving seep[sj down into other parts of a department, company, or family, and help[s] to lessen or eliminate disagreements, while allowing the decisions made to be based on facts, rather than inferences and assumptions. (44) In many cases, human relations have improved greatly. The men, for example, would enjoy reminding the others by asking them, "Is that a fact or an inference?" (45) This questioning technique is important in reminding ourselves or others how easy it is to pass off inferences as if they were factual. Perhaps you have asked yourself, "What do you do about those individuals who continually pass off these inferences, assumptions, or opinions as if they were factual?" (46) One of the best techniques is to ask questions. Ask them, in a diplomatic manner, "How do you know?" If you have a man in an important executive position who doesn't know the difference fjetween his inferences and facts, don't be surprised if you ytfll have difficulties manifested in many different ways. Dr. Hayakawa, in a speech to adult educators, presented a similar problem. He said that people talk a great deal of nonsense today because society requires them to have opinions on everything. We talk whether we know anything about the subject or not, and, after a while, we begin to believe what we say. Hayakawa calls ours a "talkative society," in which convention requires that people have opinions on everything, from atomic energy to zitherpIay^.Tie says the rewards often go not to those who talk sense, but to those who talk fast. Most of us have the disease of psittacism, a word related to the disease of psittacosis, or "parrot fever." We all tend to repeat, in parrot fashion, remarks that sound good, or make us feel good, whether we understand them or not. If you find individuals with psittacosis, ask them, "How do you know?" (47) More important yet, however, is the "parrot fever" which is more difficult to detect, and this is in ourselves. Have you ever asked yourself where you got your facts from? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, "How do I know?" (48) Hayakawa believes that much of social conversation today is picked up from radio commentators, newspapers, and sermons, and is pure psittacism. We tend to repeat, in all solemnity, as if it represented the last word in scientific knowledge, outmoded information and old wives' tales learned in childhood. All of us, including learned men with PhD and MD degrees, are guilty too. For we find it hard to renounce the reams of institutionalized nonsense memorized during our schooling. Thoughtful people [Hayakawa goes on to say] must learn to talk sense whenever they open their mouths, based upon logic, facts that can be verified, and sincere expressions of emotions, ilTstead of the phony enthusiasm of the television commercials. (49) Unfortunately, however, we too often define "sense" or "nonsense" as those opinions that happen to agree or disagree with our own. (50) Now, one of the reasons why it is difficult to talk sense, and so easy to make inferential statements as if they were factual, is because there is no grammatical, structural, or formal difference between a statement of fact and one involving an inference. Our English textbooks state that declarative statements state a fact. Most declarative statements, however, do not state a fact. They assume a fact. They only have the same grammatical form of a factual statement. Most declarative statements are not statements of fact, but statements involving an inference. You cannot determine if a statement is factual or inferential by looking at the statement. You must check it with the facts, or the world of reality.

B4 page.8 (51) There is nothing in a declarative sentence to indicate whether we know or whether we are guessing, assuming, or inferring. Most of our daily talking is with declarative sentences which make no grammatical distinction whatsoever between facts and inferences. If our grammatical structure of language, and our language habits, do not distinguish between an inference and a statement of fact, we tend to pass off inferences as if they were factual, jump to conclusions, and have other disagreements based on the fact/inference confusion. If there is nothing in the structure of our language to aid us in distinguishing between inferential and factual statements, we must be on guard against this confusion. Knowing what great effect that language has upon our thinking and behavior, it is safe to assume that this is one of the important reasons why we jump to conclusions so readilywhy we pass off inferences as if they were statements of fact. Our language not only doesn't point out the difference, but it leads us to believe, therefore, that they are one and the same: our inferences are factual. (52) We not only confuse our inferences with facts, but we also assume that these inferences are facts which can be easily verified. This is not only true of our own statements, but those of others. Most statements, however, are not verifiableat the moment. How much of that you read in the newspapers is factual to you? Our ability to corroborate or verify what we read in the newspapers is practically zero at the time. Almost everything that we read or learn is non-verifiable at the moment, because it happened in the past and has become a part of history. We cannot verify the statements, because we are not there. (53) Most of the information we receive is non-verifiable to us. We are at the mercy of those who make the statements, such as newspaper reporters, journalists, historians, writers, and speakers generally. This obviously indicates the kind of training that writers, speakers, and politicians should have if they are going to talk good sense. (54) Thomas Jefferson was concerned with this problem when he said, "Newspapers should divide their columns into four departments: truths, probabilities, guesses, and lies." (55) An important aspect of non-verifiable statements is the fact that you cannot answer them with any degree of certainty. But trouble comes when we act as if they are certain-when we actually have no way of checking. This has caused some of the greatest arguments, debates, persecutions, etc., that man has ever known. We are still constantly arguing about the rion-verifiable, whether it be in religion, politics, the beginning of earth, or the end of the world, as if our statements are true, verifiable, and certain. (56) W. Trotter, in his book, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, says, If we examine the mental furniture of the average man, we shall find it made up of a vast number of judgements of a very precise kindupon subjects of a very great variety, complexity, and difficulty. He will have fairly settled views upon the origin and nature of the universe, and upon what he will probably call its meaning. He will have conclusions as to what is to happen to him at death, and after; as to what is and should be the basis of conduct. He will know how the country should be governed, and why it is going to the dogs; why this piece of legislation is good and that is bad. He will have strong views upon military and naval strategy, the principles of taxation, the use of alcohol, vaccination, the treatment of influenza, the prevention of hydrophobia, the teaching of Greek; upon what is permissible in art, satisfactory in literature, and hopeful in science. (57) Too often, in our talking, we presume to have knowledge which, in reality, we do not possess. We become dogmatic about our own suppositions, as if those suppositions were factual and verifiable statements about the nonverbal world. The important objective here is not to presume knowledge thai we do not have. (58) As we have seen, having a critical analysis of our language environment does not mean that we should become skeptics. Skepticism in our world makes no sense. We have to accept certain statements, just as we must question the validity of others. Bui we must keep a critical mind, so that we do nol become victims of the fraudulent, the false-to-fact, and the non-verifiable, as factual. We cannot be skeptical of everything in everyday life. We must be oriented on the philosophy of belief, to a degree. In fact, we never find a consistent skeptic, for there are many things that we must accept on faith, but there are degrees of belief and skepticism. If you become too skeptical, the process of thinking slops. You become dogmatic in believing that your truth

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions D. Maas

B4 page.9

is the only truth; but when you have the general orientation of belief, although not necessarily accepting it as true or factual with certainty, you leave the avenues open for further learning. If you close the avenues of belief, you are driven toward a dead end. Your progress is stopped, for progress and self-preservation depend upon more and deeper beliefs. (59) Now what are some of the proper uses of inferences? In making decisions, investigations, and getting down to facts, how can we apply this to our own behavior? The following are three conclusions relative to the proper use of inferences: (60) (61) (62) 1. 2. 3. Check your inferences with the facts, but realize that they are only inferences. When you do so, you will reveal additional facts upon which to base your actions, and your behavior will more closely approximate the world of reality, or, be more factually justifiable. Most scientific investigations start with an inference, called hypotheses, theories, etc., but they do not end there. This is the difference between a good and a bad investigation. A scientific investigation is based on facts, while the unscientific investigation is based on inferences. Mature behavior of individuals is based on facts. Childish or immature behavior is based on inferences, as if they were factual. In making investigations, we must have a critical mind. Police officers, detectives, fire chiefs, safety experts, engineers, scientistsanyone who makes investigations must continually check his inferences and question his facts. Notice how, although all of the facts were against Roswal Woods, the conclusion was still inferential: In Norwich, New York, they had arrested him for drunken driving, but he insisted that he was sober. Police said his eyes were glassy, his speech thick, and his walk unsure. Roswal Woods was given the usual tests: he was asked to pick up a coin from the floor; he couldn't quite make it. He was asked to blow up a balloon as a test; he couldn't do it. He was taken to court; he pleaded not guilty and he asked for an attorney. Before a jury, the 47-year-old veteran heard himself accused. His attorney, Glenn F. Carter, asked Woods to stand. He did. "It has been testified that your eyes were glassy," the attorney said gently. The accused pointed to his glass eye, placed there after he had lost an eye in battle. "It has been testified that your speech was thick," the lawyer continued. The defendant, speaking with difficulty, said he has partial paralysis of the throat. He said it resulted from one of 27 injuries received in the line of duly in the South Pacific. "It is also testified," Carter went on, "that you failed to pick up a coin from off the floor." He brought out that Woods had been injured in both legs, and had undergone an operation in which part of a bone in one leg was used to replace the shattered bone in the other. Woods was unable to stoop, he said. "And now the blowing-up of the balloon," the attorney said. "You couldn't blow it up, could you?" The defendant replied, "I lost half of my lungs in the war. 1 can't exhale very well." The jury returned its verdict quickly: Not Guilty. (63) A final comment should be made relative to the relationship between impulsive reactions and jumping to conclusions. We have found that signal reactions, the quick, impulsive, automatic reaction, is a contributing factor toward acting on inferences as if they were factual. A signal reaction leads one into jumping to conclusions. If we want to stop jumping to conclusions, or lessen our tendencies of acting on inferences as if they were factual, one of the first things we must do is practice and manifest a symbol reaction. We must pause, delay, and analyze just a little more than we normally do. The following example will illustrate many

B4 page. 10 of the misevaluations that we have been considering. "Men are comic," she said, smiling dreamily. Not knowing whether this indicated praise or blame, I answered noncommittally, "Quite true." "Really, my husband's a regular Othello. Sometimes I'm sorry that I married him." I looked helplessly at her. "Until you explain," I began. "Oh, I forgot that you hadn't heard. About three weeks ago, I was walking home with my husband through the square. I had on a large black hat which suits me awfully well, and my cheeks were quite pink from walking, and really I looked quite pretty. As we passed under a street light, a pale, dark-haired fellow standing nearby glanced at me and suddenly took my husband by his sleeve. 'Would you oblige me with a light?' he says. Alexander pulled his arm away, stooped down, and, quicker than lightning, banged him on the head with a brick. He fell like a log. It was awful!" "Why, what on earth made your husband get jealous all of a sudden?" She shrugged her shoulders. "I told you that men are very comic." Bidding her farewell, I went out, and at the corner came across her husband. "Hello, old chap," I said. They tell me youVe been breaking people's heads open." He burst out laughing. "So, you've been talking to my wife, huh? It was jolly lucky that brick came so pat into my handotherwise, just think! I had about 1,500 rubles in my pocket, and my wife was wearing her diamond earrings." "Do you think he wanted to rob you?" "A man accosts you in a deserted spot, asks for a light and gets hold of your armWhat more do you want?" Perplexed, I left him and walked on. There's no catching you today," I heard a voice say from behind. I looked around and saw a friend I hadn't set eyes upon for three weeks. "D n!" I exclaimed. "What on earth has happened to you?" He smiled faintly and asked, in turn, "Do you know whether any lunatics have been at large lately? I was attacked by one three weeks ago. I left the hospital only today." With sudden interest, I asked. Three weeks ago? Were you sitting in the square?" "Yes, I was," he said. The most absurd thing happened: I was silting in the square, dying for a smoke. I didn't have any matches, and after ten minutes or so, a gentleman passes with some old hag. He was smoking. I went up to him, touched him on the sleeve, and asked in my most polite manner, 'Can you oblige me with a light?* And what do you think? The madman stoops down, picks something up, and the next moment I'm lying on the ground with a broken head, unconscious. You probably read about it in the newspaper." I looked at him and asked earnestly, "Do you really believe you met up with a lunatic?" "I'm sure of it," he said. An hour afterwards, I was eagerly digging in old back numbers of the local paper. At last I found what I was looking for: a short note in the accident column. It was entitled, "Under the Influence of Drink." It said: "Yesterday morning the keepers of the square found on a bench a young man whose papers showed him to be of good family. He had evidently fallen to the ground while in a state of extreme intoxication, and had broken his head on a nearby brick. The distress of this prodigal's parents is indescribable." (64) Now let us consider some conclusions for the fact/inference principle. 1. 2. Basically, life is lived on the inferential level. Make all the inferences that you want, but know that you are doing so. Know the difference between the two. Check your inferences.

I I I I I I
i

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions D. Maas 3. 4. 5.

B4 page. 11

Don't pass off inferences as if they were statements of fact. And also, don't accept others' inferences as if they were factual. Don't act on inferences as if they were factual. And, finally Orient your life in terms of the assumptions of probability, not the assumptions of certainty. Check your assumptions, and be willing to say, in effect, "I don't know."

B4 page. 12 Instructional Objectives

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Differentiate between a statement of fact and an inference. [B4 para.Ol, 06, 07, 27, 31] Explain what we mean by the term "first-order abstraction." [B4 para.03] Explain the context in which a statement of fact is not a fact. [B4 para.04] Summarize Heisenberg's principle of Indeterminacy (or Uncertainty principle). [B4 para. 11] Contrast the assumptions of probability with the assumptions of certainty. [B4 para.13] Explain :he context in which uncertainty is a virtue. [B4 para. 17] Explain the context in which skepticism is a vice. [B4 para. 17] Identify the five differentiating features separating statements of fact and statements of inference. [B4 para. 38] Explain the connection between the signal reaction and the inference/fact confusion. [B4 para. 42] Explain the condition known as psittacism. [B4 para. 48] Identify the four departments into which Jefferson suggested newspapers should divide their columns. [B4 para. 54] Explain three conclusions one can make relative to the proper use of inferences. [B4 para. 60]

Appendix II, Section B4: Why Do We Jump to Conclusions? D. Maas Index Abelard, Peter Absolute philosophies Assumptions Assumption(s) of certainty Assumption(s) of probability Auberchenko Believer (complete) Calculated risk Certainty (demand for) Complete believer Complete skeptic Degrees of probability Demand for certainty Descriptive statements Determinism (philosophy of) Dogmatism Einstein Fact/inference confusion First-order abstraction Hayakawa, S. I. Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty "I'm not dead" example Inference Inference/fact confusion Inferential level Instincts of the Het(d Jefferson, Thomas Jump to conclusions Macroscopic level New doubt Non-verbal level Philosophy of deteminism "Point of view" Probability Psittacism Pusey, Nathan Risk (calculated) Russell, Bertrand Sidelights of Relativity Signal reaction Skeptic (complete) Skepticism Statement of fact Sub-microscopic level Trotter, W. Uncertainty principle "Woods, Roswall" example "YMCA" example

B4 page. 13

19 17 23,24 13, 21, 25 13,22 63 19 24 17 19 19 9 17 27 12 17,58 10 2, 25, 35, 64 3 48 11 35 7, 35, 38, 59 2 33 56 54 51 3 16 4 12 63 9, 13 46 16 24 17 10 42 19 17,58

6 II 56
11

62 7

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas

B5 page.l

The Closed Mind Sanford Berman Key Terms

Absolute philosophies Abstracting Allness orientation Certainty, demand for Circle of allness Closed mind Common sense Consciousness of abstracting Consciousness of the Etc. Etc. Failure to date Hardening of the attitudes Jehovah complex Non-allness orientation Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis Stereotypes Uncommon sense

(1) In our daily use of language, our attitudes and our ways of thinking can at any lime lead us to communication failure. They affect our motivation to communicate, our listening effectiveness, and, ultimately, our behavior. We should be familiar enough with the problems they can cause so that we can recognize and cope with these when they appear. (2) One of the greatest blocks to communication is the allness attitude. It manifests itself in people who fail to listen, because they're already thinking to themselves, "I know all about that." Because they assume that they know all there is to know about something, these people develop a number of poor thinking, listening, and speaking habits. (3) People afflicted with an allness attitude (and most of us are) fail to realize that there are many factors which limit our acquaintance with things. For example, let me ask you a question that you may or may not have thought about before: Can we ever know all about anything? (4) Think about that for a while. Is there anything that we can know all about? Can we ever say, after examining something, "I know all about it?" I once had a fingerprint expert in class who insisted that he knew all about fingerprinting. Fortunately, there was another fingerprinting expert who quite conclusively proved that he did not. (5) As far as we know, we cannot know all about anything. The more we consider this question, the more we realize that we do not know all about anything. There are so many factors, relationships, minutiae inherent in the simplest or smallest thing. (6) Take a pencil, for example. Can we know all about a simple little pencil? Well, if we make a detailed examination of this simple product, we might see that from the four corners of the earth, rare ingredients are gathered for some pencils. Smooth, silvery graphite from Ceylon and Madagascar; jet black graphite from Mexico; slick, oily clay from Bavaria; rubber from Malaya; straight-grained American cedar; from the foundry's inferno comes brass to matfe pencil tips; but the rarest ingredient of all is still not includedand this is the years of research and experience that goes into the finished product known as a pencil. Experience in refining, blending, assembling, research, testing, quality control, etc., are aspects of the pencil impossible to know all about. We can ask questions of who, what, where, why, when, and how, relative to all of these ingredients that make up a pencil. Actually, we can ask questions ad infinitum about the simplest of things. (7) At this point, students very often say, "But one can know all that one has to know." This may be true, but this is also an entirely different question. The question is, can we know all about anything? (8) For now, it is important that we realize that, as far as we know, we cannot know all about anything. No expert, no scientist, no engineer, no specialist, can tell us all about his area of specialization. In fact, the opposite usually occurs. The more he learns, studies, does research, and tries to answer the questions in his field, the more he realizes how little he knows, so vast is man's potential world of knowledge.

B5 page.2 (9) Now, my second question is: Have you ever met individuals who act as if they know all about something? How often have we met people who act as if they know it all. How easy it is to assume knowledge that we do not have. Before we consider this barrier to effective communication, let us go a little more deeply into why we cannot know all about anything. What are the limiting factors of our acquaintance with things? (10) First, there is time. Time is one of the limiting factors of our acquaintance with anything. In making this study, research, analysis, or investigation, we have a limited number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. in our observations. Usually, however, in our everyday observations, we have but a fleeting second in observing the world of reality. We are living in a dynamic world, and we have only a certain amount of time to observe things. (11) Number two: there are space limitations. There is no physical position that will give us full focus on all aspects of a thing. Look at any object, and you must, of necessity, abstract or select some characteristics and eliminate others. (12) George V. Denny, Jr., who for years was famous as the moderator of America's Town meeting of the Air, shows the relationship between where you stand and what you stand for. He said: My professor of geology at the University of North Carolina used to begin his course with this admonition: "The first lesson I want you to learn is that things are largely what they are because they are where they are. And that goes for people and ideas as well as rocks." He continued: During my post-broadcast talks, when America's Town Meeting of the Air is on tour, I often tell this anecdote, and hold up a ball which, from the audience's point of view, is black. "What color is this ball, please?" I ask. Invariably, someone shouts, "Black!" "Right," I admit. "From your point of view, the ball is black. Yet, from the point of view of those of us here on the platform, it is white. If you insist that what you see is right, and we insist that what we see is right, we can get nowhere. You might overcome us with the power of ballots, or bullets, but-" (and at this moment I turn the ball around) "-as we see now, the ball is both black and white!" (13) What does this mean in terms of human relations? The tragedy is that we cannot turn our social, economic, and political problems around for each other as readily as we turn a black-and-white ball. (14) You are bound by your heredity, your environment, and your habits of thinking, and I am bound by the same limitations. The only way for us to settle our differences and arrive at sensible conclusions is through honest discussion, with integrity of purpose and mutual respect. This is the nearest approach to the scientific process that is available to us in the field of human relations. (15) Now, a third limiting factor of our acquaintance with anything is complexity. Another reason why we cannot know all about anything is that the world is extremely complex. To unlock the secret of atomic energy required the work of many scientists all over the world for many generations. The man in the street is frequently accused of dealing in half-truths, but where is the whole truth to be found? We hear that everything must have an explanationthat it is only a question of knowing the factsbut since we cannot know all of them, we must limit our questions, and remember that we are drawing from an unlimited source with only a very small bucket. The more our scientists ponder and explore all areas of human knowledge, the more we realize the vastness and complexity of man and his world. But it is the simpleton who wants to simplify the world of reality in his quest for certainty. The simple solutions to problems, the easy answers and pat cures, the tfct for the absolute. From the cures of cancer to the cures of unemployment, we want to achieve the absolutethe certain. But we know that, in a world of complexity, of dynamic relations, and indeterminateness, certainty and the absolute are quite impossible.

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas

B5 page.3

(16) William Jennings Bryan had this to say to those who are continually looking for the simple answers: "Let him find out, if he can, why it is that a black cow can eat green grass and then give white milk with yellow butter in it." *p (17) A fourth limiting factor: our stereotypes. Walter Li On an ((in his classic book, Public Opinion, has shown how our stereotypes limit and control our ways of thinking and voting. In fact, Lifma redefinition of a stereotype implies the limiting factors of our perceptions and selections when he says: "Stereotypes are an ordered and more or less consistent picture of the world, to which our habits, our tastes, our capacities, our comforts, and our hopes have adjusted themselves." (18) Number five: interest. What we are interested in will indicate what we abstract or select from the world of reality. Each one of us has different interests, and, very often, these interests and what we see will tell more about us thaHwhat we might be looking at. For example, Two medical specialists were off on a holiday. "These girls in Florida certainly have beautiful legs, don't they?" said the orthopedist, after an appreciative look around the beach. "I hadn't noticed," said his companion. "I'm a chest man myself." Or: On the Athens, Texas, golf course, a shapely miss attired in the briefest of shorts stepped up to the number one tee and prepared to address the ball. Three caddies and five male golfers stepped aside and watched. She swung prettily, hooked the ball, and lost sight of it. "Could you tell me where my ball went?" she asked the onlookers. Sheepish grins passed over eight faces. Not one of them had had his eye on the ball. (19) Floyd He says:

Rt/CH

in his book, Psychology and Life, indicates how interests affect human perception, also.

Let us suppose that a geologist, a farmer, an artist, and a real estate promoter are looking at the same plot of ground. The geologist's attention might be attracted to the layers of rock exposed when the road cuts through a hillside, for such layers tell much about the physical history of the region. The farmer would probably examine the soil and any plants or weeds growing on it. The artist might walk about until he found the position from which the landscape was a balanced composition to be painted. The real estate promoter would look the property over carefully, to see how it could be subdivided. The objective stimulus is the same for all four of these individuals, but their interests differ. Their attention and consequent behavior vary accordingly. (20) Number six: physical factors. There are many physical factors, often closely related with position or space limitations, which indicate what we abstract or select from the world of reality. Physical factors such as light, sound, heat, nearness, etc., also determine human perception. Alfred Korzybski, in an article called "The Role of Language in the Perceptual Process" shows how darkness influenced four different abstractions from one situation. Notice, one situation, but four different abstractions. In a railroad compartment, an American grandmother with her young and attractive granddaughter, a Romanian officer, and a Nazi officer were the only occupants. The train was passing through a dark tunnel, and all that was heard was a loud kiss and a vigorous slap. After the train emerged from the tunnel, nobody spoke, but the grandmother was saying to herself, "What a fine girl I've raised! She will take care of herselfI'm proud of her!"

B5 page.4 The granddaughter was saying to herself, "Well, Grandmother is old enough not to mind a little kiss! Besides, the fellows are nice. I'm surprised what a hard wallop Grandmother has!" The Nazi officer was meditating, "How clever those Rt^jiianians are! They steal a kiss and have the other fellow slapped!" The Romanian officer was chuckling to himself, "How smart I am! I kissed my own hand, and slapped the Nazi!" (21) Now, with our very special concern with communication, language is a most important limiting factor. The title of KorzybskTs above article implies a relationship between language and human perception. Much important scholarly research and study has been done in several different disciplines to show how language and the structure of language indicates the kind of world that we actually see. Anthropologists and linguists such as Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, along with Alfred Korzybski, have emphasized the important role that language plays in thinking, perceiving, and behaving. This relatively new thesis is considered throughout this course. (22) But there are other aspects or limitations of language that must be considered, for it is this very tool that we use in communicationlanguage that is not only inherently ambiguous, but by nature greatly limited. For example, linguist E. H. SturfcVant, in his book, Introduction to Linguistic Science, says, No science in any language tells all that can be told about situations. For instance, the sentence, The man pumps well water" does not tell whether the man is young or old, tall or short. It leaves us uninformed about the color of his skin and hair, and the character of his clothing. We do not know whether the weather is hot or cold, in what part of the world the work is being done, or even whether the speaker is a witness to it. Neither do we know what kind of a pump is used, or how deep the well is, or what son of water it produces. We do not even know whether the pumping is going on at this moment. Perhaps it is an habitual operation by a man who just now is asleep. Any of these things can be told in any language, but no language is likely to tell many of them about any one occurrence. (23) Philosopher Erwin Edman in Philosophers' Questt says that .. . every statement uttered is true only in part, for it is possible in human speech, even in the most artful human speech, ultimately, to say only one thing at a time, and there are a thousand other aspects of the same fact that any one fragment of discourse can never even broach. (24) Number eight: sex. The differences between male and female are great, and these two are indicated in human perception. This is one of the reasons why husbands and wives have so many arguments: because they assume that the other should observe the world of reality as they do. What is of importance to the husband might be of no concern to the wife; what is of great value to the husband is of little or no value to the wifevice versa. Each perceives an outward world through an inward world of his or her own. For example: We were seated in the lobby of the hotel as she walked swiftly by us, turned a corner sharply, and she was gone. "That's an uncommonly good-looking girl," I said to my wife, who was deep in a crossword puzzle.
"You mean that one in the imitation blue taffeta dress with a green and red flower design?"

"The girl that just walked by," I said. "Yes," said my wife, "with that dowdy rayon dress on. It's a copy of the one I saw at

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas

B5 page.5

Hattie Carnegie's, and a poor copy at that. You*d think, though, thai she'd have better taste than to wear a Chartreuse hat with it, especially with her bleached hair." "Bleached? I didn't notice her hair was bleached!" "Good heavensyou could almost smell the peroxide! I don't mind a bit of make-up, provided it looks fairly natural, but you could scrape that rouge off with a knife! They ought to add a course in make-up to the curriculum at Smith." "Smith? Why Smith?" "From her class pin, of course. You must have noticed it hanging from her charm bracelet." "Well, I wasn't looking at her wrist." "I'll bet you weren't, nor at those fat legs of hers either. A woman with legs like that shouldn't wear high-heeled patent leather shoes." "Well, I thought she was a very pretty girl," I said apologetically. "Well, you may be right," said my wife. "I was busy with my puzzle, and I didn't notice her particularly." (25) Number nine, another limitation: sense limitations. We have limitations of our nervous systems, which is a reason why man has invented microscopes, telescopes, etc., as a kind of added nervous system. If we compare ourselves with animals, we see certain limitations of our senses compared to certain animals. In fact, man is now studying the amazing senses of animals to learn something about nature for possible military, civilian, and humanitarian values. The more we study animals, birds, insects, and other forms of life, the more we realize how limited are man's senses in comparison. (26) Number ten, another limiting factor: culture. The great liberator of the twentieth century has been the study of anthropology. It has replaced man's egocentrism and ethnocentrismthe tendency to study other cultures from our own point of viewwith the realization that other cultures must be studied from their point of view, world picture, or cultural assumptions. It has broadened man's understanding of man tremendously. It has placed in proper perspective the importance of cultural conditioning in understanding man's behavior and his place in the scheme of things. (27) We do not truly understand and appreciate the importance of culture as a limiting factor in communication, international relations, international politics, and dealings, for example, in the United Nations. (28) Now there are many other variables involved in human perception. A person's ability or capacity, his existing knowledge, education, or trainingall play an important role in abstracting or selecting. Change and process are important limiting factors also. For we live in a dynamic world, where things as well as ourselves are constantly changing. Our evaluations and perceptions are personal, as we see in the following example. Whether a man represents labor or management indicates what he will see. William H. White, Jr., in his book, Is Anybody Listening? pointed this out in the following: A cartoon chart of the four goals of labor was clipped from a CIO newspaper and photostated. A new legend, however, was attached at the bottom. It staled: "From June 3, National Association of Manufacturers Newsletter." Twenty CIO members were then shown the ad and asked if they thought it was a fair presentation of labor's goals. Four grudgingly said it was, and two couldn't make up their minds. The remaining fourteen damned it as "patronizing," "loaded," "paternalistic," and one man said, "He makes me want to spit!" (29) Religion, as we have seen in past presidential elections, not only determines how a man will vote, but what he will see or how he will behave. An atheist, someone once said, is the person who goes to a Notre Dame/Southern Methodist football game and doesn't care who wins. (30) Now, we could extend indefinitely our list of the limiting factors of our acquaintance with things, but for the moment, to emphasize this realization, let us add an "etc." The "etc." will also play an important role in our consideration of dogmatic behavior. Now, these limiting factors indicate that our perception or

B5 page.6 understanding of anything must, of necessity, be partial. From the totality of any fact or situation, we select or abstract some, but never all. (31) Let us now define an important technical term: "abstracting," or, "to abstract." Abstracting, or to abstract, is to select some characteristics and eliminate otherswhich, of course, is all that we can do. As Korzybski says, "We see what we see because we miss all the finer details." When I look at a brown chair, I am abstracting the color of brown. When I feel it, I am abstracting the feeling of hardness. Notice how many other characteristics of the chair I am not abstracting. Man is a symbol-using, symbol-creating, and rationalizing being. He can abstract from any point of view that he chooses. He can see things the way he wants to: The luggage-laden husband stared miserably down the platform at the departing train. "If you hadn't taken so long getting ready," he admonished his wife, "we would have caught it!" "Yes," the little woman rejoined, "and if you hadn't hurried me so, we wouldn't have so long to wait for the next one!" (32) Another example of abstracting: During a recent economic mission to Greece, Ambassador Porter tells of what took place: A banquet given in my honor (he said), in Macedonia, was given with oratory. When I was finally called upon to speak, it was past midnight. Since I was tired and sleepy, I made my remarks brief but cordial. "It's indeed a pleasure to be here tonight with you good citizens of Greece. You Greeks and we Americans have very much in common. We like to eat, we like to drink, we like to sit around and talk." The next day, the Communist paper blazed on its front page that I had insulted the Greek people. "Ambassador Porter," the paper reported, "said that we Greeks are just like Americans: gluttons, drunkards, and gossips." (33) Another example of abstracting: An Estonian refugee leader is credited with a diverting illustration of dialectics, the "logical" process by which good Marxists are supposed to arrive at conclusions. Some peasants (the story goes) once came to their priest and asked what dialectics are. "It is difficult to explain," the priest said. "But suppose two men, one clean and the other dirty, come here. I offer them a bath. Which one will take it?" "The dirty one," the peasants replied. "No," said the priest. The clean one, because he is accustomed to bathe. The other attaches no value to it. Now, who would take the bath?" the priest asked. "The clean one," was the answer. "No," said the priest. "The dirty one, because he needs it. Now who would take it?" "The dirty one," replied the peasants. "No," said the priest. "Both of them, for the clean one is accustomed to bathe, and the dirty one requires it. Now," said the priest, "which one would take the bath?" "Both," replied the peasants. "No, neitherfor the dirty one isn't used to bathing, and the clean one doesn't need it." "But, father," the confused peasants interrupted, "Each time you say something different, and each time it is the answer which suits your arguments!" "Ah, my children," replied the priest. "Now you know what dialectics are."
(34) Now, when we are not conscious of abstracting, when we assume more knowledge than we really have, or when we act as if we know it all, we fall victim to the allness orientation. This is the person with a closed

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas

B5 page.7

mindthe person who thinks he knows it all. This is the person who has the disease of psychological arterioscftlerosis a kind of hardening of the attitudes. (35) Now the a 1 mess orientation manifests itself in many different ways. (36) Number one: it is so extremely subtle. One of the reasons why this allness orientation is so pervasive among us is because it is so extremely subtle. This, I believe, is one of the most important aspects of the allness orientation. It manifests itself in small, as well as large, ways. No-one, it appears, is immune from it. Notice how subtle it can be: The young man said in a faint voice, "You don't want to buy any life insurance, do you?" "I certainly do not," the sales manager replied. "I thought you didn't," the embarrassed solicitor said, and he headed for the door. Then the sales manager called him back, and addressed the confused and frightened young man: "My job is to hire and train salesmen, and you're about the worst salesman I've ever seen! You'll never sell by asking people if they don't want to buy, but because you're just starting out, I'm going to take out ten thousand dollars' worth of insurance with you right now. Get out an application blank." Fumblingly, the salesman did so, and the deal was closed. Then the sales manager said: & "Another word of advice, young man. Learn a few standard, organized sales talks." "Oh, I've already done that," the salesman reported. "I've got a standard talk for every type of prospect. This is my organized approach to sales managers!" (37) While HI this dfcoricnta tin n manifests itself in the extreme form of dogmatic behavior, it is much more prevalent in all of us in other forms of misevaluations considered here. It should be a reminder that this subtlety is a most pernicious enemy of effective communication and intelligent behavior. (38) A second manifestation of the allness orientation is the refusal to learn. Although we find this allness orientation manifested in many different ways, one of our major concerns is in the field of education. The problem in education is not that students or adults cannot learn. The problem is that some students come to class with the attitude, "Show me something I don't already know." The moment a person believes that he knows all about anything, learning stops. Such an attitude, usually on the unconscious level, is one of the major barriers in education today. Too many of us come to situationslearning or otherwisewith these kinds of pre-judgements, or prejudices, that get in the way of our learning or understanding. We make up our minds loo quickly. We jump to conclusions too readily. We do not know how to manifest the uncommon sense of pausing, delaying, and saying, "I don't know; let's see," because we are not taught this, on the whole, in our educational institutions. Teachers, executives, parentsalmost all of us are concerned with the problem of teachability. What makes a person teachableopen to new ideas? What allows a person to change, adapt, or keep up to date? (39) There is no person or organization that is not concerned with this problem of teachability versus rigidity in himself or in others. Too many of us listen to and believe only that which fits into our preconceived notions, and are therefore unteachable. Too many of us are unwilling to learn that which is new or different. Epictetus has said, "It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows." Perhaps Irving J. Lee staled the problem in education best when he said, "In a sense, the goal of all learning is to keep learning." Maybe we have to learn how to learn. (40) Those who are in the position of teaching or training others are continually faced with this problem. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why general semantics is so meaningful to teachers, executives, military and police officers, and others who deal with many people. Some men, given a position of authority, title, or uniform, become afflicted with allness. They may not realize it, but it is there. They stop asking questions and start giving answers. They do less listening and more talking. They are more rigid in their thinking and planning, less flexible in their orientation toward people, situations, and things.

B5 page.8 (41) One of the reasons why executives and adults in business and industry have responded so well to this kind of training is that they see it so much in their daily lives. The subtle, unconscious assumption that one knows it all, or assumes that one has more knowledge than one really has, seems to be continually with us. We need special training and educational emphasis in overcoming this important barrier to effective communication and intelligent behavior. (42) A third characteristic of the allness orientation is the refusal to listen. Another way in which the allness orientation appears is in the refusal to listen to others. We find this semantic blockage between husbands and wives, labor and management, parent and child. East and West, Negro and white, etc. The following example illustrates this allness and the refusal to listen to a medical diagnosis made by a doctor because he was a Negro: The young Negro doctor, fresh from Nashville's M^yhMl Medical College, learned what he was up against as soon as he started to practice in Sanford, in the heart of Florida's Orange Grove County. His first emergency was the case of a woman suffering from a ruptured ectopic (outside the womb) pregnancy. When he arrived with the ambulance at the hospital, the head nurse, a white woman, demanded scornfully, "Who told you that you could make a diagnosis?" Dr. George Henry Stark had to turn his patient over to the white doctor on duty. No Negro doctor was allowed to practice in the bi-racial hospital. The white doctor let him sit in on the operation, which saved the woman's life and confirmed Dr. Stark's diagnosis. When it was over, the head nurse snapped, "Well, you're the first Negro I've ever seen that could make a diagnosis!" (43) Sometimes we set up an allness barrier to communication that is hard to penetrate. Because we assume we know it all, we don't or won't listen. (44) A fourth characteristic of the allness orientation is the refusal to look or look again. When we already have our minds made up, or when we have already pre-judged the situation, it is very difficult to accurately observe the world of reality. It is so easy to see what we want to see. (45) Sometimes this allness does not allow individuals to look at the facts. It is so easy to verify our own assumptions. We often hear the saying, "Seeing is believing." Actually, the opposite is much more psychologically true: believing is seeing. First we believe, and then we see what we believe. Many experiments in psychology and transactional psychology have verified this. The trained observer, however, doesn't observe with a closed or pre-judging mind. The good detective, fire chief, scientist, safety expert, manager, etc.those who make investigationsmust continually keep an open mind and look for other alternatives, causes, or variables. (46) Too often, after making an examination or investigation, some individuals act as if they have observed everything. It is difficult to get some trained experts to go back a second time and investigate again, because they assume that they have seen everything. And, if we can get them to go back for a second look, they too often go back with the same old assumptions and, obviously, arrive at the same conclusions. It is no wonder that they verify their old assumptions by seeing or concluding exactly what they did the first time. (47) Another characteristic of the allness orientation is the refusal to change or keep up to date. The allness orientation, which results in the refusal to change or to keep up to date, can have disastrous effects on individuals, families, companies, nations, etc. Ultimately, our survival depends upon our keeping up to date, but there are many areas where the refusal to change results in humor, irony or tragedy. For example, the 50-year-old "girl" who acts as if she were still 16; the mother or father of an adult, who treats the person as if he or she were still a child; the president of a company who refuses to change the policies of the company to fit the changing facts; the man, for example, who says, "What my father did is good enough for me;" nations with a Maginot Line mentality, who are convinced of their own invincibility. Husbands and wives often find it difficult to communicate with each other because of this allness orientation. For example: The suburban bus was crowded, and 1 could not help hearing a couple amiably pursuing a rambling argument about some domestic triviality. The husband, I thought, had the better

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind

B5 page.9

D. Maas of it. But, as he completed a statement that seemed to settle the matter, his wife calmly captured the game and set. "Now, look here, George," she said firmly, "I already know what I think, so don't try to confuse me with a lot of facts!" (48) Charles Kettering has said that "some minds are like concreteall mixed up and permanently set." (49) The histon' 3f the military, industry, science, medicine, education, religion, has been full of the power structure of that mif that refuse to change or keep up to date. Bertrand Russell, in his book on popular essays, says that "recognizing the fact that ideas change is the essential difference of a dogmatist and a liberal." The dogmatist holds his values to be absolute, whereas the liberal holds his to be tentative. Lewis L. Strauss, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, likes to illustrate, with this story, that invention has not come to the end of its tether: In the 1870*s, a bishop, who had charge of a small denominational college, made his annual visit and stayed with the president. The bishop boasted a firm belief that everything that could be invented had been invented. The college president thought otherwise. "In fifty years," he said, "men will learn how to fly like birds." The bishop, shocked, replied, "Flight is reserved for angels, and you have been guilty of blasphemy!" The name of the bishop was Milton Wright, and back home, he had two small sons, Orville and Wilbur. (50) Another characteristic of the allness orientation is assuming knowledge that one doesn't have. We continually see this form of allness in business, industry, and other interpersonal relations. Perhaps one reason for this is because it is so easy to do. There are, of course, deeper psychological reasons for it. To presume to have knowledge that we don't really have is an easy way of compensating for our feelings of intellectual inadequacy. This is a good way of not appearing stupid. Actually, however, we are compounding our ignorance with stupidity. We are all ignorant in many areas. (I am using ignorance in the scientific sense, meaning lack of knowledge.) We all lack knowledge in many areas, so great is man's knowledge todaybut we behave stupidly when we presume to have knowledge that we don't have. For example: One night, Leopold Stokowski was conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra in a rendition of Beethoven's Leonor Overture No. 3, and the offstage trumpet-call twice failed to sound on cue. Directly after the last note of the overture had been played, the angry Stokowski rushed to the wings with murder in his heart. He found the trumpeter struggling in the clutches of a burly watchman. "I tell you, you can't blow that darn thing here!" the watchman kept insisting. "There's a concert going on inside!"
(51) I think you will agree thai thai was a kind of stupid way of behaving. We can all lessen many problems by asking questions first. Here's anolher example of assuming knowledge coupled with ihe refusal to look:

A friend of mine, who was a father of twelve, volunteered to babysit one evening so his wife could have an evening's relaxation at the movies.
"Don't let a single one of them come downstairs," his wife instructed him, as she went out.

He promised to carry out orders to the letter, and had just settled down to a book when he heard steps on the stairway. "Get back upstairs and stay there!" he commanded sternly. He read in peace for a few minutes, then again heard soft footsteps. This time, he added the threat of a spanking.

B5 page. 10

Soon he again detected stealthy sounds, and dashed out in time to see a small lad disappear up the top steps. He had hardly returned to his book, when a distraught neighbor came in. "Oh, Fred," she wailed. "I can't find my Willie anywhere! Have you seen him?" "Here I am. Ma," said a tearful voice from the top of the stairs. "He won't let me go home!" (52) To lack knowledge is one thing, but not to recognize our ignorance is something else. The arrogance of the scholar often looks like humility compared with the arrogance of the ignorant man. "Nothing is so sure of itself as ignorance," said Ludwig Lewisottll In fact, the willingness to admit our ignorance is often an endearing trait, but our pride and vanity inhibit us from the frank admission that we do not know. (53) One of the biggest problems in executive development or teaching people on the job is to get them to admit that they do not understand some of the procedures or operations. If they are a graduate engineer, or a business school graduate, they seem to feel that it is a serious reflection on their expensive education if they cannot immediately apply the book to some specific problem. The most serious blunders, we have found, are made by those who refuse lo confess their limitations to themselves. Irving Lee points out the relationship between the assumption of knowledge, communication failures, and traffic accidents, when he says: Accidents occur, difficulties arise, and conflicts and misunderstandings result, not because we don't know, but because of what we assume we do know. Let me see if I can make that clear [continues Dr. Lee]. Rousseau said in his book, Emile, "Remember, ever remember, that ignorance has never been productive of evil, but that error alone is dangerous, and that we do not miss our way through what we do not know, but through what we falsely think we do know." (54) Another characteristic of the allness orientation is the refusal to ask questions. Coupled with assuming knowledge that one doesn't have is the refusal to ask questions. Notice the assumptions of the watchman in the example presented earlier. How easy it would have been to ask the trumpeter just one question: "What are you doing here?" But those who assume more knowledge than they really have don't ask questions. They act on inferences as if they were factual. (55) This is a particularly prevalent occurrence in business and industry. How often will a person give a directive or make a statement to another, with both the speaker and the listener assuming that they understand each other. Countless time, money and energy are wasted or lost because either the speaker or the listeneror bothdidn't take the time to ask a question, to see if they were both on the same channel of communication. (56) Another example of the allness orientation is the "Jehovah complex." The know-it-all is another manifestation of the allness orientation, usually resulting into generalized, dogmatic behavior. Dogmatism can be seen in many ways, and reminds us of the result gotten by the man who crossed a parrot with a tiger. His friend asked him, "Well, what did you get?" "I don't know," replied the other, "but, when he talks, we listen!" (57) Many of the problems of the world are caused by people either refusing to admit they have been wrong, or refusing to act for fear of being wrong again. The obvious effect, in both cases, is a kind of paralysis. If we could only concede the fact that we have made mistakes in the past, but have set about to correct them, and will make more in the future, we would be able to get a lot more done. (58) The important result, however, is that we might protect ourselves against the "Jehovah complex" of thinking ourselves infallible. Bertrand Russell has stated, "It is not enough to recognize that all our knowledge is in a greater or lesser degree uncertain and vague; it is necessary, at (he same lime, to learn to act upon the best hypothesis without dogmatically believing it." (59) Some of you might recall the story of Nick Christopheles, the "crazy Greek," who stuck an effective pin in the bureaucratic pomposity. Christopheles, an electrical engineer in Greece, kept writing to the atomic research laboratory at Berkeley, California, about his newly discovered principle of strong focusing for atom

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind

B5 page. 11

D. Maas smashing. Government scientists called him "a crackpot," "the crazy Greek," and wouldn't even read his letters. The principle on which Christopheles took out a patent stayed in the laboratory files for a year or more, while the Atomic Energy Commission scientists worked it out themselves. They could have saved themselves considerable time, trouble, and money if they had bothered to spend an extra few minutes analyzing the Christopheles correspondence. (60) What happened to Christopheles isn't surprising. Experts and authorities often fall into the trap of disdaining anyone who doesn't proceed in an accepted or orthodox fashion. What is surprising is that the scientists had the good grace and good sense to admit the mistake, pay Christopheles SlO, 000 for a patent license, and then put him to work. It is difficult to evaluate the value of Christopheles's ideas, the author and chief promoter of the project Argus. (61) Another characteristic of the allness orientation is the self-satisfied man. The self-satisfied man is another result of the allness orientation. He is secure in his ignorance, complacent in his own little world, and satisfied that his common sense is knowledge. This, of course, is a bad trait in the scholar, scientist, student, executive, or anyone who wants to broaden his understanding of himself and the world around him. In fact, a scientist ceases to be a scientist when he is satisfied that he knows enough. Thomas Edison has said: "Show me a thoroughly satisfied man, and I will show you a failure." A man who is satisfied with himself will never attempt to solve the complex and challenging problems that confront him, and, similarly, the company or nation that is satisfied with itself is dooming itself to extinction. Sjfdney J. Harris points out the relationship between the self-satisfied man and his common sense when he says: Both the ignorant man and the educated man are satisfied with themselves. The ignorant man calls his ignorance common sense, and the educated man calls his information knowledge. It is only the wise man who knows how little knowledge he has, and how useless is his common sense for solving uncommon problems. (62) Common sense tells us that things are alike or identical. Uncommon sense tells us that things are not alike or identical, and that a little difference can make a lot of difference. The uncommon sense of Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Freud, Copernicus and others resulted in drastic departures from the science of the era. Scientific progress is predicated upon uncommon sensethe seeing of differences, new answers for old questions. Common sense tells us that the world is flat, but Copernicus thought otherwise. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why common sense does not serve us too well in scientifically trying to understand the world of reality. It's just too common. (63) Another example of the allness orientation is the refusal to delegate responsibility. One of the unfortunate manifestations in business and industry is this refusal to delegate responsibility. Some executives, for one reason or another, refuse to delegate responsibility. They do not realize that when they do not delegate responsibility to others, their problems multiply in a geometric ratio. (64) Another manifestation of the allness orientation is one-way communication. We find too much communication going from top down and not enough from bottom up. If you have management, whether military, police, industry, government, etc., with an allness orientation at the upper levels, don't be surprised if you get only one-way communicationtop-down. (65) This is one of the major reasons for such poor communication today. It is very difficult to accurately estimate the amount of time, money and energy that is being wasted today due to poor communication. Reflections from executives and managers, however, indicate that it is an appalling figure: During one of our courses for Army officers, at Northwestern University's Traffic Institute, I mentioned that, if they receive a directive and do not understand it, they should ask the sender, "What do you mean?"
A colonel raised his hand and said, "Do you mean that if I receive a directive from

B5 page. 12 a general and I'm not sure what he means, I'm supposed to ask him, 'What do you mean'?" I answered, "Yes." The entire class roared with laughter, and the colonel shouted back, "You don't understand the military!" (66) Now, there are many unfortunate communication implications in the colonel's reply. If you have men at the top of any organization with an allness orientation, who do not allow you to get on their channel of communication, don't be surprised if you have one-way communication, and a lot of other difficulties besides. (67) Another manifestation of the allness orientation: poor mental health and inferiority complexes. One final comment might be made relative to the relationship between the allness orientation, inferiority complexes and poor mental health. There are several aspects of this problem that we should like to consider first. (68) Psychologists say that everyone has an inferiority complex, and is inferior in some ways. Accepting one's natural inferiority is a healthful and realistic attitude. This is not too often realized. It is the person who does not feel inferior to others in some respects who is often more emotionally disturbed than those who do. This is another aspect of the allness orientation. But the real test of the inferiority complex is whether or not such feelings are realistic or neurotic. If they are realistic, we must do our best to accept them and live with them, for, if they are realistic, any effort to overcome them is bound to end in disaster. Everybody cannot be all things. Very often, however, inferiority feelings arise from attempting to be too many different things to too many people. This circular relationship should be noted. It is the inferiority complex that creates further inferiority complexes, in an unending, vicious circle. The relationship between the inferiority complex and the allness orientation conies about in the following way: Let us say that a person has lost an arm, a leg, an eye, his hair, etc. To accept this loss as a limited aspect of his total being is one kind of an evaluation. But too often, this loss, and the inferiority complex relative to it, spills over as if it covers all of him. Instead of saying, "I lost an arm," he says, "I'm no good." Notice how easily these feelings of inferiority can generalize or spread out into areas where they don't belong: In Manchester, England, surrounded by bottles of hair tonic, Frederick Barr, 23, shot himself to death at his home. His father and brother told an inquest that the youth had only one worry: his hairline was receding and he feared he would become bald. The coroner returned a verdict of "suicide while the balance of the mind was disturbed." (69) Dr. HamMHB, of Northwestern University's Guidance Department, tells of a young lady who informed him that she had an inferiority complex. He asked her to compare herself with four of her friends in each of their most common activities. The girl rated herself third best in dancing, second best in studying, first in swimming, and last in roller skating, etc. He then defined an inferiority complex as feeling inferior to everyone in everything. The girl went out feeling quite relieved, and perfectly normal. (70) As we have seen, the allness orientation manifests itself, and is just as deadly, as a physical disease! It is no exaggeration to call it one of man's most dangerous psychological diseases. Wendell Johnson stated this analogy better than anyone else when he compared the allness orientation to a pus sac in the brain. In his book, People in Quandaries, Johnson says: To say, That is nothing new," is all too often to say, in effect, "I have stopped learning about it." It is one of our most common and effectively paralyzing ways of expressing an attitude of allness. To call something "old stuff frequently indicates nothing about what we so label. Rather, it reveals simply that we do not intend to make any effort to increase our knowledge, to improve our understanding, or to change our habits. "Old stuff means "I know it all already." An attitude of this kind"You can't tell me anything about that"has an effect quite similar to that of a pus sac in the brain. (71) Now, while the allness orientation is a misevaiuation, its opposite, the non-allness orientation, is proper evaluation. This is the kind of an orientation where an individual realizes the limitations of knowledge in his thinking, speaking, and behaving. Rather than having an allness orientation, or the assumption that he

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas

B5 page. 13

knows it all, he manifests a non-allness orientation, with the realization that he does not know it all. While the allness-oriented person tends to put a period or an exclamation point after his sentences, as if to say, "This is itperiod" or "exclamation point," the non-allness-oriented person realizes that, no matter what he says, he has not exhausted all of the details of whatever he was talking about. In other words, to the non-allnessoriented person, there is always an "etc." In fact, this is one of the devices to eliminate or lessen allness. In many fields of human behavior, we find people who act as if there were no more "et ceteras"-as if they knew all about something. But we know that one cannot know all about anythingthat there is always more to be said. (72) We should, therefore, be conscious of the "etc." Consciousness of the "etc." is the device to lessen allness. Non-allness is a consciousness of the "etc." It is also being conscious of abstracting. (73) So there are two ways of eliminating or lessening allness: (74) (75) 1. 2. By being conscious of abstracting. When we are conscious of abstracting, we are conscious of selecting some characteristics and eliminating others, and the limited, partial acquaintance with things. We are, therefore, conscious of the fact that we cannot know it all. By being conscious of the "etc." When we are conscious of the "etc.," we are conscious of the fact that, no matter what we say, more could always be said. We do not talk and act as if we had exhausted all of the details about anything. We do not talk and act as if we know it all.

(76) When you have that sense of non-allness, the uncommon sense of the "etc.," you are a little bit more malleable and less rigid. You are a little bit easier to live withfor yourself and for others. You will have more agreement rather than disagreement and conflict, for you will at first consciously try, and later automatically see, the viewpoints, perspectives, and assumptions of others as well as your own. (77) There is a great difference between the man who has strong beliefs about something, and yet remembers the "etc.," and the person who has equally strong beliefs but forgets the "etc." The first one is teachable. He will hear people out; he will keep an open mind; he listens to other points of view. The person who forgets the "etc." closes his mind to new or novel ideas. He becomes rigid and inflexible to those people, situations, or things that run contrary to his allness opinion. (78) People who are willing to admit they don't know usually acquire the incentive to dodo research, and find the answers. They are the doers. On the other hand, people who always make believe they know, never really try to find out what they don't know. This is a false pride, and a bad irait in the makeup of an executive, husband, or wife, parent, or child, student, officer, or worker in any occupation, or in human behavior generally. To admit that you don't know is the beginning of wisdom, provided you then do something about it. (79) Now, we might ask the question, "What can we do about allness in others?" Well, wisdom begins at home. It is easy to see the misevaluation of allness in others, but wisdom begins when you can see it in yourself. Some people cannot see it in themselves. This is a sure sign of allness. (80) We have indicated some reasons for the allness orientation, and some ways of achieving the nonallness orientation. But what about allness in others? How can we change the allness orientation in others? (81) First of all, let me say, it is not easy. Bui here are a few suggestions and conclusions on what to do about allness in others. (82) 1. We must be sure that, in our talking and acting, that we don't start the circle of allness. The allness orientation is a learned or conditioned pattern of behavior. If we have learned to be dogmatic and a know-it-all, we can also unlearn it.

(83) It is obviously not that easy. But, for most people, the non-allness orientation can be achieved, to a large degree. We must work at ourselves; no-one can do it for us. Others can help, however, because each one of us responds to his semantic environment. If we have a language or semantic environment of dogmatism, be it in family, company, military, classroom, etc., we would not be surprised if it will infect all

B5 page. 14 or most members of the group. Juvenile delinquency is sometimes started by an allness father who says, "Everything my son does is no good." If he behaves toward his son in such an allness, hostile manner, don't be surprised if the son looks for others to respond to him in the same manner. This circular pattern of allness or non-allness can be created in any organization or family. (84) 2. We can do a good deal of dissolving allness in others by /v assuming a non-allness orientation ourselves. Wendell Johnson once said: "If you want to be a genius, find yourself a genius, follow him around and see what he does." If we want to train others in a non-allness orientation, we must do so by exampleby our own behavior. (I should like to see one island of sanitynon-all ness-oriented personin each family, department, organization, and see it seep through into the behavior of others surrounding our semantic man.) And, quietly, over a period of time, teaching them the principles. Why do we say "quietly" and "over a period of time"? Because we don't want to fall victim to the allness orientation ourselves, in trying to change the allness in others. We must do it in a quiet, non-allness manner. You and I have created our own world of sanity from the world of unsanity, complexity and change. We will not readily change our egosystems, defence mechanisms, and self-concepts. We are not open to suggestion, so, if you are to change others, you must do it quietly, over a period of time, in a non-allness manner.

B.

(85)

3.

We must realize that there is no necessary relationship between a person's education, intelligence, and his allness. As a teacher, I am most concerned about this conclusion. My observations and experience, and those of thousands of others, verify the fact that there is no necessary relationship between a person's education, intelligence, and his allness. We find the allness orientation among the most educated, just as we find the allness orientation among the uneducated. On the other hand, we find the non-allness orientation among the educated, as well as among the uneducated. A person's allness or non-allness orientation seems to be a personal or individual thing. Although our educational institutions should teach or train a man in a generalized, non-allness orientation, this is not necessarily so. Some scientists or specialists are scientific, or have a non-allness orientation in their laboratories, but once outside of the laboratory, they are just as unsane as the rest of us.

(86) I have had executives verify this conclusion relative to scientists in their own companies, with a further question: "Isn't it interesting that the very men who are instrumental in changing the lives of others are so resistant to change when it affects them?" If our thesis is true, that we find individuals with an allness orientation at all levels, then we have an important educational job to do. As Korzybski said, "People who control our symbol systems control us." Those who control the power structure of society, in government, the military, United Nations, the Pentagon, science, education, etc., control us. For our own survival, they need to be trained in the assumptions that have the greatest survival value: the non-allness orientation. And, finally, (87) 4. We must realize ourselves, and teach others to realize, that this allness orientation shows itself in all degrees, in all variations, in all circumstances, and in very subtle ways.

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

B5 page.15

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Characterize the misevaluation pattern called "allness." [B5 para.Ol] Identify and explain the limiting factors which prevent us from knowing all about anything. [B5 para. 10] Illustrate how people's interests determine what they abstract. [B5 para.18] Summarize the Sapi({-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis. [B5 para.22] Explain the Korzybskian interpretation of Abstracting. [B5 para.31] Describe the disease of psychological artfcerioscilerosisa kind of hardening of the attitudes. [B5 para.34] Identify four manifestations of the allness orientation. [B5 para.37] Explain the maxim "believingis seeing." [B5 para.45] Explain the relationship of/anness orientation to the failure to date. [B5 para.47] Contrast the arrogance of the scholar with the arrogance of the ignorant man. [B5 para.52] Describe the allness orientation known as the Jehovah complex. [B5 para.56] Discuss the relationship of self-satisfaction to allness. [B5 para.61] Explain the context in which "common sense" and "knowledge" are pernicious. [B5 para.61] Differentiate between common sense and uncommon sense. [B5 para.62] Explain the role of one-way communication in fostering allness in orientation. [B5 para.64] Explain the relationship of the inferiority complex to the allness orientation. [B5 para.64] Describe and characterize the non-allness orientation. [B5 para.71] Identify and describe two ways of eliminating or lessening allness. [B5 para.72] Illustrate how pride is a dangerous trait in a scientist, teacher, or leader. [B5 para.79] Identify and explain four ways of helping others to reduce allness orientation. [B5 para.80]

B5 page. 16 Index Absolute philosophies Abstracting Allness orientation Allness in others "Ambassador to Greece" example "Ball-White/Black" example Believing is seeing Bishop Milton Wright Certainty (demand for) Circle of Allness Closed mind Common sense Common sense and certainty Complexity Consciousness of abstracting Consciousness of the etc. "Crazy Greek" example Culture Denny7George V Dialectology example Dogmatism Edman, ErwinlBBr Etc, Failure lo Date "Frederic BarrBaldness Fear" example "Girl in Lobby" example Hardening of the attitudes Ignorance (Certainty) Inferiority Complex Interest Introduction to Linguistic Science Is Anybody Listening? Jehovah Complex Johnson, Wendell Knowledge and certainty Korzybski "Lady Golfer" example Language Lippmanjlj Walter Lust for the absolute "Military" example "Negro doctor" example "Nick Christopheles" example Non-allness orientation Northwestern University Guidance Department One-way communication "Pencil" example People in Quanaries Philosopher's Quests 15 1, 31, 32 1, 81, 84 81 32 45 49 52 82 1 61 61 15 67 68 59 26 12 33 82 23 30, 72 28 68 24 34 52 63 17 56 70 61 19,31,86 18 21 17 15 65 42 55 71, 84 69 64 06 70 23

Appendix II, Section B5: The Closed Mind D. Maas Physical Factors Psychology and Life Refusal to learn Refusal to listen Refusal to look again R*nA, Floyd Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis Sense limitations Sex Stereotypes Sturtevant "Trumpet Player" example Tunnel" example Uncommon sense Vicious circle White, William H.

B5 page.17

20 19 42 42 44 19
21

25 23 17 22 50 20 62 68 28

n i

Appendix II, Section B6: Language and Language Usage D. Maas Language and Language Usage

B6 page. I

Sanford Berman Key Terms

Arbitrariness of language Container myth Elements, naming of Literalism fallacy Marriage, agreement by definition Mathematics Monolinguistic fallacy Mono-usage Multiple meanings Unconscious assumption(s) Undefined terms

(1) The problem of misunderstanding revolves around the assumptions about language and language usage. Before we can understand why we have misunderstandings, we must first study the tool that man uses for communicationlanguage. (2) There are many ways in which we can analyze language and language usage. We should like to consider only a few of the relevant aspects which we consider to be most directly related to the problem of misunderstanding. (3) The first important point that we would like to make is that there is no inherent relationship between a word and what it stands for. Language is purely arbitrary. Because many of us have been brought up in only one language, we unconsciously assume that there is some inherent relationship between words and the things they represent. S. I. Hayakawa beautifully illustrates this when he says, There is no necessary connection between the symbol and that which is symbolized." However obvious this fact may appear at first glance (it usually doesn't, however, to most people), they are actually not so obvious as they seem, except when we lake special pains to think about the subject. Symbols and things symbolized are independent of each other. (4) Nevertheless, all of us have a way of feeling as if, and sometimes acting as if, there were necessary connections. For example, there is the vague sense that we all have that foreign languages are inherently absurd. "Foreigners have funny names for things. Why can't they call things by their right names?" This feeling exhibits itself most strongly in those American and English tourists who seem to believe that they can make the natives of any country understand English if they shout it at them loud enough. They feel, that is, that the symbol must necessarily call to mind the thing symbolized. Anthropologists report similar attitudes among primitive peoples. In talking with natives, they frequently come across unfamiliar words in the native language. When they interrupt the conversation to ask, "Googloo? What is a googloo?" the natives laugh as if to say, "Imagine not knowing what a googloo is! What amazingly silly people!" When an answer is insisted upon, they explain (when they can get over laughing), "Why, a googloo is a googloo, of course!" (5) Again, there is the little boy who is reported to have said, "Pigs are called pigs because they are such dirty animals." Then there is the story of the lady who said to a famous astronomer, "I feel such an admiration for you astronomers, because of your many wonderful discoveries about the universe! But the most wonderful of all, it seems to me, is your discovery of the names of the planets! How, for instance, did you ever manage to find out that the red planet named Mars really is Mars?" The notion that the red planet, so conspicuous among the heavenly bodies, was first observed and then the name Mars later arbitrarily attached to it for convenience, as we attach a street number to a house, did not occur to this lady. (6) In explaining the arbitrary nature of defining elements, Dr. SeAborg gives us a humorous look at the scientist at work in arbitrary definitions. He says:

B6 page.2

The next two elements, 95 and 96, which we found at the University of Chicago, were hard to analyze chemically, so at first we referred to them as "pandemonium" and "delirium." When we finally managed to identify them, we found we had run out of planets, so we named Element 95 "americium," after America, because it was analogous to "europium," which was named after Europe. Element 96 was christened "curium" after Pierre and Marie Curie, because it was analogous to gadolinium, a rare earth which bears the name of another famed investigator, Johannes Gadolin. Similarly, element 97, which we found at the University of California after World War II, was named "berkelium," after the-cjw of Berkeley, because it was analogous toMerbium, element 65, which was named after Blif^'Sweden. Then came our next discovery, and because we no longer had any excuse to name it after a continent, a scientist, or a town, we named 98 after California, calling it "californium." The New Yorker magazine was so intrigued with this (Dr. Sc#x>rg chuckled) that they accused us of lacking confidence in our own future. They said we should have named 97 and 98 "universidium" (University), and "offium" (of), thus leaving room for our next discoveries to be named after Berkeley and California. I wrote the editor a letter, pointing out that, while we might not have had confidence, we certainly had foresight, because the next two elements might be discovered in New York and named "nubium" and "yorkium." As things turned out (Sedborg went on), the next two elements, 99 and 100, were discovered by us and two other groups, not in the laboratory but in the debris of the 1952 Mike H-bomb explosion in the Pacific. We agreed to name these elements in honor of the two greatest scientists of the atom age. Element 99 became "einsteinium," and element 100 became "fermium." The next element, 101, was discovered after we tried an impossible experiment with einsteinium. We had only an invisible fraction of this material, and when we bombarded it in the cyclotron, we produced just one atom of element lOloer experiment. But it proved to be enough for us to identify. We named it "mendcljtvium," after the great Russian scientist, Mendeljv*. who was responsible for the Periodic Table. The final element, 102, we haven't named yet (he said). Where will all this end? Well (Dr. Se/$borg shrugged), it's open. We can keep on going as long as we have instruments capable of identifying these radioactive elements. As we go up the scale, however, the element's life grows shorter and shorter. It dies before we can analyze it. But in the next fifteen years, I suspect that, with sharper techniques, scientists will discover elements up to 106. (7) Well, the above description of how scientists arbitrarily label or name elements should help in dispelling the false notion that there is an inherent relationship between a word and what it represents, and the unconscious assumptions of its essence underlying such a philosophy of nature. This is, of course, a carryover from an older, anthropomorphic way of looking at the world. But we still maintain, in our everyday ways of thinking, communicating, and behaving, these false assumptions about what it really is, in reacting to people, situations, and things. (8) Anyone who speaks several languages knows that there are as many words for things as there are languages, and there is no "right one." Children who are brought up in several languages readily understand the arbitrary nature of language and the fact that there is no inherent relationship between a word and what it represents. But those who understand only one language tend to fall victim to the "one word/one thing" fallacy, the unconscious assumption that words and things have some kind of magical, inherently constant, relationship. (9) There are many theories of the origin of language and of how things came to have names, but anthropology and cross-cultural studies have convincingly indicated the arbitrary and relative nature of words and things. (10) Now let us consider the ambiguity of language. Words can mean many different things. For example,

Appendix II, Section B6: Language and Language Usage D. Maas

B6 page.3

where can a man buy a cap for his knee, or a key for a lock of his hair? Can your eyes be called an academy because there are pupils there? In the crown of your head, what jewels are found? Who crosses the bridge of your nose? Could you use, in shingling the roof of your mouth, the nails on the end of your toes? Could the crook in your elbow be sent to jail? How could you sharpen your shoulder-blades? Could you sit in the shade of the palm of your hand, or beat on the drum of your ear? Does the calf of your leg eat the corn on your toe? Then why grow corn on the ear? (11) Well, words are ambiguous. They can be used in many different ways. As Alice (in Wonderland) said, "I can mean words to mean anything I mean them to mean." This is certainly true in human communication. Although there is, obviously, a high degree of social acceptance and agreement of meaning among people, we still find misunderstandings centering around the fact that people mean one thing when they are communicating, but the person to whom they are communicating means something else. Even the word "language" itself, the very tool that we use for communication, is ambiguous. For example, "language" is used in many different senses in the following studies: (12) 1. In semantics. An analysis of language in semantics depends upon whose semantics or school of thought you are studying. For example, the linguistic conceal c>f Tarskf is not the same as Korzybski, and the semantic analyses of Lady Welfby, OgfiffwRichardJ Charles Morris, Charles Osgoodt, Edward Sapir, Benjamin Lee Whorf, Rudolf Carnap, and others have marked differences in their linguistic/semantic analysis and concern. In fact, this is one of the reasons why there has been so much confusion over semanticsbecause the one word refers to many different kinds of linguistic analysis, as well as logic, perception, thought, behavior, and other forms of human responses to signals, signs and language. Phonetics. This is the study of language by analyzing sound and sound families, such as phonemes, morphemes, in relationship to the physiological apparatusteeth, tongue, lips, palatewhich produce those sounds. Phonetics is concerned with creating one symbol for one sound, which can be applied to any languagesomething that has been accomplished, to a high degree, in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Linguistics. There are many problems of language that linguistics is concerned with. In linguistics, the analysis of language is made on nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., but in Structural linguisticsthis is a combination of phonetics and linguistics, where the language analysis is made on sounds and sound families, and the relationships thereof. Psychology of persuasion. In persuasion, we are concerned with the kinds of words and techniques that influence human behavior. Rhetoricians, for 2,000 years, have taught and written about the importance of language and words in public speaking and persuasion." Philosophy of language. The concern of semantics in the field of philosophy is both old and new. Throughout the history of philosophy, there were critics of philosophy and philosophers pointing out the language difficulties and linguistic factors involved. However, not until the turn of the century has there been such a scientific and scholarly concern about the role that language plays in philosophy and theories of knowledge. Recently, there have been many books on semantics, language, and philosophy, with a greater realization of the role that language plays in any philosophical endeavor. Logic. In the field of philosophy, logic has had its share of critics in the form of language. But whether critics or not, all logicians have realized the important part that language plays in any logical system, and the inherent relationship between that logic and the language with which it is expressed. Mathematics. Although mathematics is not commonly thought of as a language, it is our most perfect language. This is one of the reasons why mathematicians are able to predict with such a high degree of probability or predictability. The language of mathematics fits the structure of the world of reality, something that our ordinary language does not do. Mathematics is now coming to play an important role in other areas previously assumed to

(13)

2.

(14)

3. 4.

(15) (16)

5. 6.

(17)

7.

(18)

8.

B6 page.4 be outside of the field of mathematical analysis, such as in sociology, biology, and other nonmathematical areas. Language and psychiatry. While there are many schools of psychiatry or psychoanalysis, probably all of them recognize the part that language plays in psychological or mental problems. While some schools do not place great importance upon the language factors, others emphasize the role that language plays in emotional problems. Man not only talks to others, but, more importantly, man talks to himself. And the kind of language that he uses in talking to himself, about himself, can have an important bearing on his ways of thinking and behaving.

(19)

9.

(20) There is one school of psychiatry that places, as its major point of emphasis, the kind of language that one uses when talking about oneself and others. I am referring to Dr. A. A. Lowe's Recovery Incorporated. (21) Now, these are just a few of the many ways in which scholars are concerned with language (not counting language in the insect or animal world, and the new breakthroughs in machine communication). But this does give us some indication of the tremendous variability and ambiguity of the very word we are concerned about in the problem of misunderstanding. The best illustration of the ambiguity of language is a large dictionary, where you will find many meanings, or the many senses in which a word is used. Take the word "line," for example. Here are some of the many meanings of the word "line:" "Straight line" on a paper, "keep on the line," "line up," "line of goods," "what's my line"occupation, "hold that line"football, "hold the line"telephone, "hold the line"telephone wire, "battle line," "dateline," "deadline," "line of verse," "outline," "same old line," "finishing line," "fishing line," "skyline," "shoreline," "clothes line," "hemline," "line a garment," design or "a good line," "ancestral line," "line one's purse," "lifeline," "draw the line"say no ... (22) Much of our humor is based upon the ambiguity of language also. Groucho Marx, for example, uses words in a different intended meaning to gain humor. During one of his television shows, Groucho Marx had a man on stage whose occupation was "a fix-it man." Groucho asked the man, "What kind of things do you fix?" The man replied, "Oh, I fix radios, household appliances, and" Groucho interrupted, "Can you fix a prize fight?" "No." "Can you fix a parking fine?" "No." "Can you fix a jury?" "No." "Well, what are you in business for?" Groucho Marx replied. "I'll never take my business to you when I need a fix!" (23) And also: A visiting Englishman was greatly confused by American word usage. Complaining to some American friends, he took the word "fix" as an example. "When 1 am invited to dinner, my host asks me how I should like my drink fixed, when really he means mixed. My hostess tells me to hurry because dinner is all fixed; she means prepared. My host says he must get his flat tiie fixed, and this time he means repaired. You say you are on a fixed income; you mean steady, unchanged. You say you will fix something to the wall; you mean attach. Then you say you will fix him,' and you mean, 'get revenge.' Finally, you remark that you are 'in a devil of a jit,' and I see that you may have some comprehension of my predicament in trying to understand your simplified English." (24) Here is another example of the ambiguity of language.

Appendix II, Section B6: Language and Language Usage

B6 page.5

D. Maas
"If you can spare me five minutes, sir,11 announced the door-to-door canvasser, "I can show you how to earn twice the money you are now getting."

"Don't bother," said the man, sadly. "I do that now." (25) Many parlor or betting games of this nature are based upon the ambiguity of language. And each person is right, according to his own definition of terms. But misunderstandings and arguments result when individuals do not realize that the other person might mean something entirely different. For example: The woman lion-tamer had the animals under perfect control. At her summons, the fiercest lion came meekly to her and look a lump of sugar from her mouth. The circus crowd marvelled, all except one man. "Anybody could do that!" he yelled from the audience. "Would you dare to do it?" the ringmaster asked scornfully. "Certainly," replied the heckler. "I can do it just as well as the lion can!"

Or,
A track star was boasting of his achievements, when a man sitting at a nearby table interrupted him. "I'll race you," said the stranger, "and you'H never pass me, if you give me-'a three-foot start and let me choose the course!" The star looked at the portly gentleman and laughed. "Bet ya fifty to one I will," he returned. "Where's the course?" "Up a ladder," answered the challenger. (26) Specialists who communicate to each other in a technical language have relatively fewer misunderstandings, because technical language is more specific than the non-technical. Physicists, chemists, engineers, doctors, etc., can communicate to a fellow member in the technical terminology of his own profession with relatively little misunderstanding, but ordinary, non-technical language often contributes toward misunderstandings because of the number of meanings we give to these words. In some areas of specialization, however, individual meanings or interpretations are still often given to words or symbols. This is especially true in the area of the arts. Harold Sffionberg in the New York Times magazine says: Through his orchestra, the conductor translates musical symbols into meaningful sound. Each conductor reads the symbols differently, for each is a different human being. And thus variety and interpretation develops. How fast is "fast"? When Mozart indicates an allegro, is it a pace, trot, or a gallop? All the conductor can do is follow his instincts, backed by years of thought and study. (27) Well, if specialists have disagreements, misinterpretations, or misunderstandings over technical terms, it is not surprising to find the same confusions resulting whenever individuals use the more ambiguous terms of ordinary, non-technical language. (28) How often do we talk about the meaning of words? Were you not taught in your English classes that words contain meaning? In fact, the very expression, "the meaning of words," implies thai meanings are in words. The late Professor Irving J. Lee has called this the "container myth"the mythical assumption that words contain meaning, or that meanings are in words. But recent studies in psychology, transactional psychology, anthropology, neurology, physiology, etc., clearly show that meanings are not in words, ink blots, symbols, or symbol systems; they are in the person. They are in his response. They are in you. Projective tests indicate that meanings are not in the ink blots or the picture, but in the response of the person. This is also true of words and meanings, but we still find arguments centered around the "real meaning" of words,

B6 page.6 or what a thing "really" is. If we want to solve the problems in communication, of what the other person means, etymology doesn't help us very much. The visiting American and his English friend were driving through London, when the latter mentioned that his "windscreen" needed cleaning. "Windshield," the American corrected. "Well, over here we call it Vindscreen.'" "Then you're wrong," argued the American. "After all, we Americans invented the automobile, and we call this a windshield." "That's all very well, old boy," snapped the Englishman, "but who invented the language?" (29) We still find many examples of this literalist fallacy, where we assume that there is only one "right" way to use a word, and where there is an appeal to its origin to settle the matter of the usage. But, as we have seen, language is dynamic and changing, and meanings are personal. People will always give personal meanings for words. We must recognize this and have a means for coping with this problem. (30) The literalist fallacy is found in the arts also. Too often, it is assumed that a work of art, music, painting, sculpture, etc., must be interpreted only one wayour way. But we, too, project meaning, not only into words, but into everything that we come in contact with. We become part of what we observe or hear. Our perceptions become subjective, to a large degree. There was once a concert violinist who started to play, then crashed his violin to the floor, where it lay shattered. His astonished audience gasped. They thought he had broken his cherished Stradivarius to bits. He stepped to the front of the stage and explained, That was a cheap instrument I purchased in your city yesterday." And he completed the selection using the Stradivarius. The music was magnificent, but few in the audience could detect the difference in instruments. As he finished, he remarked, "I wanted you to see that the music is in the musician and the listener, not in the instrument." A young psychoanalyst was telling an older colleague about his troubles in getting intelligent responses from his patients. "Suppose you ask me some of your questions," the older analyst suggested. "Well, my first question is, 'What is it that wears a skirt and from whose lips come pleasure?'" "A Scot blowing a bagpipe," the veteran answered. "Right," said the younger one. "Now, what is it that has smooth curves and at unexpected moments becomes uncontrollable?" "Bob Gibson's pitching." "Right! Now, what do you think of when two arms slip around your shoulder?" "Why, a football tackle," replied the veteran. "Right," said the young doctor. "All your answers were amazingly correct. But you'd be surprised at the silly answers I keep getting!" (31) Well, we find this container myth in many areas, but our major concern is in the area of communication. We will show how this assumption leads toward misunderstandings, arguments, and disagreements. But, for now, it is enough to realize this false-to-fact, mythical assumption that words are the containers of meaning. It is important to remember that words don't mean anything. People mean. Meanings are not in words; they are in people. (32) If meanings are not in words, how do we get them inside of our nervous system? Where do we get them from? Obviously, we carry around inside of us meanings that we have learned from our past experience. Meanings are personal, and, as each one of us has lived a unique and individual life, don't be surprised if

Appendix II, Section B6: Language and Language Usage D. Maas

B6 page. 7

others respond with unique and individual meanings. Harry Overstreet indicates how meaning is personal, determined by our own experience: Itthe new science of semanticsemphasizes the fact that what we call a common language is never, in truth, common to any two individuals who use it. Experience always colors the meaning of words and their emotional overtones. (33) All rightmeanings, therefore, are personal. It is often stated that husbands and wives, or members of a family, do not have to communicate verbally to know what the other person means. Members of a family, for example, are frequently communicating with one another below the level of consciousness. Meanings between husbands and wives are extremely subtle and personal. As someone once said, "You know your wife has bought something she shouldn't have when she says, 'You smoke too much.'" What people say is not always what they mean. The most important part of communication is the psychological meaning inside of a person, not the dictionary meaning of the words they use. Meanings are psychologically much deeper and personal than any dictionary can indicate. It was Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, who explored the hidden paths of meaning and communication between doctor and patient, between one man and another, between groups, and, especially, within ourselves. He saw the deeper psychological meanings, not just the linguistic meaning, in human communication. It was Freud's genius that realized the meaning behind man's unspoken, as well as spoken, language. Today, this emphasis and these concepts permeate all of the behavioral sciences: psychiatry, sociology, anthropology, psychology, semantics, biology, neurology, etc., in its concern with meaning. (34) Usage also changes regionally. There are great regional variations in meaning. In China, for example, regional variations are so great that a person in one province finds it difficult to communicate with someone in/aistant part of the country. In the following example, we see how the meaning is determined by the past experience, and especially by the region in which the individual grew up: While examining an inductee, an Army medic noticed a scar on the boy's scalp, and he asked about it. "I got it from being drugged," said the inductee. The doctor, failing to see the connection, asked him to elaborate. "Well," the inductee said, "I was working on a ranch. My horse bolted, my foot got caught in the stirrup, and I was drugged." (35) Is he using language correctly? Well, very often, we assume that it is an either/or situationthat there is good English and bad English. But there are many kinds of language. There are more than 3,000 languages in the world, and our own Indo-European language is only one of many. There is no greater error than assuming that others are wrong if they speak differently than we. If we think that people ought to speak alike, it is not a very far jump lo assume that people all think alike. In fact, Stalin tried to impose an official Soviet language for the Russian peoplewhich was only one of the many forms of mental straitjacket resulting from a dictatorship. But the growth and change of language cannot be stopped by legislation, dictation, or "Thou shall" and "shall not"s. A dynamic, changing language illustrates its strength, not its weakness. Speech is widely varied on the face of the earth. Some people speak by whistling, others by clucking. We do it by blowing our breath; others do it by taking in their breath. We often make fun of people who speak a different dialect, but we all speak, to a degree, and in a sense, in individual dialects. What we need is an understanding, and tolerance based upon understanding, of those who speak differently than we. (36) Meanings are determined, not only regionally, but, more specifically, on a local level, by our past experience. The Lord's Prayer has had to withstand considerable abuse, especially from children trying to learn it from poor enunciators, or from mumbling congregations. One little boy was heard to pray, "Harold be Thy name." Another begged, "Give us this day our jelly bread." A New York child petitioned, "Lead us not into Penn Station." (37) Another characteristic of meaning is the fact that usage changes internationally. One of the great problems facing the world today is that of communicating on the international level. The same words mean

B6 page.S different things to individuals from different countries, and the United Nations, for example, is full of examples of these kinds of communication difficulty. If we have difficulty locally, regionally, and nationally, it is no wonder that we have so much difficulty on the international level, for meanings are determined by our past experiences, and the cultural assumptions differ greatly throughout the world. Businesses that branch out into other countries are learning that this communication difficulty is one of their mounting problems. Some countries find that, in the use of advertisements in foreign countries, it is very easy to give an entirely different meaning compared to the one intended, or the one given in the United States. This difference in meaning is not only true of non-English-speaking countries, but is equally true of English-speaking countries as well. Some words that are in common usage in the United States are considered obscene in Australia or New Zealand. To overcome this semantic problem, one company has its material translated into the foreign language by one person, and then back into English by another. The difference in meaning is sometimes startling, and there are cases where the original would have been in very bad taste! (38) This is a continual problem in the United States, among diplomats and other representatives. In his book, The Second World War, Winston Churchill tells of a long argument that developed in a meeting of the British and American Chiefs of Staff Committee: The British brought in a memo on an important point, and proposed to "table it," which to them meant "discuss it right away." The Americans protested that the matter must not be tabled, and the debate grew quite hot before the participants realized that they all wanted the same thing. (39) The famous philologist Otto Jespersen^ remarked that "idiomatic usage in every language is that tyrannic, capricious, utterly incalculable thing no stranger can predict from studying the form of a languagehow words will be used by natives of that country." Every language, English included, has peculiarities which are correct, and different only because custom has made them so. (40) Servicemen during World War II often came home with humorous examples of misunderstandings due to the different meanings given to words by people inrother countries. For example: While my friend was in the Air Force during World War II he met a young Australian flyer who became one of his best friends. After the war, the Australian came to America to visit him. While he was here, he fell in love with a beautiful American girl. One evening, the Australian asked the girl to marry him, and, in a very sincere voice, he told her that she was homely. In an outburst of rage, the girl told him she never wanted to see him again. The confused Australian told the story to his friend, and he was horrified when he learned that, in America, the word "homely" means someone that is plain or unattractive. In England, the word "homely" means the kind of girl that you would like to marry and have a small home with, and that was how the Australian had meant the word when he said it. The situation was immediately explained to the girl, and several months later, the Australian and the girl were married. (41) If we recognize that we get meanings from our past experiences, and that people are the containers of meaning rather than words, we might then become conscious of another most important aspect of meaning and human communication. This is the recognition that what we leave unsaid is often more important than what we actually say. The undefined terms in human communication is one of the most important but least understood and recognized aspects of communication. (42) Wendell Johnson reports that: Very often, the inquiring reporter will interview college students about their "ideal soul mate," and get such answers as: "My ideal soul mate must be tall, dark and handsome," "be a good dancer," etc. These are the defined terms of her "ideal sou! mate." This young lady meets a

Appendix II, Section B6: Language and Language Usage

B6 page.9

D. Maas man who is tall, dark, and handsome, and immediately she falls in love with him. But she did not fall in love with himshe fell in love with his type, which is a different order of abstraction. He is a part of the nonverbal part of reality. His type, however, is only an abstraction, a picture inside of her head. Well, they get married, and after a while the undefined terms come into play. Besides being tall, dark, and handsome, he is also shiftless, lazy, no good, and unfaithful. These are the undefined terms which were not included in her definition of an "ideal soul mate." And so she is not only bitter about her husband, but about all men, due 10 an assumption she should not have had in the first place. (43) Alfred Korzybski has stated that "marriage is a kind of agreement by definition." Each party has a definition of what they mean by "husband," "wife," "marriage," etc. But, later on, some of the undefined terms crop up, which were not considered or realized before. What is "affection"? Well, circuit judge Alvin Reese, in Madison, Wisconsin, had that question posed to him. He didn't answer directly, but he denied a divorce to Mrs. Mary Jacobsen of Stouton, who claimed her husband Marvin was not "affectionate." Jacobsen, in opposing the divorce, took the stand on his own behalf. His counsel, Carl Thompson, asked his nationality background. "Norwegian," Jacobsen replied. "Isn't it a well-known fact that Scandinavians are a cold people?" Thompson asked. "Some are, and some are not," replied Jacobsen. "Are you affectionate?" Thompson asked. "Yes," Jacobsen answered. "In what way?" asked Thompson. "Well," Jacobsen answered, "I did a lot of remodelling around the house." (44) Each person's undefined terms is unique and sometimes grossly different. The problem in communication is trying to understand what people mean when they talk. This is especially difficult for parents in trying to understand what the youngster really means. "Ail the kids do it," is a case in point. What is really meant is that all kids would like to do it, but can't get away with it either. Any parent will recognize the juvenile doubletalk of almost saying what it means. For example, the defined terms, or what they say"I didn't do it." The undefined terms, or what they really mean, "I did it, but I didn't expect to get caught." The defined terms, "She's a mean teacher"the undefined terms, "I never do my homework, and I'm not going to pass." The defined terms, or what they say, "I just took a bath"the undefined terms: "I just took a bath last week." What they say: "I can't find my other shoe"what they really mean: "I don't want to go to school this morning." The defined terms: "Grandma always lets me do ifthe undefined terms: "Boy, I sure get away with murder at Granny's!" And the defined terms: "You said I could"the undefined terms: "You said I couldn't, but maybe you've forgotten." (45) Anyone going into a contractual agreement, such as in marriage, in buying a house, a car, or in labor/management relations, must realize that the most important meanings are not those that are stated, but those that are not statedthose which are left undefined. The intelligent person will continually check the undefined terms, not only in/contract, but in all phases of communication. It's the undefined terms, not the defined, that gets us into so much difficulty. (46) Having considered some of the problems of meaning and the assumptions about language and language usage, let us now turn our attention to the problem of misunderstanding. Why do we have misunderstandings, and what can we do to eliminate or lessen them? (47) This is not a simple problem, but, as we shall see, there are certain unconscious assumptions that we make about language, language usage, and meanings which lead toward misunderstandings, arguments, and confusions. By being conscious of some of these assumptions, we can lessen misunderstandings and achieve the agreement necessary for human living.

B6 page. 10 Instructional Objectives

I. Z 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Explain the general semantics assumption that there is no inherent relationship between a word and what it stands for. [B6 para.03] Illustrate examples or linguistic naivett [B6 para.04] Describe the monolinguistic fallacy. [B6 para.05] Illustrate how the elements wore arbitrary names. [B6 para.06] Explain the one word/one thing fallacy. [B6 para.08] Provide examples of ambiguity in language. [B6 para. 10] Provide examples of the different senses in which language can be used in (l)semantics and (2)phonetics (3)linguistics (4)structural linguistics (S)psychology (6)philosophy of language (7)logic (8)mathematics (9)language and psychiatry. [B6 para. 12] Explain the context in which mathematics is our most perfect language. [B6 para. IS] Explain the "container myth." [B6 para.28] Explain why etymology is of limited value when interpreting meaning. [B6 para.28] Illustrate the literalist fallacy. [B6 para.29] Explain the maxim "meanings are not in words, but in people." [B6 para.31] Illustrate how regional variations lead to ambiguity in language. [B6 para.34] Distinguish between what Freud would term spoken and unspoken language. [B6 para.33] Illustrate how meanings are determined by past experience. [B6 para.34] Explain the problem with "undefined terms" in human communication. [B6 para.40] Explain the context in which Korzybski referred to marriage as agreement by definition. [B6 para.42] Illustrate the aspect of communication called undefined terms. [B6 para.43]

Appendix II, Section B6: Language and Language Usage D. Maas

Index

B6 page. 11

"Affectionate" example Ambiguity in language Arbitrariness of language Churchill, Winston Container Myth Dialect Elements: naming of jarbitrary "Fix" example Freud, Sigmund Groucho Marx Hayakawa "Homely" example Idiomatic usage Johnson, Wendell Korzybski "Lady Lion Tamer" example Language Language and Psychiatry Lee, Irving "Line" example Linguistics Literalist fallacy Logic Marriage: Agreement by definition Mathematics Meaning and Experience Monolinguistic fallacy Monousage Multiple meanings Naming of elements: arbitrary Past experience and language People mean/Words don't Philosophy of language Phonetics "Psychoanalyst" example Psychological meaning in person Psychology of persuasion Regional variations Schonberg, Harold Stfcborg, Second World War Semantics "Stradivarius" example Unconscious assumption Undefined terms United Nations

42 9 3 28 34 6 23 33 22 39 38 41 42 25 19 28 21 14 30 17 42 18 35 29 29 21 6 35 31 16 13 30 33 15 34 26 6 37 17 30 46 43 36 ;

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas How to Lessen Misunderstandings

B7 page.l

Sanford Herman Key Terms

Ambiguity in language Arbitrariness of language Assumption(s) of certainty Assumption^) of probability Bypassing Consciousness of projection Container myth Expectancy Failure to project Identification "Is" of identity "Is" of predication Listening, effective Mirror technique Non-evaluative listening Projecting Projection Query To me Unconscious assumption

(1) Why do we misunderstand each other? In order to help answer that question, answer the following, "yes" or "no": Do you know what or whom I mean when I say: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. President Roosevelt President Truman Third strike Time Harper's Magazine Life Star Face Glass Ford Lincoln Washington Elliott Roosevelt Franklin Roosevelt Jack Benny Rochester Lucky strike Cigarette Camel, and Dessert

(2) What would you think of the following individual? A student at the university listed the following reasons for not joining a sorority: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I don't like the thought of having to spend my evenings with a bunch of girls. I don't want a lot of fraternity men calling me up at night. I've never danced with a man in my life, and I don't want to. I don't like the idea of having to room with the same girl all semester. I don't fill out a sweater, and don't look very attractive in a sleeveless, low-cut gown.

B7 page.2 What are some adjectives that we use in describing this kind of a person? (3) Now, take a look at Diagram 1 \please see Appendix II, Section B24] and read it out loud. 1*11 give you time to look at Diagram 1. (4) All right, let us go back and check our answers or responses to the three little quizzes above. In the first set of twenty, all of them would technically be "no." You do not know what or whom I am referring to by merely one word. But we can learn something about probability and human communication. (5) First of all, notice that the words are not within the context of a sentence, and so it would be very difficult to tell what is actually meant or referred to by each word. "President Roosevelt" could refer to either Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Teddy Roosevelt. So we might say that the probability is fifty-fifty. But the words "President Roosevelt" could also refer to a battleship, a hotel, etc. "President Truman," perhaps, rises in probability, because there was only one President Truman of the United States. But, of course, I might be referring to President John Truman of the local Kiwanis Club, etc. (6) "Third strike" might mean the third bowling strike, the third strike in baseball, the third coal strike, etc. "Time" can refer to the time in "Time marches on," Time Magazine, time as in space/time, etc. Harper's Magazine rises in probability, referring to the literary publication. Although an Air Force officer once said that he was in service with a machine gunjpiamed Harper, and they used to refer to "Harper's magazine"the cartridge chamber of his gun. (7) Now it is true that, when you read the names, capital or small letters indicate some difference. But > when you are speaking, you cannot tell if the words are capitalized. "Life" could refer to a prison sentence, that which is opposite to death, the magazine, etc. "Star" could refer to a movie star, one in the heavenly bodies, a policeman's star, what a little boy or girl gets if they do well in school, etc, "Face" can refer to "face to the left," the face of a clock, a human face, Elroy Face (the baseball pitcher), etc. "Glass" could refer to a drinking glass, a glass pitcher, Senator Glass, etc. "Ford" could mean Henry Ford, St.; Henry Ford, Jr.; the Ford automobile; Senator Ford; Whitey Ford (the baseball pitcher); etc. "Lincoln" could refer to Lincoln, Nebraska; the Lincoln automobile; Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln School; etc. "Washington" could mean Washington, DC; the state of Washington; the Washington Redskins; the Washington Senators; George Washington; Booker T. Washington; etc. (8) "Elliott Roosevelt" goes up in probability. There might be a higher degree of probability that we were referring to the late Presidents son, although he himself has a son named Elliott, and there are other Elliott Roosevelts throughout the country. "Franklin Roosevelt" might refer to Franklin Roosevelt, Sr., or Franklin Roosevelt, Jr. We do not always, of course, indicate "junior" or "senior" when referring to them. Or, again, we might mean a battleship, a school, etc. (9) The probability will go up that we mean the comedian when referring to Jack Benny, but "Rochester" could refer to Rochester, New York; Rochester, Minnesota; Jack Benny's valet; etc. "Lucky strike" might mean a coal strike, an ore strike, an oil strike, a lucky strike in baseball, bowling, a cigarette, etc. (10) The word "cigarette" causes some confusion which can easily be explained. Those who say yes usually mean some nonverbal object that one smokes. Those who say no usually do so because it does not state what kind of cigarette. "Camel" might refer to the animal, a brand of cigarette, the cloth in a topcoat, etc. "Dessert" might refer to the concluding portion of a meal. There are many things, of course, that this could refer to. (11) Now, the above indicate the ambiguity of language. And, if you had more than five "yes" answers, it might indicate why you have misunderstandings. You are projecting your meaning into others' words, and assume that they mean what you would mean if you were doing the talking. In one of the seminars for executives, a retired general came up after class with his lest in his hand; he was laughing at himself, saying, "You know, this is the first time in thirty years that I realized why I had so many misunderstandings. I had "yes* to all twenty questions!" (12) Now, let us lake a look at the second quiz about the student at the university. Usually 1 receive such answers as "She is antisocial," or, "She is shy," "She has an inferiority complex," etc. Then I give them the answer that the student is a male. Again, this illustrates the psychological phenomenon of projection. We are projecting into the situation. Nowhere in the story does it say that the student is a girl, although some individuals project so much that they insist that it said thai it was a girl. (13) Finally, let us take a look at Diagram 1. Most people will read "Paris in the spring." "slow men ai

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page.3

work," "once in a lifetime," and "bird in the hand." In fact, I have gone around the classroom several limes with students and executives seeing what they expect to see, or projecting into it what they assume is there. Very few people will see it as "Paris in the the spring," "slow men at at work," "once in a a lifetime," "bird in the the hand." The following examples illustrate this phenomenon of projection: In (Ouilo, Ecuador, a young teacher substituted for a friend who was taking a week's honeymoon. A month later, at a party, someone started to introduce the groom to her. "Oh," he answered brightly, "I know Miss Rogers very well indeed. She substituted for my wife on our honeymoon." Simon Bolivar, the great South American liberator, was scheduled to pass the night in a small Peruvian town. His aide sent word to the local innkeeper asking him, "that a room be prepared with special accommodations, food, etc., etc., etc." Arriving at the village, Bolivar was shown the best room in the hotel. After he had expressed approval, the great man was conducted into an adjoining room, where sat three lovely senoritas. "And who are these lovely young ladies?" Bolivar asked. "The three 'et ceteras,'" replied his host. (14) We find many examples of these kinds of projections and misunderstandings. humorous, others are not so humorous: While some are

The late Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson, caused a storm in Detroit and elsewhere when he said at a press conference that, while he had a lot of sympathy for the jobless in surplus labor areas, he always liked bird-dogs better than kennel-fed dogs. Walter Reuther, then CIO and United Auto Workers president, demanded in a telegram to then President Eisenhower that Wilson publicly retract the statement or be asked to retire from public life. The labor leader's ire was roused by Wilson's comment to reporters' questions about unemployment. The Cabinet official said, with a grin, "The bird-dogs like to get out and hunt around for their food, but the kennel-dogs just sit on their haunches and yelp." Another comment that prompted Reuther to send a five-page, blistering telegram to the President was Wilson's statement that he expected employment in Michigan to "balance itself out by Christmas as new models get into production, and maybe a few workers go back south when it gets a little cold." "Until I saw this story, a published report of Wilson's interview," said Reuther, "I had believed we were decades past the day when allegedly civilized men thought such things, let alone expressed them aloud and in public." Reuther continued, "I regret that I was so sadly mistaken in estimating the degree to which big business had acquired at least the rudiments of a social conscience." Wilson's "bird-dog" remark also brought denunciation from Patrick MacNamara, Michigan Democratic nominee for senator. MacNamara called it "typical of the Dark Age type of thinking in the present administration. His (Wilson's) quotation," MacNamara said, "can be compared to Marie Antoinette's when she was told the starving people had no bread. She said, also with a grin, 'Let them eat cake.'" (MacNamara referred to a remark attributed to the queen of France at the time of the French Revolution.) "This quotation should be expected from a man who has previously stated what is good for General Motors is good for the country." Wilson later apologized for making an unfortunate mistake"Bringing up those birddogs at the same time as I was talking about people." He found it difficult to clear up the misunderstanding and to try to explain what he had actually meant.

B7 page.4 (15) This is a very difficult problem, not only in the national or international political arena, where a person's words will be intentionally distorted for political reasons, but even outside of politics, where individuals honestly want to understand each other. I'm not implying that many politicians do not honestly want to understand each other, but it is difficult to believe that so many of them can be so linguistically and semantically naive. (16) Why do we misunderstand each other? What are some of the causes of misunderstanding, and how can we lessen or eliminate much of it? We will now present a semantic analysis of misunderstandings and how to overcome the communication problems from the point of view of general-semantics. (17) Projection or bypassing. Diagram 2 \please see Appendix II, Section B14\s how the speaker communicates to the listener with his meaning (arrow A), and the listener responds with his meaning (arrow B), and they bypass each other. They are not on the same channel of communication (line C). The following examples illustrate this bypassing phenomenon: In New York, a woman who insisted she had a right "to slap any man who is rude to me, even a policeman,11 got a choice Friday between a $50 fine and 30 days in jail. She screamed, "I'll take the thirty days!" That's OK with me," replied magistrate Heiman Buschel after a hectic session with attractive brunette Mrs. Barbara Ruby. Her husband, however, intervened and paid the fine. Mrs. Ruby, who said her husband was a banker, was charged with striking a policeman in Central Park after he complained her dog was running unleashed. "All I did was write 'July 10th* on a summons," the policeman said, "when, out of a clear blue sky, she punched me with her clenched fist." But Mrs. Ruby, mother of two children, said that the patrolman asked her for her credentials. "I didn't know what he meant," she said. "I thought when a cop asked for credentials, you were supposed to hand him five dollars. So I said, 'Here's my credentials,' and hit him in the face with my hand. I said, 'You'll not get five dollars from me, you grafter!'" (18) Here's another example of projection and misunderstanding: "Any big men born around here?" a tourist asked in a condescending tone. "Nope," responded the native. "Best we can do is babies. Different in the city, I suppose." As the conductor called out the various names of the streets, the country couple became more and more uneasy. The conductor called "Maple," then "Adams," and then "Rosewood," the country man grew very fidgety and turning to his wife, said, "Isn't it lime we got off?" "Don't show your ignorance, Matthew," she said. "Wait until your name is called." Several years ago, we had a maid living with us, by the name of Sylvia. In giving last-minute instructions to Sylvia, my mother, planning a dinner for company, said, "Now, Sylvia, when you serve, be sure not to spill anything."
"Don't worry," Sylvia replied. "I won't say a thing."

(19) The speaker means one thing; the listener means something else. This is what we mean by the misevaluation of projection or bypassing, where we wrongly project our meaning into someone else's words and assume that they mean what we mean. Let me repeal that definition of projection or bypassing, where we wrongly project our meaning into someone else's words and assume that ihey mean whai we mean if we were doing the talking. Let us present two definitions of projection or bypassing, and observe how it operates. (20) Projection or bypassing. Projection occurs whenever a listener acts as if a speaker was using a word as the listener would were the listener doing the talking. Or, projection occurs whenever we think other

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page.5

people mean what we would mean if we were doing the talking. One of my former students, a coed at Northwestern University, gave the following example of projection. She said: At the beginning of the school year, I was ironing some blouses in the spacious bathroom at Willard Hall. Since it was a warm September day, before I had even completed one blouse I had stripped to my bare necessities because it was so warm working over the steaming iron. Down the hall, I could hear a game of the World Series going on. At various intervals, I could hear the girls whoop with elation and groan with disappointment as the game progressed. Just as I was ironing the last blouse, with the door to the bathroom open so as to let some air in, I heard the girls yelling and stomping their feet. Above the din of this racket, I heard someone yell, "Man on first!" Of course, I was dying to know what was happening, so I ran out of the bathroom, still very much undressed. I got the surprise of my life. There were at least eight well-dressed, distinguished gentlemen coming toward me. They were escorted by Miss Daye, the head counselor of Willard Hall, who was giving the usual warning, "Man on first!" to all girls on the first floor corridor! (21) Projection and misunderstanding are common occurrences in everyday business. A lady recently ordered some writing paper at a department store and asked to have her initials engraved thereon. The sales girl suggested placing them in the upper right-hand corner, or the upper left-hand corner, but the customer said, "No, put them in the center." Well, the stationery arrived, every sheet marked with her initials equidistant from right and left, and from top and bottom. (22) Misunderstandings and communication difficulties are some of the greatest problems in business and industry. It is very difficult to adequately evaluate how much time, money, and energy are lost due to poor communications. Why do we have so many misunderstandings? What are some of the unconscious assumptions underlying projections or misunderstandings generally? (23) Unconscious assumptions underlying misunderstandings. There are two important unconscious assumptions thai underlie projection or bypassing: 1. There is an unconscious assumption that others use words as we do. We unconsciously assume that other people mean what we mean. A motorist here swears this story is true: He was driving toward New York when his car stalled; the battery was dead. He flagged a woman driver and she agreed to push his car to get it started. Because his car has an automatic transmission, "you'll have to get up to thirty to thirty-five miles an hour to get me started." The lady nodded wisely. The driver climbed into his car and wailed and waited. Then he turned around to see where the woman was. She was there all right, coming at him at thirty to thirty-five miles an hour!
You were probably taught at high school that words have meaning. Almost all of us were. This is another reason why almost alJ of us have misunderstandings.

/v

(24)

2.

The second unconscious assumption underlying misunderstandings: There is an unconscious assumption that words have meaningthat meanings are in words.

But words don't mean anything. People mean. Let me repeal thai imporiant principle in general-semantics. Words don't mean anyihing. People mean. Meanings are noi in words; they are in our responses to words and other symbols. Irving J. Lee has described this false assumptionthe assumption that meanings are in wordsas the "container myth:" the mythical assumption that words contain meaning. Dr. Haney points out

B7 page.6 lUrihcr unfortunate communication habits resulting from this container myth as stated by Dr. Lee. In his book, Communication Patterns and Incidents, Dr. Haney says: Dr. Lee suggested that [when] one acts upon his unconscious assumption that words contain meanings, he is insidiously led to assume that, when he talks or writes, he is handing his listener or reader so many containers of meanings. If this is the case, the recipient is bound to get the correct meanings. Words, of course, do not contain or have meanings. Apart from people using them, words are merely marks on paper, vibrations in the air, raised dots on a Braille card, etc. Words really do not mean at all. Only the users of words can mean something with the words they use. This is a sensible enough statement to accept intellectually. Unfortunately, our behavior with words very frequently does not abide by it. (25) William Shakespeare was conscious of this projective phenomenon when he said, "A jest's prosperity lies in the ear of him that hears it, never in the tongue of him that makes it." And Charles Sanders FVrce, America's great pragmatic philosopher, said, "We do not get meaning; we respond with meaning." (26) One of the best examples I know to illustrate that meanings are not in words but in our responses is the following: "I don't like Bill," confided a coed to her roommate. "He knows too many naughty songs." "Does he sing them to you?" asked her friend. "Well, no, but he whistles them." (27) You do not get meaning; you respond with meaning. This is an important and fundamental semantic principle, for if we start with the assumption that others use words as we do, and that meanings are in words, don't be surprised if we stop or short-circuit the process of communication too soon. (28) Now, take a look at Diagram 3 \ptease see Appendix II, Section B14], where you have two different ways of listening, Mode A and Mode B. In Mode A, if our attention is on the person's words, the logic runs something like this: "I know what the word means; therefore I know what he means." Consequently, we do not ask questions. We do not ask him, "What do you mean?" We unconsciously assume that "he means what I mean because words mean." Let us take a closer look at the circularity of this kind of logic. (29) The first assumption: Others use words as we do. Second assumption: Meanings are in words. Conclusion: Others mean what we mean. (30) If we assume that others use words as we do, and that meanings are in words, then it is also easy to assume that others mean what we mean. There is no necessity of asking questions such as "What do you mean?" There is no purpose in checking our inferences or assumptions. This is one of the dangers in the above assumptions. It keeps us from asking questionsof trying to get on the other person's channel of communication. If, however, we start with the assumption that meanings are in people, rather than in words, our focus of attention is on the person, not the words. We should want to know what the person means, not words, for words are only relatively inadequate abstractions of the meanings inside a person. Therefore, for effective communication and the lessening of misunderstandings, we must substitute two important conscious assumptions in place of the above two unconscious assumptions that lead toward misunderstandings. (31) Conscious assumptions for effective communication. We must be conscious of the fact that 1. 2. others do not necessarily mean what we mean, and meanings are in people, not in words.

If we are conscious of the above two assumptions, we will adopt a different mode of communication. Our attention will be on the speaker,not on his words. We will want to know what the speaker means. (32) Now, let us take a look at Mode B of Diagram 3. If we are conscious of these two assumptions, we

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page.7

will not be too quick in assuming that others mean what we mean. We will check our assumptions, if necessary, to get on the other person's channel of communication. By focusing our attention on the speaker, we want to know what he means, not the words. If we are conscious of the fact that meanings are in people rather than in words, we will not too quickly assume that we understand what others mean the moment we hear their first few words. (33) Three kinds of projection: The word "projection" is used in many different senses in different areas. It is, itself, an ambiguous term. We should like to point out at least three different kinds of projection, its uses and the dangers involved if one is not conscious of projecting. Let us call the kind of projection that we have been considering Projection 1, where we wrongly project our own meanings into others' words and assume that they mean what we would mean if we were doing the talking. Basically, we shall be concerned with this kind of projection or bypassing here. (34) Projection 2 is projecting what is inside of us into the worlflof reality. Some automobile drivers project safety into a green light, as if the green light always means "go." Some people project safety into the barrel of a revolver while playing Russian roulette. Life is a series of projections. Notice this example here: Going to San Francisco from Chicago by air, I was engrossed in a book on bridge when the hostess stopped and looked over my shoulder. "Mr. Sewall," she said, That must be a fascinating love story you're reading." Startled, I looked at the chapter heading with fresh eyes. It was entitled, "Free responses after an original pass." ?.: Here's another example: When our ship was tied up for a few days at a small Pacific island, the comely females who wore a sarong-like affair around the hips and nothing above evoked the undivided interest of the entire crew. One young seaman spent most of his time posing the undraped natives, singly and in groups, meanwhile happily snapping away with his small box camera. Finally, my curiosity got the better of me, and I asked him, "Just when and where do you expect to get all those films developed?" "Films?" he repeated, grinning at me. "Who's got films?" (35) Well, we are continually projecting what is inside of us into the world of reality. In fact, these projections are part of the reality that we see. We project assumptions, attitudes, feelings, likes and dislikes, etc. into the world of reality. In art, for example, we project distance into a flat surface. (36) Take a look at Diagram 5 {please see Appendix II, Section B14]. In Diagram 5, notice how we can project distance by changing the structure, order, or relationship of the different figures. There is no distance projected in the top five figures, but by rearranging the order, you can create distance on a flat surface, as in the lower five figures. There are many ways that an artist can create a three-dimensional illusion on a flat surface. We project distance into the painting. In fact, in the area of art, we continually find artistic disagreement centered around personal projections, where people project meanings into a painting as if they really were in the painting rather than in themselves. This is why we have so many arguments about "the meanings of a painting" (or a piece of art). We are not conscious of the fact that we project meaning into the piece of art, literature, etc. You cannot separate that which is observed from the observer. It is a transactiona relationship between the person and what he is observing. There is an important new branch of psychology called "transactional psychology," which emphasized the important relationship, or transaction, between the observer and the observed. (37) How often we find this allness, this dogmatic assumption, that the meaning is in the painting, and this is what it really means. The first thing some people ask in observing a painting is, "What is it?" You probably recall the projections of some of the judges at art exhibits, where paintings were given first prize, only to discover that the painting was hanging upside down, or it was merely the after-effect of a painter's having

B7 page.8 cleaned off his brush on a canvas. (38) I once talked with a Hollywood stunt man who has appeared in some of the Tarzan movies, dressed as a gorilla. He related how many people act as if he really was a gorilla. On one occasion, in Louisville, Kentucky, the "gorilla" arrived at the airport, and was scheduled to stay at the Cealback Hotel. As a publicity stunt, they decided to have the "gorilla" parade through the city with a police escort. When they arrived at the hotel, there was a policeman waiting to open the door for what he thought was a dignitary. Upon opening the door, the policeman was horrified to see a gorilla leap toward him. He immediately pulled out his gun, jumped backwards as if to shoot the gorilla. Very quickly, the gorilla shouted, "Stop! Don't shootit's a man! I'm inside!" The policeman, still believing his assumption, shouted back, "One step towards me, and I'll shoot!" (39) Our projections can make us do peculiar things, for these were curious words to shout to a gorilla. Only after some calming down, and the retreat of the "gorilla," would the officer put his gun away. (40) I am not saying that we should not project. We must project. Projection is a normal, natural psychological phenomenon. But wisdom and mature behavior begin only when we are conscious of our projectionswhen we are conscious of what we are projecting into the world of reality. (41) Wendell Johnson, in his book People in Quandaries, has said, "Projection is as natural as breathing. It is another one of those things which, when pointed out, seems perfectly obvious." And so we have to be on our guard, lest we overlook its far-reaching significance. Those who already know about it are especially prone to dismiss it as something which they fully understand. (42) When, in the spring, a young man chances to look up and exclaim, "What a gorgeous blonde!* it should be recognized that his words tell us precious little about the young lady to whom he is presumably referring. But they do tell us something about him. He is projecting. The gorgeousness is inside him. (43) When a hospital patient, somewhat the worserfor imbibing, tells us in agitated tones that there are pink elephants on the wall, he is not telling us anything about the wall; he is informing us of his own internal slate. He is projecting. The pink elephants are in his own head. (44) When a friend greets you with a cheery announcement that it is a fine day, he is not informing you about the weather. He is only telling you that he has had a good night's rest and a satisfactory breakfast. He is projecting. The fineness is not of the day so much as it is of his own body. (45) When a man says ruefully, "I didn't know it was loaded," he is informing you that he some time previously projected his own notions about a gun into a gun. (46) Now, what a scientifically-oriented person would have done in the above examples is very simple indeed. He would have added the words "to me." Not out loud, perhaps, bui to himself, at least. He would have exclaimed, "What a gorgeous blondeto me," and "It looks to me as though there were pink elephants on the wall over there; can you see any?" (47) We express our awareness tpthe degree to which our thoughts or statements are projections of our own internal condition, rather than reports of facts about something else, by such words as: "It seems to me," "apparently," "from my point of view," "as I see it," etc. For convenience, then, we may refer to consciousness of projections as "to-me-ness." (48) Stuart Chase has said, "No other animal produces verbal monsters in his head and projects them on the world outside his head." The structure of our language makes us talk as if, and therefore act as if, qualities were in things rather than in us. The little word "is" gets us into difficulty when we say, "the grass is green," "the pie is sweet," "my husband is lazy," "she is no good," etc. We project what is in us into other people, situations, or things. The color of any object is not in the object, but is a reflection of certain wavelengths of light upon the retina. Colors, qualities, and attributes do not exist exclusively in the object or the observer, but is a relationship between the two.
(49) Alfred North Whitehead, in his book Science and the Modem World, said,

But whatever theory you choose, there is no light or color as a fact in external nature. There

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page.9

is merely motion of material. Again, when the light enters your eyes and falls on the retina, there is merely motion of material. Then your nerves are affected, and your brain is affected, and, again, this is merely motion of material. (50) The same line of argument holds for sound, substituting waves in the air for waves in the ether, and ears for eyes. Scientifically, the greenness is not in the grass, but is a relationship between the grass, our own nervous system and receptors, the light, etc. The sweetness is not in the pie; it is a relationship between our taste buds, what we taste, what we project into the world of reality. This "is," which makes us project what is inside of us into the world of reality, is called the "is of predication," where we predicate or project what is inside of us as if it were outside of us. We often confuse what is happening inside with what is going on outside of us. (51) Relations constitute the central notion of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but the "is" of predication invariably conceals this relationship. This kind of language influences a false-lo-fact non-relationship; it relates nothing to nothing. The "is" of predication leads to the predication of qualities into things. Too often, we assume that qualities exist in things, when actually they are a relationship between the observer and the observed. The "is" of predication does not allow us to realize that qualities are in us rather than in what is outside of us. It perpetuates the false-to-fact assumption that qualities are in things. It is, to me, the most important linguistic cause of human projection. (52) If we recall that the human organism is an abstracting and projecting mechanism, we will realize that our evaluations, of necessity, can only be relative also. We must be conscious of the dangers inherent in the structure of the language that we use. We must be conscious of the fact that the "is" of predication makes us have a false-lo-fact evaluation that qualities are in things, rather than a relationship between yourself, what you are observing, from a point of view relative to other variable factors, etc. By being conscious of the "tome-ness"by adding "to me," "as I see it," "from my point of view"you automatically introduce the third important element in the perception and evaluation of anything: you. You will not act as if your observations are the truth, and all others that happen to differ from you are merely opinion or untrue. We are inextricably involved in everything we perceive, and our statements about things, people, and situations, tell more about ourselves than what we are presumably talking about. (53) A third kind of projection, or Projection 3, is the kind that we find in psychology, where we project our own feelings of inadequacy into others. We project into others that which we feel guilty or insecure about. The overly verbalized lady might say, "I don't like Jane; she talks too much." This is a well-know psychological mechanism of achieving psychological equilibrium or mental well-being. We automatically elevate ourselves by criticizing others and attribute to them those qualities which we ourselves feel most inadequate or guilty about. (54) It is axiomatic that the chronic fault-finderthe person who is never pleased with othersis never pleased with himself, no matter how egocentric he appears to be. He is projecting a profound sense of dissatisfaction with himself onto others. (55) As we have stated, this word "projection" is an ambiguous term. It refers to many different things. It should be stated, however, that there is another sense in which the word is usedone in which it serves a very important psychological function. Some people are inadequate in not being able to identify or project themselves into situations. For example, some fathers cannot project or identify themselves in the role of a father. A good soldier, police officer, executive, worker, etc., must project himself into his situation. He must be able to identify himself with his part in life. Some, however, cannot do this, and it might require psychological counseling, psychiatry, or psychoanalysis. Also, by not being able to identify ourselves with our own inadequacies, we unconsciously place the blame on others. A youngster, being called down for a poor report card, asked, "What do you think the trouble with me is. Dadheredity or environment?" (56) Failure to project ourselves to some degree into situations is a lack of empathy. The inability to empathize with others, to have a feeling for others. Each extreme is bad, howeverprojecting too much into situations, and not being able to project anything. Some people lack this empathyare deficient in their psychological responses to the world around them. For example.

B7 page. 10 As we were viewing the beauties of nature, we were completely enthralled by the sheer magnitude, splendor, unspeakable and breathtaking beauty of the Grand Canyon. It was so captivating that we felt at a complete loss for words in describing its magnificence. Finally, a stranger walked up to the edge of this great natural phenomenon and, without any emotion, feeling, or appreciation for this natural wonder, could only utter, "Golly, what a gully!" A woman looked at a magnificent sunset painted by the artist Turner, and remarked, "I never saw any such colors in a sunset, Mr. Turner!" Instantly, the artist replied, "Madam, don't you wish you could?" (57) The kind of literature or movies involves this kind of empathy projection, or identification. They inevitably provide symbolic experiences, which are invited by the director or writer, because movies portray stars a beautiful, handsome, strong, rich, powerful, etc. We like to project ourselves into these characters. This becomes a symbolic relationship, or imaginative identification. We project ourselves into the person. We become it. We symbolize ourselves as the characters in the movie. If we do not enjoy a given movie or a given book, it's because the symbols don't stand for us. A gangster, a blonde floozy, a foreigner, the homely woman who never gets the man, or the ugly man who never gets the woman. (58) It must be remembered that, while projection is as natural and normal as breathing, if we project too much into the world of reality, or too many unintended meanings into others' words, and if we are not conscious of these projections, difficulties arise. We will attribute motives to others that are only within us; we will project qualities and feelings into things that are only in ourselves. We will have misunderstandings, conflicts, and confusions which might otherwise be avoided. (59) The scientist projects into the world of reality, but he is conscious of his projections. The psychoanalyst projects meanings into the words of his patients, but he, too, is conscious of his inferences as inferences, and of what he is projecting in the process of listening. The scientific method allows for projections; the unscientific attitude does not. The person with an immature or unscientific orientation will project the fears, hostilities, hates, dislikes, prejudices, motives, and other feelings which are only in him, and not be conscious of projecting these negative feelings into the world around him. (60) Van WVffK Brooks indicates how our projections can create a good as well as a bad, world for ourselves. He says: How delightful is the company of generous people, who overlook trifles and keep their minds instinctively fixed on whatever is good and positive in the world about them! People of small caliber are always carping. They are bent on showing their own superiority, their knowledge or prowess or good breeding. But magnanimous people have no vanity. They have no jealousy; they have no reserves, and they feed on the true and the solid wherever they find it. And, what is more, they find it everywhere. (61) Confucius made this projective phenomenon explicit when he said: "When you see a man of worth, see how you may emulate him. When you see one who is unworthy, examine your own character." (62) Effective communication: a two-way street. The burden for effective communication is upon both the speaker and the listener. If the speaker and the listener are to be on the same channel of communication, each has a job to do. If they are to lessen or eliminate misunderstandings, they must work at it. It just doesn't come automatically. Understanding is a precious quality that must be worked toward. It only comes about when we consciously try to achieve it, and so it is with human communication. If you want to lessen misunderstanding and achieve a higher degree of understanding, you must sincerely want to understand others. But this is only part of the problem. What must the speaker and the listener do in order to lessen misunderstandings? (63) One of the best techniques for lessening misunderstanding is the asking of questions. Speakers too quickly and too often assume that listeners understand them. Some workers nod their heads, as if they understand the boss, when they don't. They are afraid of appearing stupid if they ask, "What do you mean?"

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page. 11

But this is what we mean by compounding ignorance with stupiditywhen listeners refuse to ask, "What do you mean?" Ignorance means lack of knowledge, but stupidity is when we assume knowledge that we do not have, and do not bother to ask questions. (64) This failure to ask questions, on both the part of the speaker and the listener, is one of the major causes of communication breakdowns in business and industry today. Countless time, money, and energy have been wasted in civilian life, as well as the military, due to the unconscious assumptions of understanding when they really don't, and the consequent refusal to ask, "What do you mean?" (65) One of my students gave this example, that actually occurred during the second world war, and later verified by an Army officer. He said: During my tour of duty with the O.S.S. during the last war, I was assigned as espionage agent and cryptographer on a mission in the Magfa Hills of Burma. Aside from four Americans, the entire complement of the mission was composed of Katchln natives of Burma. One day I received a relayed message to decode from our headquarters in Washington. The message read: "Advise all Kafchin chieftains that they and all Kalchln soldiers on duty with the Office of Strategic Services that they are to be commended for their service to the United States by the order of CMA President Roosevelt, General Donovan." We read the message, and decided that it meant that a new medal, the Order of the C.M.A, was to be awarded to the Kalchlns, and would come from the PresidentHand General Donovan. We sent the message throughout the hills, and then radioed Washington asking when they would drop the medals, and how the presentation was to be made. Washington professed no knowledge of any medals. I sent a copy of the original message back to Washington, and received a reply that stated, "In Washington cryptography procedure, CMA means 'comma.'11 After considerable communication, Washington decided to invent an award, a "CMA medal," rather than go back on a promise of an American soldier. And so, at the cost of some $15,000 and much time and effort, the award of CMA (for Courageous Military Assistance) was awarded to each Kafchin soldier. (66) If you are not sure thai you understand what the speaker means, ask him, "What do you mean?" Unfortunately, in our culture, we sometimes take it as a personal affront if others ask us, "What do you mean?" Therefore, you as a listener might have to soften up the question by asking, "John, did you mean . . . ?" or, "Am I right in assuming that you mean .. . ?" (67) Let us keep ourselves from assuming too quickly that we know what the speaker means. Ask questions. This is the job of the listenerto get on the speaker's channel of communication. But, as we have seen, this burden is also upon the speaker. Sometimes a subordinate is afraid to ask, "What do you mean?" The speaker must be aware of this. If the listener gives any indication of not understanding, the speaker must ask questions so that the listener can get on his channel of communication. Effective communication is a twoway street. The flow of communication must come from both ways if we are to lessen or eliminate misunderstandings. (68) Effective listening responses. We are living in a world of talkers. Everybody wants to talk, but nobody wants to listen. It is a curious fact that we have agencies inside of us as well as outside of us that keeps us from listening. We have learned how not to listen. People are notoriously clever at not being able to listen while giving the impression that they are. You may recall hearing about the socialite who was saying good night to her guesis as they were leaving: As each guest thanked her for a lovely evening, she automatically answered, "Thank^ou very much." One young man decided to test 'her listening. As he approached the hostess, he smiled, shook her hand, and said, "I had a terrible time!"

B7 page. 12 To which, she replied, Thank you very much." (69) Just as we can have deafness due to a physical cause, there are psychological causes of deafness as well. Our refusal to listen is often a defense mechanism against the continual noise and fluff that is perpetuated over our communication media. Deafness caused by a physical disability can be both humorous as well as tragic: Three deaf gentlemen were aboard a train bound for London. "What station is this?" inquired the first gentleman at a stop. "Wembley," answered the guard. "Heavens," said the second gentleman. "I thought it was Thursday!" "So am I," exclaimed the third. "Let's all have a drink." (70) We have traditionally thought of deafness as a physical defect. Today, however, we recognize it as a psychological defect as well. Our prejudices or assumptions can make us deaf or refuse to listen. What are some of these assumptions that impede listening? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The assumption that we know it allthai we have nothing to learn. The assumption that the other person has no more knowledge than we, and therefore cannot teach us. The assumption that meanings are in words. The assumption that the speaker means what we would mean if we were doing the talking. We do not hear what he says, only what we would be saying. The assumption that we know what he is going to say after listening to his first few words.

(71) These are only a few of the many assumptions that keep us from listening. Effective listening is a real skill and it takes practice. The key to it lies in concentrating solely on the other person's conversation without introducing any thoughts or questions of our own. A listening response is a very brief comment or action made to another person which conveys the idea that you are interested, attentive, and wish him to continue. It is made quietly and briefly. (72) How, then, can we be better listeners? Here are some listening responses that we might use in order to be a better listener: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The nod. Nodding the head slightly and waiting. The pause. Looking at the speaker expectantly without doing or saying anything. The casual remark, such as, "I see," "Uh-huh," "Is that so?" or "That's interesting." The echo. This is repeating back the last few words the speaker said. The mirror technique. Reflecting back to the speaker your understanding of what he has just said, such as "You feel that. . ."

(73) Now, if we are really interested in what the other person thinksif we sincerely want to know his opinions or thoughtswe will have only one question in our mind: "What are your thoughts on this matter?" As soon as we go beyond that question, we are asking about things that strike us rather than things that strike them. The key to getting their full thinking lies in concentrating on listening to their conversation without introducing any thoughts or questions of our own. This is called non-evaluative listening. The one way we have of doing that is using listening responses instead of comments or questions, such as hearing them out. Listening responses keep us strictly with the other's thoughts and conversation. When we pause, we are staying with their conversation. When we echo, we are saying back what they said, not our thoughts. When we mirror, we are reflecting the context of their thinking, not ours. When we use a quiet "Uh-huh" or "I see," we are sticking with them. When we use these things in place of questions, speakers soon see that we are sincerely interested in their ideas, and they warm up and really begin to talk to us. Listening is, perhaps, the

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page.13

most important tool in dealing with mental patients, and its importance in life generally is only recently coming to be appreciated. (74) Assumptions of probability rather than assumptions of certainty. The assumption of certainty leads us into misunderstandings by assuming that we understand others when we don't. When we are oriented in terms of the assumption of certainty, we do not ask questions, as we think we know what they mean. But when we orient our communication in terms of the assumption of probability, we will ask questions. We will not be certain that we understand others when we don't. We will ask questions, if necessary, to get on their channel of communication. We cannot be certain that we know what someone else means. For example, It was lunch time. The elderly clerk opened his sandwiches, looked at them and exclaimed bitterly, "Cheese sandwiches! Always cheese sandwiches!" "Why don't you ask your wife to fix you another kind of sandwich?" a colleague asked. "Who's married?" said the man indignantly. "I make these sandwiches myself." (75) Well, we can never be certain what someone else means. Words are ambiguous. They can be used in many different senses, and it is this assumption of certainty that makes us fall victim to the misevaluation of projection or bypassing. (76) Misunderstandings between husbands and wives. Not too long ago, a publicity stunt involving movie actress Dorothy Lamour backfired into embarrassment. The publicity stunt failed to take human nature into account and left some marital scars. It seems that some publicity agents wanted to publicize Miss Lamour's appearance in Paris, Illinois by sending out intimate little postcards addressed to every third man in the area around the city. They read, "Darling, don't forget our date at 8 p.m. October 28th. Signed, Dorothy." One woman headed straight for a divorce lawyer, and another kicked the picture window in her house to smithereens in quarreling with her husband. Still another jealous wife flagged down a train to give a tongue-lashing to her locomotive engineer husband, who was once married to a woman named Dorothy. (77) These kinds of impulsive reactions, jumping to conclusions, allness orientations, assuming knowledge that one doesn't have, and projections are continually prevalent in the arguments and misunderstandings between husbands and wives. Divorce court proceedings are full of all four of these misevaluations. We just don't take time to ask questions to get down to the facts. (78) Arguments and disagreements between husbands and wives are not a simple problem, and we are not attempting to imply that they are simply due to semantic confusion. They are much deeper, involving studies of psychology, religion, psychiatry or psychoanalysis, sociology, anthropology, culture and personality, etc. But semantics and language play an important role in the misunderstandings between husbands and wives. Practically everything from the weather to indigestion is blamed for the arguments that crop up in every marriage. But if you and your spouse seem to be having more than your share of them lately, it may be for a really valid reason no one ever mentioned before. Neither of you knows what the other one is talking about. Marriage counselors and marriage experts agree that spats between otherwise happily married couples arise because certain words mean one thing to the husband and something entirely different to the wife. They also agree, however, that with a little thought, a man and wife can isolate the words that raise the most ruckus between them, come to an agreement on what they mean, and wipe out at one stroke the cause of a great deal of bickering. (79) For example, suppose Mr. and Mrs. Jones have a dinner date for 6 o'clock. During the afternoon, Jones calls his wife and says, "Something's come up at the office, dear. I'll be a little late." At 6:20, Mr. Jones is at the restaurant waiting patiently. By 7:00, he is waiting furiously. At

B7 page. 14 7:10, Mrs. Jones calmly arrives. "I've been waiting an hour," Jones says grimly. "But you said you*d be a little late." "Of course I did!" Jones explodes. "But a little late means a little latefifteen minutes at the most." "Well, I thought you meant about an hour," replies Mrs. Jones, and the argument is on, probably to prowl around the edges of the entire evening and ruin it, merely because the Joneses didn't have a word that meant the same thing to both. One couple I know fought after an evening at an inexpensive restaurant. "You know what Marsha thinks is inexpensive?" the husband groaned to me. Twelve bucks. And when I complain, she says to her expensive means the StorKCIub." Marsha comes from a well-to-do family, her husband from a poor one. Naturally, they were raised with different money values and different meanings for the word "inexpensive." This is a good example of what semantics expert Professor Margaret Schlaut means when she says, "It is impossible for any two persons to have learned the same word under precisely the same circumstances." (80) The private world of housewifery and business clash in this favorite distaff gambit: "Would you pick up something at the store for me on your way home?" To Joe, the sentence means, "As you come home at your usual time and by your usual route, would you stop in one store and ask the man to give you the package I ordered?" Joe is happy to do his wife this favor, and so he says, "Sure." Jane thereupon proceeds to interpret the sentence her way: "At the grocer's, I need [list of four items], and get a tube of toothpaste from the drugstore, and would you go to that new cleaner's [four blocks out of Joe's way] and get my dress? He closes at six, so you'd better leave work a little early." Obviously, Joe and Jane are headed for a fight, because they have different meanings for the words "pick up something" and "on your way home." (81) "Do I look all right?" (immemorially asked by wives just before going out) is equivalent to the sound of the gong for Round One. Since a husband seldom knows what she means by "all right," he plays it safe and mumbles, "Yeah. . ." But, since a wife seldom knows what she means by "all right," this is an unsatisfactory answer, to which she responds by saying, "How do you know? You haven't even looked!" What a wife really means by "Do I look all right?" is probably, "Tell me that I'm beautiful." One husband I know chose to take the demand literally: When his wife returned home, she found their baby smearing an overturned bottle of ink on the rug. Her husband was sitting on the sofa, eyeing the child keenly. "You said you'd watch him!" wailed the wife. The husband nodded calmly. "I'm watching him," he said. (82) Points to remember: (83) While we cannot hope to eliminate misunderstandings completely, there are several things that we can be conscious of in order to lessen misunderstandings. Whether we are a speaker or a listener, we must continually make an effort to get on the other person's wavelength. The very tool that we use in communication is a most inexact tool, although the best man has invented thus far for everyday communication. The ordinary non-technical language that we use is most ambiguous. Words can take many meanings, and this invites misunderstandings. (84) Language is arbitrary. There is no inherent relationship between a worP and what it stands for. Meanings are personal, and are determined by our past experiences. As all of us have had different
u

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas

B7 page. 15

experiences, don't be surprised if someone else uses a word differently than you. And so, if we are to lessen misunderstandings, there are several things that we can be conscious of. It should be important to remember the following conclusions relative to projection and misunderstanding: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Language is arbitrary. Words are ambiguous; they can have many meanings. Ordinary or non-technical language is more ambiguous than technical language. Words don't mean; people mean. Meanings are not in words; they are in our responses. Meanings are determined by our past experience. Meanings are personal. Become conscious of bypassing or projection. Other people do not necessarily mean what we mean. We tend to assume too quickly that we know what others mean. We tend to lake for granted what someone else means. If you do not understand or do not know the answer, do not project; ask questions. We need listeners who are a little more willing to inquire. We need listeners who can listen with non-evaluative listening responses. We need speakers who are a little more willing to answer questions, as well as to check if the listener is on his (the speaker's) channel of communication. Thus we shall be able to lessen misunderstanding among men.

B7 page. 16 Instructional Objectives

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Define and illustrate the process of projection or bypassing. [B7 para.20] Identify and explain two unconscious assumptions that underlie bypassing or projection. [B7 para.24] Explain Irving Lee's "container myth." [B7 para.24] Explain Force's observation "We do not get meaning, we respond with meaning." [B7 para.25] Identify two conscious assumptions which should displace two unconscious assumptions. [B7 para.30] Differentiate between and provide examples of three different kinds of projection. [B7 para.33] Illustrate how psychological equilibrium is achieved by projecting feelings of inadequacy onto others. [B7 para.55] Provide examples of imaginative identification. [B7 para.57] Explain what is meant by psychological causes of deafness. [B7 para.69] Identify and explain five assumptions that impact listening. [B7 para.70] Identify five listening responses that enhance communication. [B7 para.71] Illustrate the process of non-evaluative listening. [B7 para.73] Explain the mirror technique as a way of enhancing listening. [B7 para.73] Illustrate how one can be oriented in terms of assumptions of probability. [B7 para.74]

Appendix II, Section B7: How to Lessen Misunderstandings D. Maas Index Ambiguity in language Arbitrariness of language Assumptions, impeding listening Assumption(s) of certainty Assumption(s) of probability "Automatic transmission: 35 mph" example Brooks, Van Bypassing Casual remark: listening responses Chase, Stuart "Cheese sandwiches" example "CMA" example Confucius Consciousness of projection Container myth Context and meaning Deafness: psychological cause "Dorothy Lamour" example Echo: listening response Empathy: lack of Empathy projection Expectancy Failure to project Generosity and projection "Grand Canyon" example Identification Inference "Is" of identity "Is" of predication Johnson, Wendell Listening (effective) Listening exercise Meanings are in people "Men on first" example Mirror technique: listening response Multiple meaning Nod: listening response Non-evaluative listening Pause: listening response People in Quandaries "Pink elei&Bflr7examPle Projecting Projecting into art Projection Projection of inadequacy Psychological equilibrium Query Respond(ing) with meaning

B7 page. 17

71 83
70 74 74 23 60 17, 20 72 48 74 65 61 47 24 6 69 76 72 56 57 13 56 60 56 57 58 48 50 41 68,72 1 30 20 72 7 74 73 72 41 43 43 36 13, 17, 19, 20, 33 53 54 64 25

B7 page. 18 Reuther, Walter Schlauch, Margaret Science and the Modem World "Sorority pledge" example To me Transactional psychology Unconscious assumption Whiiehead, Alfred North 14 79 49 2 53 36 23 49

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction D. Maas

B8 page. 1

High Order Abstractions Sanford Herman

Key Terms Abstraction, levels of Ambiguity Brand wagon Class label Class names High/low order abstraction Levels of specificity and inclusiveness (1) Misunderstandings come about because of the assumptions that people have when they are communicating. An important contributing factor toward misunderstanding is the nature of language itself. Some words are so general, vague, and ambiguous that they invite projection and misunderstanding. Let us now take a closer look at the language we use in order to discover some of the characteristics of words that contribute to bypassing and misunderstanding. The following nine words can be classified or analyzed in terms of abstractness, generality, all-inclusiveness, or in terms of how specific or concrete they are. All right, here are the nine words: Occidental, educator, man, organism, Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Jones, School Administrator, professional man, and American. (2) Now, which word is the most abstract or general? Number them from nine to one, starting with the most general or all-inclusive with the nine, and concluding with the most specific or concrete, down to number one. (3) Which words cover a wider area, including more and more? Which of the above words is the most inclusive or general, or higher-order abstractions? All right, let's analyze them: (4) "Organism" is the most general or inclusive, as it includes all of the others under the word "organism." It also includes insects, frogs, birds, and other forms of life not included in the list. The next most general wordmore or less, as we shall see, for we will have to de-limit each onewould be "man." It is not as general as the word "organism," as it falls within the more general term "organism," but it includes all of the others as special cases, even including women. "Man," as used in its most general sense, includes both men and women, or, as someone once said, "Man embraces women." (5) Now we see that we must limit it, which is why we say that these words can only be delimited "more or less," to the western world. And the word "Occidental" includes the other remaining words. "Occidental," for example, is more general than "American," or "educator." Limited only to (he western world, although we have educators throughout the world, of course, this is again why we say that the generality or specificity of words can only be analyzed more or less, not exactly, with the precision of mathematical language. This does, however, indicate the kind of difficulty we have with language, as well as the characteristics of generality and specificity. (6) All right, after "Occidental" comes "American." We have now limited it to those who are Americans, which is a limited case of those whom we call Occidentals. After "American," we have "professional man," which is more general than the word "educator." The word "educator," of course, is more general than the word "school administrator," while "superintendent of schools" is a little more specific, indicating what kind of a school administrator we have. And, finally, the most specific is Mr. Jones. (7) So, in terms of generality, or inclusion, the words would be numbered from the most general to the most specific, more or less in the following way: 9. 8. would be "organism" would be "man"

B8 page.2 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. would be "Occidental" would be "American" professional man educator school administrator Superintendent of Schools, and Mr. Jones.

(8) This should indicate how general, vague, and ambiguous our language is, as even the most specific word, "Mr. Jones," can refer to thousands of Mr. Joneses. We see here that there are degrees of ambiguity or generality. We have many words which include more and more characteristics, while many characteristics are still left out. Let us emphasize this particular characteristic of words, and especially of higher-order abstractions. (9) Abstract words leave out many characteristics to be found in the world of reality, and emphasize similarities only. For example, the words "educator," "lawyer," "American," "cop," "convict." These words emphasize a few of the characteristics that the people who happen to fall under these classifications have in common. Words, however, do not indicate the differences to be found in the world of reality among the many unique individuals who happen to be a member of that particular class. These abstract words are class names, not names for individuals. (10) Let us call these ambiguous, vague, or abstract words "high-order abstractions." They go further and further away from the nonverbal world of reality, and are terms of more inclusion. Low-order abstractions, however, are words that are specific and concrete, referring to an individual thing in the world of reality. For example, "the chair that I am sitting on," we might refer to as "chair 1," the chair over by the window as "chair 2," the chair in the barber's shop as "chair 3," the chair that you are sitting on, "chair 4," "5," "6," and etc. This will distinguish it from all of the other chairs in this room, or in the world, which we call chairs. So the word "chair," or "chairs" can refer to millions of nonverbal objects in the world, not pointing out the differences that they have as chairs. High order abstractions tend to point out similarities onlythose qualities that the different unique and individual chairs have in common. It should be remembered that if we are going to have a mature, scientific, and factual orientation toward people, situations, and things, a little difference can make a big difference. The seeing of similarities only, implied by these high-order abstractions, can keep us from observing the important differences in the world around us. (11) Now, one of the dangers of high-order abstractions is that they are often ambiguous. The more ambiguous a statement, the more it can mean all things to all men. The five hundred most commonly used words in the English language have over 14,000 dictionary definitions or meanings. You can well imagine how many different meanings other high-order abstractions not so commonly used might have in the course of a conversation or discussion. Take a look at a large dictionary, and you will find as many as 40 or 50 dictionary definitions given for any particular word. (12) But the danger lies not solely with the ambiguity of high-order abstractions; misunderstandings result due to our attitudes or assumptions about the language we use. While the abstract or general words invite projection, misunderstanding, or bypassing, we should not keep ourselves in ignorance of what the other person means, by refusing to ask questions. For example, "Federalese," the term used to describe the terminology in which bureaucratic directives are written MflM, knuckled under to plain English when a New York City plumber wrote to the Bureau of Standards that he had found hydrochloric acid good for cleaning out clogged drainpipes: The bureau's response was: "The efficacy of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the corrosive residue is incompatible with metallic permanence." The plumber wrote back, he was glad the Bureau agreed with him, to which the Bureau replied, "We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residue with hydrochloric acid, and suggest you use an alternative procedure." By return mail, the plumber told how glad he was the Government thought his idea was OK.

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction D. Maas

B8 page.3

In desperation, the Bureau broke down and wrote the plumber, in plain Anglo-Saxon language: "Don't use hydrochloric acid. It eats hell out of the pipes." (13) In another example, a tireless investigator of other people's business, Alan Funt, took his candid camera and his concealed microphone out the other day to find out how many people knew what the word "retroactive" meant. He walked up to an elevator starter and declared belligerently, "Listen, I think you ought to know that the last elevator on the right side is retroactive!" "Gee," said the starter. "Haven't heard any complaints from the elevator man!" "It's dangerous." "Gee; we'll have to look into it. Do you think it's very dangerous?" "It certainly is dangerous. You can get into all kinds of trouble with that." Mr. Funt then wandered out, smiling his sadistic smile, and accosted a young lady at a soda fountain. "Boy," he exclaimed. "Isn't this weather retroactive, though?" She agreed heartily that it was. "Most retroactive day we've had," said Funt. "Yes," said the girl. "Terrible." "You know what retroactive weather is, don't you?" asked Funt. "Very hot, without stopping," said the girl firmly. The next victim was a gentleman window-shopping. "Hey, buddy," said Funt grimly, "if I were you, I wouldn't go into that store." "Why not?" he said. Those people in there. They're very retroactive. I mean, if a store is retroactive, the least you can do is pass them by." "Well," said the man uncertainly, "as long as you insist." "I don't insist; it's just my advice... Do you ever go into stores that are retroactive?" "Well, I've taken chances before," the man replied. (14) It is no wonder that we have so many misunderstandings and arguments centered around the ambiguity of high-order abstractions. Philosophical and theoretical discussions abound in misconceptions, misunderstandings, and projections because they are too often on the level of high-order abstractions. One of the dangers of talking continually on this level is that projection and misunderstanding is so much easier. It is at this level that we have so much misunderstanding and confusion. (15) pne of the best illustrations of the misunderstandings in philosophical discussions is exemplified in Dr. SchtlJjfcLibrary of Living Philosophers. In the general introduction to the Library of Living Philosophers, Schflpfsays: According to the late F.C.S. Schiller, the greatest obstacle to fruitful discussion in philosophy is the curious etiquette which apparently taboos the asking of questions about a philosopher's meaning while he is still alive. The interminable controversies which fill the histories of philosophy (he goes on to say) could have been ended at once by asking the living philosophers a few searching questions. (16) The confident optimism of this last remark undoubtedly goes too far. Living thinkers have often been t asked "a few searching questions," but their answers have not stopped interminable controversies surround//^ their real meaning. It is nonetheless true that there would be far greater clarity of understanding than is now often the case if more such searching questions had been directed to great thinkers while they were still alive. (17) Now, read the reply to those philosophers who answered the comments and criticisms of their own philosophy,.and you will have empirical evidence of how philosophical arguments are not only centered around

B8 page.4 philosophical issues and ideas, but also around the meanings of the words used. Time and again, a philosopher would say, "I did not mean that," or, "He misunderstood me." In fact, this is one of the greatest causes of arguments, disagreements and conflicts in the scholarly worlda misunderstanding of what the person said or meant in the first place. Witness debates and discussions on television, and you will find illustrations of arguments and disagreements among participants centered around the meanings of words, without asking the other person what he meant. This very often, of course, results not in a real debate or discussion, of issues or ideas, but in a pseudo-argument about the meanings of words. These pseudo-arguments will continue in debates and discussions as long as the participants assume that they know what the other person means, when they really don't, and, as long as they refuse to ask questions at the crucial points of the discussion. (18) The use of high-order abstractions in politics is sometimes good political rhetoric. A politician cannot be held to that which he didn't promise in the first place. According to one cynical theory of political practice, the whole theory of getting to office can be summarized in the most ambiguous and primitive kinds of questions and answers: Question: Answer: Question:
Answer:

"Mr. Politician, what do you favor?" "Mother Earth." "What are you opposed to?"
"Sin."

Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Question: Answer: Question: Answer:

"What kind of boy were you?" "Barefoot." "Where did you learn to love America?" "At my mother's knee, the liitle red schoolhouse, and the little while church." "Why are you running for office?" "Because of the inspiration of my ever patient wife." "What will you strive for if elected?" "To serve my beloved country to the best of my ability." "And when will you discuss your specific program?" "In due time."

(19) If you've seen "Meet the Press" on television, you will have seen responses that resemble these ambiguous answers. It is no wonder that a few nationally famous politicians draw an immediate laugh when they start to speak. Audiences today are much more sophisticated than they were thirty or forty years ago. Television is bringing issues and facts closer to the voT|frr. Any speaker, not just the politician, must have facts, evidence, and valid reasoning if he is going to get the majority of people to believe in what he is saying. (20) We still have a long way to go in achieving intelligent and scientific discernment of fact from opinionvague, abstract, and ambiguous language from that which is specific and concretebut we have come a long way in the 20th century. Television now affords us a great opportunity of hearing these high-order abstractions and circumlocutions (talking around a subject in action). Semantic wisdom means the ability to separate the wheat from the chaffmeaningful statements from the unmeaning or ambiguousreal communication from the noise that permeates so much of the media today. (21) One of the reasons, I think, that Adlai Stevenson was not elected in 1952 and 1956 was because of the high level of abstraction upon which he spoke. The average voter could not identify himself with Stevenson. Stevenson was the "egghead," which really meant that he spoke above the average voter. One of the cardinal rules for good communication is that you must speak the language of your audience. You must use the words that your particular audience can understand. As some of Stevenson's advisors said, "You must speak more to the belly than to the head." They felt that it was lime to get down to battling with words that carry elementary meaning to the plain man. Adlai Stevenson was not able to strike a happy mediumsomewhere between Harry Truman's "Give 'em hell" technique and his own almost scholarly approach. ^ (22) It is ironic, but probably significant, with some personal insight, or hindsight, that Adl^:Sievenson, in introducing John Kennedy for the presidency, who succeeded where he (Stevenson) had failed, said: "Do

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction D. Maas

B8 page.5

you remember that, in classical times, when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said 'How well he spoke,' but, when Demosthenes had finished speaking, people said, 'Let us march!'" (23) Politicians, public speakers, newspaper writers, advertising menanyone who uses wordsmust know the difference between high and low-order abstractions. We find too many high-order abstractions in political speeches, sermons, business letters, directives, and other forms of communication, which are one of the main causes of misunderstanding. Too much of our speaking and writing is of this nature, reminding us of the "Speech for All Occasions," which could be given anywhere, anytime, to anyone. Here is the "Speech for All Occasions:" (24) Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen: It is indeed a great and undeserved privilege to address such an audience as I see before me. At no previous time in the history of human civilization have greater problems confronted and challenged the ingenuity of man's intellect than now. Let us look around us. What do we see on the horizon? What forces are at work? Whither are we drifting? Under what mist of clouds does the future stand obscured? My friends, casting aside the raiment of all human speech, the crucial test for the solution of all these intricate problems to which I have just alluded is the sheer and forceful application of those immutable laws which, down the corridor of time, have always guided the hand of man, groping, as it were, for some faint beacon of light for his hopes and aspirations. Without these great, vital principles, we are but puppets responding to whim and fancy, failing entirely to grasp the hidden meaning of it all. We must readdress ourselves to these questions, which press for answer and solution. The issue cannot be avoided. There they stand. It is upon you, and you, and, yes, even upon me, that the yoke of responsibility falls. What, then, is our duty? Shall we continue to drift? No; with all the emphasis of my being, I hurl back the message: No! Drifting must stop. We must press onward and upward toward the ultimate good to which all must aspire. But I cannot conclude my remarks, dear friends, without touching briefly on a subject which I know is steeped in your very consciousness. I refer to that spirit which gleams from the eyes of a newborn babe, that animates the toiling masses, that sways all the hosts of humanity, past and present. Without this energizing principle, all commerce, trade, and industry are crushed and will perish from this earth as surely as the crimson sunset follows the golden sunshine. Mark you, I do not seek to unduly alarm or distress the mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters gathered before me in this vast assemblage, but I would indeed be recreant to a high resolve which I made as a youth if I did not, at this lime and in this place, and with the full realizing sense of responsibility which I assume, publicly declare and affirm my dedication and my concentration to the eternal principles and receipts of simple, ordinary, commonplace justice. For what, in the last analysis, is justice? Whence does it come? Where does it go? Is it tangible? It is not. Is it ponderable? It is not. Justice is none of these, and yet, on the other hand, in a sense, it is all of these things combined. While I cannot tell you what justice is, this much I can tell you: that, without the encircling arms of justice, without her shield, without her guardianship, the ship of state will sail through unchartered seas, narrowly avoiding rocks and shoals, headed inevitably to the harbor of calamity. Justice, Justice, Justice! To thee we pay homage. To thee we dedicate our laurels of hope. Before thee we kneel in adoration, mindful of thy great power, mute before thy inscrutable destiny. (25) Audiences usually burst out into applause after this speech is delivered; and when they are asked, "What, specifically, was said?" they reply, "Nothing." It is so full of high-order abstractions (hat listeners can project any meaning they wish into it, and they usually do. This "speech for all occasions" reminds us of the politician who was speaking to a group of farmers. After more than an hour of listening, one farmer turned

B8 page.6 to the other and said, "What's he talking about?" to which the other replied, "I don't know. He ain't said yet." (26) The difficulty with high-order abstractions is that we think we understand, when we don't. We all believe in what we call "freedom," but we seem to define "freedom" in terms of the privileges we would grant to ourselves, and to exclude the privileges that we would deny to others. The meanings of "freedom," "justice," "peace," "truth," "fact," "beauty," which are words that we use every day, are often ideological differences with deep emotional feelings. It is easy to think that we fully understand the meanings of these high-order abstractions, especially as used by others, only if we are shallow about them. The recognition of these abstract terms is especially important in international relations and at the United Nations. We have learned thai what we mean by "peace," "coexistence," "justice," "colonialism," etc., is not what Russia or Red China means. The emphasis in the State Department or the United Nations must be on a neurological and cultural or anthropological, rather than linguistic, point of view. The meanings of words are in the nervous systems of the users, and the cultural differences among men who use these words is tremendous. Linguistic studies or dictionary definitions will not help very much in international relations. In fact, this will only add to the confusion if we define these high-order abstractions with further high-order abstractions, as dictionaries usually dofor, as Dr. Hayakawa points out, "we will be chasing ourselves in verbal circles." (27) For example, in Dr. Hayakawa's book. Language in Thought and Action, he points out:
"What do you mean by democracy?"

"Well, democracy means the preservation of human rights." "What do you mean by rights?" "By rights I mean those privileges God grants to all of usI mean man's inherent privileges." "Such as?" "Liberty, for example." "What do you mean by liberty?" "Religious and political freedom." "And what does that mean?" "Religious and political freedom is what we have when we do things the democratic way." And, of course, we are right back to "democracy" that we started with. Or, another example given by Dr. Hayakawa: "What is meant by the word reAT "Well, it's a color." "And what's a color?" "Why, it's a quality things have,"
"Well, what's a quality?*

"Say, what are you trying to do, anyway?" (28) Well, if we are concerned about agreement and communicating meaningfully, we must go to lowerorder abstractions, or refer to specific and concrete examples in the nonverbal world. High-order abstractions, as we have seen, are not meaningless; they are too meaningful. They can mean different things to different people. If we are to communicate meaning and understand each other, we must do at least two things: (29) 1. 2. The speaker must use as many examples, illustrations, and low-order abstractions as is necessary to communicate his intended meaning. Speakers need to be much more concrete and specific than they are now. And, Listeners must ask the speaker for more specific examples, illustrations, and facts. Again, the burden for effective communication is upon both the speaker and the listener.

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction

D. Maas (30) Rudolph Flesch, in his book How to Make Sense, says:

B8 page.7

We have gradually discovered that "specify" is the best rule, not only for finding the truth, but also for telling it. Through the practical experience of professional writers and reporters we have found that to communicate effectively we must communicate specific facts. As far as there is any scientific method of writing, this is it: Give details, quote facts and figures, mention dates and places, repeal exactly what was said, spell the names right. Rudolph Flesch's advice is to focus on the visible, audible, and measurable. Pass on your direct experience, rather than your thoughts, opinions, and general ideas. (31) Higher-order abstractions are a product of the progress of civilization. Originally, words or symbols stood for a specific, nonverbal referent, usually within reach of primitive man. Today, we are far removed from most of that which our language refers. There are more and higher levels of abstraction. (32) Advertizing, for example, has kept pace with civilization, so that we now not only have advertizing of a specific product, but advertizing of advertizingor advertizing of higher-order abstractions. We not only advertize a specific product, like Baby Ruth candy bars, for example, but every year we have "Candy Carnival Week" to sell any kind of candy. (33) But this isn't all. We not only have advertizing about a particular candy bar, or candy in general, but we have "Standard Brands Week": "Good names for good things to have." Here we have advertizing of a higher-order of abstraction yet: "Standard Brands." They are not selling a particular brand, but, again, any brand item. "Buy a brand," "Get on the brand wagon," they say. It is true that America is a system of names and naming, where people are more interested in the name than what it stands for. This is true, not only in advertizing, but toward people, situations, and things generally. We pay more attention to words than what the word standtfor. This systematic miseducation is not the fault of advertizing alone, but of our educational systems generally, where more emphasis has traditionally been placed upon words than the facts they symbolize. (34) Now, no general semamicist wants to do away with high-level abstractions. Such abstractions, as in poetry and art (and certainly there are different purposes and levels of writing) depending upon the technicality and complexity of the material, as well as the audience to whom you are writing. But we should know the difference between high-level and low-level abstractions. In our writing, speaking, or listening, if we have confusion and misunderstanding, we should see if we are talking about the same thing. We must remember that often we have misunderstandings not because statements are meaningless, but because they are too meaningful; they cover too much. (35) High-order abstractions are necessary, such as in laws, orders, rules, etc., because they will allow for individual interpretations by judges &r authorities for each individual case. But, as we know, in law and politics the ambiguities of the language used can cause much communication failure, misunderstandings, disagreements, etc. (36) The primary purpose of art and poetry is not always to communicate an idea or a feeling. There are many purposes of communication, art, and poetry. Difficulty results, however, when the person reading the poem or looking at abstract art is not conscious of projecting his meaning into the poem or work of art. We have an allness orientation about our meaning, as if the meaning is in the poem or work of art, rather than a relationship between the poem and the reader, the abstract art and the perceiver. Whether we are talking about poetry, art, writing, or speaking, misunderstandings and misevaluations will result if we are not conscious of our projectionsprojecting what is inside of us into what is outside of us. Just as we project meanings into ambiguous high-order abstractions, so do we too often project something meaningful into a meaningless statement. So as not to confuse an ambiguous statement with meaningless statements, let us now consider a meaningless statement. A meaningless statement has the following two characteristics:
1. 2. It is inherently contradictory, or it is a self-contradiction. And, A meaningless statement has no physical referent or no nonverbal referent.

B8 page.8 (37) In the first place, we may define a meaningless statement, therefore, as one which is either contradictory, or which has no coherence. A contradictory statement is one such as: "The barefoot boy with his shoes on stood sitting in the grass." It contains inherent contradictions. I discovered the following meaningless answers to questions on a final examination in a junior college business law course: The question was: "Define 'law"." The answer that the student gave: That unto which the breaking of whereas is unlawful." Another question: "Define 'contract.'" Answer: "An agreement between two or more persons to do or not do that which they do or do not do." "Define 'felony.'" "An offence the penitentiary of which is punishment or both." "Define 'agent.'" "An agent is a partnership to a contract not to do illegal business for profit at a stated time and not crazy." Here was another question: "Carter, 18 years old, purchased a camera for cash. He carelessly left the camera on a streetcar. It was never recovered. Carter now insists that the merchant who sold him the camera return his money. Can Carter force the merchant to return the purchase price? Why?" The answer given by the student: "Yes and no. It depends. It would seem that the circumstances pertinent to the case are irrelevant." (38) The second characteristic of a meaningless statement is that it does not refer to anything in the world of reality. It has no physical referent. It must be remembered that a meaningless statement is meaningless in this respect only. If a person, for example, sees pink elephants on the wall, or other visions of a psychotic, these false-to-fact verbalizations are regarded as meaningless to a scientist, but they are very meaningful to a psychiatrist. The problem of meaningfulness and meaningless statements is inherently connected with the philosophical problem of existence. In this connection, as we have seen, we have referred to logical existence and physical existence. Alfred Korzybski refers to the problem in the following way. He says that: in the rough, a symbol is defined as a sign which stands for something. Any sign, however, is not necessarily a symbol. If it stands for something, then it becomes a symbol for this something. If it does not stand for something, then it is not a symbol, but a meaningless sign. (39) Meaningless signs are the same as noises. A noise does not stand for or represent something in the world of reality. It is not a symbol, as a word is. So, before a noise can become ajgymbol. something must exist for it to symbolize. The first problem of words and symbols, therefore, in WfiLdo-distinction to noises and meaningless sounds, is centered around the existence of something in the world of reality. Therefore we can classify two different kinds of existence: 1) physical existence, and 2) logical existence. (40) PoincArre", the famous French scientist, defines "logical existence" as "a statement free from selfcontradictions." Thus, a thought, to be a thought, must not be self-contradictory. A self-contradictory statement is meaningless. (41) We can say, then, that a self-contradictory statement has no logical existence. To talk about a "square circle" is to talk about a contradiction in terms, a nonsense or meaningless statement, which has no logical existence. (42) PhilipfFrank indicates a similar criterion of existence and meaningful statements as given by Einstein. He says, "Einstein requires accordingly that two criteria have to be met by a set of basic principles: logical consistency and simplicity on the one hand, and agreement with the observed facts on the otherbriefly speaking, a logical and an empirical criterion." (43) Now, the reference to verifiability is a necessary part of the theory of meaningfulness. A sentence the truth of which cannot be determined from possible observations is meaningless. Rationalists down through centuries believe that there are meanings in themselves. Empiricists, however, at all times, have insisted that

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction D. Maas

BS page.9

meaning depends upon verifiability, and modern science is a documentation of this pragmatic or operational point of view. (44) Without adhering to this view, modern physics would be incomprehensible. The verifiability theory of meaning is an indispensable part of a scientific philosophy and orientation. We are concerned about meaningless statements, and what constitutes intelligent behavior, because there are so many people who answer meaningless questions as if they were meaningful. Penologist David Dressier, author of Pearl Chief, performed an amusing psychological experiment to see how gullible some people are: He placed an attractive girl in front of a department store, rattling a can and crying, "Give something for the orphans." It was Christmas season, and coins tinkled into the contribution box. The people didn't seem to mind that the can boldly proclaimed, "Give three-headed orphans of Claustrophobia. This is a fake," Mr. Dressier began his tests with several different petitions. One read (Now study this carefully)it said: "Whereas television is viewed by children as much as adults, and whereas television shows today are uncensored, and sometimes television shows that are suggestive and in bad taste, now therefore we petition the Federal Communications Commission to appoint a Commissar of Plunging Necklines, whose duty it shall be to look into this matter." His theory was that anyone signing such a petition without reading and detecting the ridiculous flavor was over-trusting. He stationed a pretty girl on a business street, asking people vaguely, "Will you sign a petition to clean up television?" The very first lady took the pencil, affixed her signature, and exclaimed, "I'm all for cleanliness!" Practically no endorser read the petition, and those who did rarely saw what was there. "Who do you represent?" demanded one man. "A society trying to get action," the girl explained vaguely but sweetly. "Who's behind this?" he insisted. "The trouble with people is that they don't know what they're reading, and they sign anyway." He read the statement through, then said mildly, "I don't have a television set, so I won't sign. But if people would read more carefully, there wouldn't be any wars. Good luck, young lady." In all of the cities that they carried on their interviews, Mr. Dressier found an astonishing prevalence of the will to believe. In one city they asked, "Sign a petition to put all jobs in civil service?" It read: "We, the persons hereto attached, and not withstanding, do readily believe and heartily disbelieve, that inasmuch as liberty is the finest three-star double action and aged in the wood. . ." Anyhow, yesthey got endorsers. One man thundered, "Lady, if that would rid us of politicians, I'll sign anything!" A woman said, "My whole family works in City Hall. They'd be out of a job if I signed," In another community, they offered the following: "Whereas we arc unalterably and irrevocably opposed to Communism and all forms of totalitarianism, and whereas it is the duty of every citizen to support the constitution and all it means, now therefore, we, the undersigned, do hereby petition that the Congress of these United States to legislate that each and every person signing this petition be required to stand on his or her respective head for thirty-six consecutive hours, in front of such public monument as the Congress, in its good judgement, shall deem appropriate to the occasion." A fire-captain not only signed, but got his buddies in the fire-house to do the same! "I'm against all Russians," he declared.

B8 page. 10 An auto dealer cried, "I don't sign a damn thing until I've read every damn line of it, see?" "Yes, sir," the canvasser replied. "You're perfectly right." The businessman read slowly and carefully. "Yep," he said at last. "I'll sign it." "Here is another familiar psychological phenomenon," reports Mr. Dressier. "We sometimes think we see what we expected to see." He reports further that: ... in a college neighborhood, a prospect read the document and decided, "OK. I'll sign." "You're sure you know what it says?" the girl asked him. "Sure," the man replied. "I have to stand on my head for 36 hours. That's all right with me if it'll rid this country of those Communists." This man (says Dressier) wasn't credulous; he was just willing. (45) The conclusions of this study in public gullibility are truly amazing. He reports that, altogether, 515 people stopped to consider petitions, and, of these, 105 signed20 %. More significant, he says, is the fact that even those who did not sign rarely detected the preposterous element in the scheme. Of some interest, perhaps, is his observation that women stopped more often than men, but males signed up more readily, usually delivering a lecture on the supposed subject first. (46) His findings were generally confirmed when they passed the can for the "three-headed orphans of Claustrophobia:" People were even more trusting, quite willing to help feed the over-endowed monsters. Some people noted the word "orphans," but not "three-headed." A policeman stood alongside our canvasser for some time. "You know all about this?" she asked him. "Oh, yes," he affirmed. "It's a worthy cause, helping orphans get along in life." A lady took a quick glance, cried, "Poor things! They must need help." A man said, "I was an orphan myself." And a woman exclaimed, "Orphans of Claustrophobia! I wouldn't give the Russians a nickel!" "Only four persons out of the 264 who slopped detected the fraud: less than 2%. Among all who stopped," reported Mr. Dressier, "59% gave something, which is a pretty high rate of confidence in American philanthropy." (47) Millions of television viewers have seen this same psychological phenomenon: projectionprojecting something meaningful into meaningless statements on Alan Funt's Candid Camera. The late Al Kelly, the famous doubletalk artist, would talk with people without communicating any meaning whatsoever, but he always got a meaningful response, or agreement with what he wasn't saying. (48) We need to be much more scientificnot only in our scrutiny of the nonverbal world, but of the verbal world as well. We need to ask more questions if we do not understand. We need to ask people to be more specific and concrete, for more examples and illustrations, if we find their writing or talking too ambiguous. We must not confuse the meaningless with the meaningful, and we should not feel that it is a mark of stupidity if we do not understand what the other person is talking about. It is this false fear of appearing stupid that keeps one in ignorance of the subtleties and ambiguities of the verbal worldfor this world, too, must be explored before it is understood.

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

B8 page. 11

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Demonstrate understanding of a continuum of abstraction from least inclusive to most inclusive. [B8 para.01] Illustrate how a word may be classified as less specific or more specific. [B8 para.06] Illustrate that even our most specific words are in actuality class names. [B8 para.07] Differentiate between class names and names for individuals. [B8 para.09J Characterize high-order abstractions. [B8 para. 10] Illustrate specific instances of Federalese. [B8 para. 12] Illustrate the ambiguity of high-order abstractions. [B8 para. 14] Explain why philosophical and theoretical discussions abound in misconceptions, misunderstandings, and projection. [B8 para. 14] Identify the causes for the pseudo-argument. [B8 para. 17] Describe the process of attaining semantic wisdom. [B8 para.20] Differentiate between high- and low-order abstractions. [B8 para.23] Illustrate a verbal circle created by high-order abstraction. [B8 para.27] Differentiate among linguistic, neurological, cultural, and anthropological points of view. [B8 para.27] Explain how to disambiguate a higher order abstraction. [B8 para.29] Summarize Flesch's advice on concretizing our communication. [B8 para.30] Define and illustrate the term consciousness of projection. [B8 para.36] Define and characterize a meaningless statement. [B8 para.37] Identify the crucial difference between meaningless and too meaningful terms. [B8 para.37] Identify and describe two characteristics of a meaningless statement. [B8 para.36] Differentiate between a symbol and a meaningless sign. [B8 para.38] Differentiate between logical and physical existence. [B8 para.44] Differentiate between rationalist and empiricist criteria for meaning. [B8 para.43] Illustrate instances of the will to believe. [B8 para.44] Explain and describe the expectancy factor in perception. [B8 para.44] Identify and describe instances of people projecting something meaningful into neamingless statements. [B8 para.481

B8 page. 12 Index Abstraction; levels of Abstract words "Adlai Stevenson" example Ambiguity (of high-order abstraction) Ambiguity in language Brand wagon "Cicero/Demosthenes" example Class label Class names Degree(s) Degrees of ambiguity Degrees of generality Details/facts/figures: L.O.A Dressier, David Empiricists and meaning
Examples/must ructions

4 10 21 14 14 33 22 9 9 9 8 8 29 44 43
29

Expectancy Flesch, Rudolph "Gullibility" example Hayakawa, S.I. High/low order abstraction High order abstraction High order abstraction: necessity for How to Make Sense "Hydrochloric acid" example Illustrations/examples: L.O.A. Language in Thought and Action Levels of abstraction Levels of specificity and inclusiveness "Living philosopher" example Logical existence Low/high order abstractions Low order abstractions Low order abstractions: details Low order abstraction: examples Low order abstraction: facts Low order abstraction: figures Low order abstraction: illustrations Meaningless statements "Meet the press" example Philosophy and high order abstraction "Plunging necklines petition" example PoinCare' Projecting Projection Pseudo-argument Rationalists (and Meaning) "Retroactive" example Sign/symbol

44 30 45 27 23 10, 28, 35 35 30 12 29 27 4 3 15 40 23 29, 30 30 29 30 30 29 36 19 15 44 40 48 48 18 43 13 38

Appendix II, Section B8: High Order Abstraction D. Maas Specificity: levels of Speech for all occasions "Square circle" example Symbol/sign "Three-headed orphan" example Vagueness and high order abstraction
Verbal circle

B8 page.13 03 24 41 38 44 10
27

Will to believe

44

Appendix II, Section B9: The Semantics of Happiness

D. Maas

B9 page.l

The Semantics of Happiness Sanford Berman Key Terms

Circularity of definitions Degrees of happiness and success Expectation/motivation H = m/e I.F.D. disease Motivation/expectation matrix Multi-ordinality Positive expectency (1) Philosopher John Locke said, "There is a science of what man ought to do as a rational and voluntary agent for the attainment of happiness." (2) "Are you happy?" Haven't you or someone else asked you that question? What kind of an answer do you usually give? Or do you find it difficult to answer? One of the reasons why it is difficult to answer is because we do not know what happiness is, or what we mean by happiness. We have a vague, general notion of what we mean by happiness, but, as with all other high-order abstractions, we find it difficult to define with words. (3) Emmanuel Kant has said, "The notion of happiness is so indefinite that, although every man wishes to attain it, yet he never can say definitely and consistently what it is that he really wishes." One of the reasons why we find it difficult to define is due to the nature of the question that we ask. What is happiness? The little word "is" maximizes the problem. (4) The first important point is that whatever we say happiness is, it isn't. What do I mean by that? Well, the verbal world is not the same as the nonverbal world. They are two different things. Whatever the word "happiness" stands for, or represents, is a feeling inside of us, which is on the nonverbal level. Whenever we define what happiness is, we use words to define it, and this is on the verbal level. (5) So they are two different things. Our verbal definitions of happiness are not the nonverbal feelings of happiness inside of us. (6) Now the second problem revolves around the ambiguous word "happiness." "Happiness" is a highorder abstraction, and each person has his own definition. Some people are happy by living a life of leisure, or a hobo's existence, while others are happy if they make more and more money. Some people are happy by living the life of a scholarreading, doing research, learning, gaining knowledgewhile others are happy going out every night to parties, social affairs, nightclubs and country clubs. Whether or not these people are really "happy," whatever that means, is another question, which can, perhaps, be best determined by a psychiatrist. (7) Each person has his own definition of happiness and the way to achieve it. Now, let us make a semantic analysis of happiness and see how equally ambiguous our definitions or answers are. We will also notice the circularity of our definitions, which often carry us right back to where we started. For example. The teacher asks: "What do we mean by happiness? What is happiness?" The student: "When we have material things." Teacher: "What do you mean by 'material'?" Student: "I mean a house." Teacher: "What do you mean by a house?" Student: "A ranch-style house." Teacher: "What kind of a ranch-style house?"

B9 page.2 Student: Teacher: "One with brick, a low roof, and modern design." "What do you mean by 'modern design'?"

I I
Teacher: Student 2: Teacher: Student 2: Teacher: Student 2:
Teacher:

(8) At this point, the second student interjects, "I see what you are doing. This is the Socratic method, the method of teaching by Socrates. Couldn't we define happiness in terms of prestige?" "What do you mean by prestige?" "Plenty of money." "How much is plenty, and is this prestige?" "Well, I'll be considered successful." "What do you mean by 'success' or 'successful'?" "By success I mean money."
"Isn't this what you meant by prestige? How much money gives you success

Student 2: Teacher: Student 2:

or prestige?" "Enough to buy material things." "And how much is enough?" "Enough to make me happy."

(9) These kinds of questions are very important in terms of semantic training. They show us how often we think and talk in tremendously vague terms. Consequently, we very seldom know exactly what we want, how to achieve it, or how to recognize it even if we did achieve it. We must learn to go from high-order abstractions like "prestige," "success," "happiness," to low-order abstractions, to know specifically what we want to attain and exactly how to attain it. Otherwise, as we have seen, we would not recognize it even if we did reach our goal, and we would be chasing ourselves around in verbal circles. (10) We see that happiness means many different things to many different individuals. To some, certain things are important. To others, other factors are more important. What can we say happiness is? How can we best define happiness? (11) Happiness is a function of many factors. It is function of material and personal needs, a certain amount of creative work, possibilities for sociability and communion with others, ethical, moral, and religious life, leisure, a rewarding job, etc. We can best define happiness by borrowing from the mathematicians the use of the functional formula: Happiness = a function of variables a, b, c, d . . . n. Or, Happiness = a function of MN (material needs) + PN (personal needs) + CW (creative work) + RL (a religious life) + RJ ( a rewarding job), etc. There are usually many variables that lead toward happiness, and, too often, they represent things that are outside of us; but an important variable that determines whether or not we are happy is inside of us, and this is our evaluations, our expectations or assumptions. Besides considering the external factors, we must also focus our attention on human evaluation as an important factor in happiness. (12) What contributes to happiness or unhappiness? We can, for convenience* sake, consider two aspects of human evaluation (or our ways of thinking) relative to happiness. Let us talk about the IFD Disease: Idealization, Frustration, and Demoralization. The "IFD Disease" was coined by Professor Wendell Johnson, in his book People in Quandaries. First, he says, we have ideals which are too high, too vague and two-valued ("either/or"). Many of our ideals are too high or unrealistic. They are far beyond our capacity. We have many people trying to "keep up with the Joneses," living far beyond their means, people who have a champagne appetite on a beer income. This is a gross misevaluation, characteristic of our culture, where to too many people the symbols of success become success. But they can only lead toward personal problems. For example: "I live in one of the most beautiful homes on Cold Water Canyon," a Hollywood chap told a psychiatrist on his first visit. "I have a chauffeured Cadillac, two swimming pools (one for the children), a helicopter to take me to the beach club, belong to three exclusive golf clubs. man a yacht with a crew of six, and eat so well my diner's club bill averages more than $1,900 a month."

i i

Appendix II, Section B9: The Semantics of Happiness D. Maas

B9 page.3

"Under those conditions," commented the psychiatrist, "what kind of problem could you possibly have?" "My problem, Doctor," said the patient, "is that I only make $50 a week." (13) Well, easy credit made available to almost anyone has become responsible for many of these kinds of misevaluations, unrealistic and not warranted by the facts of a person's income. Too many individuals believe thai symbols are the things, that the symbol of success is success. Costly symbols like Cadillacs, mink coats, costly homes that people can't afford, are purchased and maintained to perpetuate the idea of success. Ideals are often not only too high, but they are too vague and ill-defined. Even if a person *vfi able to achieve it, he probably wouldn't recognize it. Ideals are often not only too high, but they are too vague and ill-defined. Even if a person yt^m to achieve it, he probably wouldn't recognize it. Many people want to be a success, with dollar signs MB the s's. But how successful is success? Many of our ideals are unattainable because they are so vague and ill-defined. Finally, many of our ideals are two-valued. We think in terms of success or failure, without realizing that there are degrees in between. With this kind of two-valued thinking, if we are not a success then what are we? Obviously the only other alternative that such two-valued thinking allows is failure. (14) Sociologist Raymond Mack made a two-year study of approximately 1,400 salesmen and concluded that they set financial goals which they probably can never achieve. Most hope for income which less than one percent of the salesmen in the country actually achieve. And this does not even include^the equally unrealistic goals that are set for them by others. If we do not achieve these ideals, frustration follows, and in turn comes demoralization. So our IFD disease of idealization, frustration, and demoralization looks something like this: Idealizationideals that are too high, too vague, and ill-definedand two-valued success or failure leads to frustration, which in turn leads to demoralization. (15) Psychologists tell us that when we dislike ourselves it is because we strive beyond our capacity. We are all dependent upon our actual selves for the achievement of certain cherished goals. If we fail, we feel humiliated and abased, and self-hate, frustration, and demoralization are aroused. We must think about success and failure in terms of degrees. There are not only different kinds of success, but it is relative and must be evaluated in terms of degrees along a continuum. (16) Now, closely related to the problem of the IFD disease is another form of evaluation.- It, too, is involved in our concern with happiness. This is the problem of expectation and motivationwhat contributes to happiness or unhappiness relative to human evaluation or our ways of thinking. We can consider two aspects: motivation and expectation. By motivation we mean the drive, desire, goalthings you want, strive for, and hope for. By expectation we mean the probability of achieving it, or, as usually happens in life, expecting to get something with certainty. Now one theory of happiness, therefore, says that human happiness is a combination of many factors, depending upon the philosophy you believe in. Happiness is having sufficient clothing, food, love, creative work, a steady job, sociability with others, free from want, etc. There are many other variables that, of course, might be added. Lastly, there is the evaluational factor. Our own evaluations or assumptions play an important role in our happiness or unhappiness. And one kind of an evaluation, our expectations, are of major importance in our happiness or our frustrations and demoralizations. (17) Alfred Korzybski says that our evaluations include motivation and expectation. But he says we must make a distinction between our motivations and our expectations, what we expect to get. We must separate the two. Life is full of changes, complexity, and details. We are exposed to people full of allness, others who are striving to get ahead, competition, personal desires and wants. There are too many variables outside of us that we cannot control in our own desire for happiness. But the important thing is that there is a part that we can control inside of us, and this is our expectations. (18) One of the reasons why some people are unhappy, frustrated in life, and are quitters is due to the fact that they have had too high expectation* out of themselves, others or out of life. They expected too much. One of the reasons for this frustration is that they did not think in terms of probability, only in terms of certainty. When we expect to get something, we expect to get it with certainty. And so, although we have defined our expectations as the probability of achieving it, in actuality, as we see it in everyday life, we might

B9 page. 4 define expectation as expecting to get something with absolute certainty. (19) There are usually no degrees in our thinking. We either expect to get something with certainty, or we don't expect to get it. Now what if we trained people from birth in maximum expectations, expecting to get everything they desired or wanted? What kind of life would we be living in? It probably would be pretty difficult if we realize the motivations of others also. People who have high expectations are frustrated and demoralized if their desires are not achieved. If you expect too much and you do not achieve what you expected you soon find that your motivation goes down to zero. This is one of the important reasons why high expectations are dangerousbecause you are not able to bounce back. This leads toward quitting instead of starting over again. Edison and Ktttering had thousands of failuresalthough they didn't define them as failuresbut by keeping their expectations low but their motivation high, they were able to pick up the pieces, start over again and again and again. They were able to separate motivation from expectation. (20) Now, what if we have reduced expectations? If we are trained in lowering our expectations, we are not apt to be hurt, frustrated, or beaten. Training in maximum expectations is bad. We should not train a man in great expectations in a recalcitrant, changing world. While we cannot control the variables outside of us, we can control the evaluational factor inside of us. And the evaluational factor is the amount of expectation we have been trained in. (21) Now, let us take a look at four different kinds of evaluations. Here are four different profiles of individuals whom I'm sure you all recognize. Man One has low motivation but high expectations. Man Two has low motivation and low expectations. Man Three has high motivation and high expectations, while Man Four has high motivation and low expectations. Number One is the profile of a man who expects too much but is not willing to work for it. He has high expectations but low motivation. "The world owes me a living" is his motto. Low motivation and high expectations are dangerous assumptions or evaluations and perhaps the worst of the four. We see this in juvenile delinquency, criminals, some workers, and some people in life generally. (22) Number One is a man whose expectations are too high but who has no drive, goal, ambition, desirewho will not work hard toward these maximum expectations. This evaluational pattern is bound to lead toward unhappiness, frustrations, and demoralizations, quitting, the so-what attitude, and finally, complete apathy toward life. (23) The evaluation pattern of Number Two, low motivation and low expectation, is that of the drifter, the hobo, the lazy person, the one who doesn't want much out of life and is content with what life gives him, not with what he can make for himself. This man might be perfectly happy, but this is questionable. This kind of a person might be a result of too high expectations resulting in a complete apathy toward the world around him. But while this person might be happy, or more properly perhaps, content, he is obviously not living up to the human potential or his potential. (24) Our profile Number Three is that of many peoplehigh motivation and high expectation. Many successful executives are of this nature, successful in the business sense, but not in their own personal life. By not being able to separate motivation from expectationand you psychologically canthey keep both high motivation and expectation and continually run up against frustrations, unexpectancies, problems they hadn't anticipated because of the high expectations they shouldn't have had in the first place. While evaluation Three is not as disastrous as Number One or Two, it MM too can result in Number One or Two when the expectations have been too high. It might go from Number One to Number Two or directly to Number Two, where all of the desire, drive, goals, incentives, and ambition has been knocked out of a person due to the high expectations with absolute certainty. (25) Profile Number Four is that of a person with low expectations but with high motivation. We can separate our expectations from our motivation and for happiness and proper evaluation we must make a clear distinction between the two. We can keep our motivation high while our expectations remain low. But proper evaluation in a changing and variable world indicates thai we must lower our expectations to fit the facts. Our expectations must be realistic. Most of us do not make a distinction between hoping and expecting, between our motivations and expectations. But we must consider the recalcitrance of the world, its sometimes refusal to comply with our own desires and expectations. Training man in maximum expectations leads to despair, but a reduction of expectations while maintaining high motivation will not lead to despair, failure, frustration,

Appendix II, Section B9: The Semantics of Happiness D. Maas

B9 page.5

and demoralization if the desires and hopes are not achieved. (26) Too many people expect marriage to be idealistic. They blame Hollywood or someone else. But let us put the blame where it should be: the idealistic expectations of people who shouldn't have had them in the first place. We must learn to lower our expectations, expectations which fit the world of reality, and not try to make reality fit our expectations, Goethe said, "Limitation of aim is the mother of wisdom and the secret of achievement." George Santayana said, "Knowledge of the possible is the beginning of happiness." Sidney Hook said, "Maturity is the possession of rational expectations." We must remember that wisdom isn't wisdom unless it knows its own scope. Once you start letting maximum expectations go, when do you stop? When is enough enough? We must remember that our wants and expectations are inside of us; facts are outside. We must know that the two are different. We can control our expectations, but not the complex world outside of us. (27) Psychologists report that college graduates as well as their parents expect too much from college. College graduates are often embittered and disillusioned when they discover that a college degree is not a oneway ticket to success. Their parents often suffer the same rude awakening, especially those parents who are not college graduates, on realizing that a college education has not solved all their children's personal, financial, and social problems. This dependence upon an academic degree as a magic wand that will open all doors is bound to bring frustrations sooner or later. Young people who put out the greatest effort and sacrifice working for a college education often have the greatest confidence in its magic and suffer the greatest disillusionment. However, a college education is not the end but the beginning of hard work, toward an industrious and useful life. ft; (28) Alfred Korzybski has said, "If you expect too much out of life, the chances are that ybu will be disappointed. But if you consciously keep your expectations within range of your limitations, you may be pleasantly surprised and, therefore, happy. Keep your expectations realistic, within those limitations," says Korzybski, "and you will be happier." (29) Korzybski did not give a formula to be happy, because how happy is "happy"? But he did give a formula to be happier, which is a relative, meaningful, and an observable scale, Socrates has said, "Know thy limitations." He also stated that "not life but a good life is to be chiefly valued." Korzybski said that one should attempt to be not happy but happier, which is a more meaningful statement. And, just as philosopher Sidney Hook defined "maturity" as "the possession of rational expectations," so, too, we define happiness. As implied throughout, proper evaluation, maturity, and happiness are inextricably intertwined. (30) One marriage counselor said that the trouble with many marriages is that people expect too much. Samuel Kltng said, The neurotic thinks marriage will cure his neuroses, and usually finds that marriage, with its stresses and strains, made him more neurotic than ever. The girl who has had a steady diet of cheap romantic novels thinks her husband will be a perpetual lover. When he isn't, she finds escape in the movies, where she pictures herself in the arms of a Hollywood glamour boy." The unrealistic, high expectations that we find in marriage can be found in many other areas also. The pictures inside of our heads that are created by movies, pulp magazines, cheap novels, and other parts of our semantic environment are not the facts in the world of reality. Only when the two are relatively even and consistent can we expect to be happy or happier.
(31) Psychiatrist Dr. Gerhardt Pierce, speaking of some of the patients who seek psychiatric help, says,

The patient is inhibited in his everyday functioning by the persistence of hidden, unrealistic attitudes of expectations. These, as a rule, extend from his childhood experiences with his parents. He relives these unrealistic attitudes in his relationship to the analyst. His cure comes through the adjustment of these attitudes to reality, after he has become aware of them and mastered them.
(32) Wendell Johnson equated lowering our expectations with the feeling of success when he says, If we set our goals where we can reach them, then we can experience success. Success is a

B9 page.6 feeling. It is not the name for anything in Nature. It is nothing we can find in our nonverbal world. It is the name for the feeling we have when we achieve or exceed our expectations, just as failure is the name for the feeling we have when we do not achieve our expectations. So, it is a fairly simple matter to regulate or control expectations so that we can feel successful. "Nothing succeeds like success. Nothing fails like failure." Cliches? No, I think they really are laws. (33) The key to many of our problems lies in goal definition. "This is so, as I see it," says Johnson, "for the handicapped, the maladjusted, and for almost everybody else in our culture. And to adjust goals realistically is, in the briefest possible word, the exit from a quandary." (34) The unrealistic and high expectations cause other psychological and motivational problems. Psychologists say that when we hate ourselves it is because we strive beyond our capacity, which can result in a further feeling of worthlessness. We are all dependent on our actual selves for the achievement of cherished goals. If we strive admirably and fail, we feel humiliated and abased, and self-hate is aroused if our expectations were too high. The ironical thing is that the more praiseworthy our efforts, the more acute will be our feelings of self-contempt. Harry Weinberg, in his book Levels of Knowing and Existence, presents a similar happiness formula in terms of low expectations and high motivation when he says, This complex of high-order abstractions we call general-semantics is reflected in a set of high/low-order abstractions we shall call attitudes. One such attitude vigorously endorsed by Alfred Korzybski is found in his Formula for Happiness: H=1/E. Or, as modified by Irving Lee, H=M/E. This is a compact way of saying that we ought to keep our expectations of achieving a goal low, and our motivation for working to achieve it high. Korzybski argued that since our knowledge of anything is always limited, and that since the future is an uncertain inference, the proper attitude reflecting this stale of affairs is one of keeping the expectations low. When we keep our expectations high, we are not prepared for their not being fulfilled, which, in the light of our limited knowledge and the infinite complexity of the world, is much more likely than the fulfillment of our expectations. Consequently, a person with chronically high expectations is a chronically disappointed man. He is likely to become a victim of Wendell Johnson's IFD Disease. He moves from idealism to frustration to demoralization. On the other hand, if we keep our expectations low, we have a map that fits the territory. Whatever happens is likely to be belter than we expected. Therefore, life becomes a series of successes and no matler how minor many of them may be, we are much more likely to be happy with this atlitude than the others. There are those who claim that unless we have high expectations of succeeding in a task, we cannot work hard at itcannot have high motivation. This is not necessarily so. Those who make this claim have never really tried or even thought of thinking otherwise. Thinking of this kind is not a very difficult habit to establish, and is well worth the effort in providing an attitude which facililatesAmore adequate and more realistic evaluation. This does not mean that we attempt to reduce expectations to zero. The man with zero expectations is either in complete despair or utterly cynical. In either case, he attempts little, produces less, and is not of much use to himself or anyone else. Nor does it mean that we should be without hope. There is a big difference between high hopes and high expectations.

Appendix II, Section B9: The Semantics of Happiness D. Maas In the former, we are prepared for failure and for success; in the latter, only for success. The ideal is embodied in that old chestnut, "Expect the worst, and hope for the best." [This is the end of the quote from Harry Weinberg's Levels of Knowing and Existence.]

B9 page.7

(35) I agree with Weinberg's analysis of the "happiness formula," except for his final statement, especially in view of what we know about the self-fulfilling prophecy, the other-fulfilling prophecy, and, especially, positive expectancy. (36) As we have seen, the word "expectation" is an ambiguous word. This expectation-motivation formula has often been one of the most difficult to comprehend for my studentsboth university students as well as top executivesbecause of the ambiguity of the word "expectation." Alfred Korzybski has often mentioned the fact that some of our most important words are what he called "multi-ordinal." They have different meanings on different orders of abstraction. He called this the "multi-ordinality of terms." Realizing that the word "expectation" is multi-ordinal, or ambiguous (it means something different within different contexts), the following analysis of positive expectancy is not a contradiction of our previous analysis. It only indicates a different sense in which the word is being used. But a very important analysis in order to present another side of the word "expectation," in the expectation-motivation-happiness formula. (37) Positive expectancy. Attitude is one of the most important words in our English language, and one of the most important attitudes to adopt is that of positive expectancy. Great accomplishments come about when you adopt both a positive mental attitude and expectancy. . (38) Alfred Korzybski, who formulated general-semantics, said in his book Science and Sanity that if we expect too much and we don't achieve what we expect, then we get hurt. We become frustrated and demoralized. Some people expect too much, and, if they expect to get something, they think that they don't have to work for it. (39) There's another important meaning of "expect" or the "expectancy set." It is psychologically true, in a sense, that we receive what we expect to happen. Expectation of positive or negative results produce like results. As you know from your own experience, like attracts like. (40) Dr. Norman Vincent Peale tells of a story of a group of people who, at the end of one year, wrote down their expectations of the coming year. Each sealed his "New Year's Expectation" in an envelope, to be opened and read aloud only at the end of the following year. The results verify the expectancy sets. One man had written, "In the next year, all that I can expect is more of the old miserable same." That's exactly what he got. A woman had listed ten worthy goals she expected to receive. Nine of the ten had come to fruition. Another man, basing his expectations upon Capricorn, his birth sign, predicted, "I look for difficulty and frustrations." He got them too. "One woman in the group," says Dr. Peale, "whose birth sign was the same, not knowing she should expect difficulties, and not having predicted them, enjoyed a rewarding year." One man in the group died during the year. When the envelope was opened, his expectation read, "As none of the men in my family have survived beyond the age of 60, therefore I expect to die this year." And he did, one month before his sixtieth birthday. (41) Each of us, whether or not we will admit it, will receive exactly what we expect, either positive or negative. How then, can we plan with positive expectancy?
(42) Number one: First we must vividly imagine. We must understand the human tendency to become precisely that which we have imagined ourselves to be. Whatever we picture or hold in our mind continually tends to come to us.

(43) Second, we must develop an ardent desire. Desiring results for the year with positive expectancy will force us to enter every situation without giving mental recognition to the possibility of defeat. To look to each day as an opportunity to earn and justify our rewards. To develop a success-consciousness and the habits of success necessary for a great achievement. (44) Third, we must sincerely believe. If we have developed the vivid imagination and the ardent desire, then we must develop the belief that we have the ability to attain these goals. William James said, "Our belief at the beginning of a doubtful undertaking is the one thing that ensures the successful outcome of our

B9 page.8 venture." (45) It is easy to see that the most important element at the beginning of any undertaking that will ensure its success, is belief. (46) Benjamin Disraeli said, "Man is not the creature of circumstances; circumstances are the creatures of man." And it was Napoleon who said, "Circumstances? I make circumstances!" (47) Number four: We must enthusiastically act. Both words are important: enthusiasm and action. Both words are continually reiterated in the success philosophy or living up to one's fullest potential. Enthusiasm without action will produce little results. Action without enthusiasm is short-lived. We must enthusiastically act, as if it were impossible to fail. And we must remember that we can expect to receive great gifts only when we understand and apply the principles of, "The more you give, the more you are capable of giving," and, The more you give, the more you receive in return." (48) If you and I want to live with positive expectancy, we must vividly imagine great accomplishments. We must ardently desire that this year be the greatest year of our lives, and, if we live with positive expectancy, it will be. (49) Now let us conclude with some points to remember: (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Happiness is defined and determined by many things both inside and outside of us. To a large degree, we can control our own happiness. Beware of the IFD disease. Ideals which are too high, too vague or ill-defined, two-valued (the either/or way of thinking), will lead to frustration, which in turn leads it/demoralization. Separate your drive, desire, goals, motivation, etc., from your expectations, or expecting to get there with certainty. But keep your motivation high. Lower your expectations. Keep your expectations realistic. Learn not to expect too much. And, You cannot control all of the factors outside of you, but you can control the evaluations inside of youyour assumptions, beliefs, ideals, and expectations about yourself and others, which determine your personal happiness or unhappiness.

Appendix II, Section B9: The Semantics of Happiness D. Maas Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

B9 page.9

Characterize a high order abstraction. [B9 para.06] Illustrate the circularity offlefi nil ions. [B9 para.07] Identify some of the variables of happiness. [B9 para.ll] Analyze the factor of human evaluation in happiness. [B9 para. 11] Illustrate the functional formula for happiness. [B9 para. 12] Describe or explain the IFD disease. [B9 para. 12, 34] Illustrate examples of ill-defined ideals or goals. [B9 para. 13] Explain how two-valued thinking leads to anxiety about success. [B9 para. 15] Illustrate how expectation and motivation contribute to human evaluation. [B9 para. 16] Explain how one makes a distinction between motivation and expectation. [B9 para.17] Illustrate how we can control out expectations. [B9 para.17] Explain the contexts in which high expectations can be dangerous. [B9 para. 19] Describe and explain the motivation/expectation matrix. [B9 para.20] Illustrate the probable consequences of high expectation/low motivation. [B9 para.22] Illustrate the probable consequences of the low expectation/low motivation pattern. [B9 para.23] Illustrate or characterize the high motivation/high expectation profile. [B9 para.24] Illustrate the probable consequences of the high motivation/high expectation profile. [B9 para.24] Illustrate the probable consequences of the low expectation/high motivation profile. [B9 para.25] Explain how the low expectation/high motivation profile is most well adjusted to reality. [B9 para.25] Explain Korzybski's formula to be happier. [B9 para.30] Explain how problems are related to goal definition. [B9 para.34] Differentiate between high hopes and high expectation. [B9 para.34] Explain what is meant by multi-ordinality of terms. [B9 para.36] Demonstrate the process of an "expectancy set." [B9 para.39] Illustrate the use of an expectancy set. [B9 para.40] Illustrate how general-semantics formulations can be compatible with psycho-cybernetics principles. [B9 para.44]

B9 page. 10 Index

Circularity of definitions Definition: circularity of Degree(s) Degrees of success Disraeli, Benjamin Enthusiasm/action Expectancy
Expectancy set

7 15 15 46 47 36
39

Expectation Expectation/motivation Formula for happiness Goethe, Wolfgang H = I/E

H = M/E

36 16 19, 34 26 34
19, 36

Happiness: formula for Happiness: variables of Happiness: verbal definition Happy/Happier High onjer abstraction Hook, Sidney IFD disease Imagination "Is" of identity James, William Johnson, Wendell Kling, Samuel Korzybski, Alfred Levels of Knowing and Existence Lowering expectations Motivation/expectation matrix: profile 1 Motivation/expectation matrix: profile 2 Motivation/expectation matrix: profile 3 Motivation/expectation matrix: profile 4 Multi-ordinality Non-verbal set Peale, Norman Vincent
Pierce, Gerhardt

19 11 7 29 6 26, 29 12 42 7 44 32, 33, 36 29 17, 28, 29, 34, 38 34 32, 53 22 23 24 25 36 4 40

31

Positive expectancy Santayana, George Science and Sonify Socratic method Success: degrees of
Success: symbols of

37 26 38 8 15
13

Symbols of success Variables of happiness Verbal definition of happiness Weinberg, Harry

13 11 7 35

Appendix II, Section BIO: The Importance of Change D. Maas

BIO page.l

The Importance of Change Sanford Herman Key Terms

Allness All-time-ness
Change

"Permanence" in language habits Process

Consciousness of dating Dating Failure to date Fourth dimension Hatred, undated (Relative) invariance under transformation Invariant relationships (1) Take a look around you. Are the things around you changing? How about the chair you are sitting on, the table in the room, and all of the other things you can observe? Are they changing? (2) Our first tendency is to say "no," because we cannot observe the change with the naked eye. But if we observe something long enough, we would see change indeed. You cannot, perhaps, see the change in yourself, but you can be assured that you, too, are changing- Take a look at a picture of yourself ten or twenty years ago. We, too, are continually changing, but sometimes we refuse to see the changes in ourselves. For example: It seems to me that they are building staircases steeper that they used to. The risers are higher, or there are more of them, or something. At any rate, it is getting harder to make two steps at a time. Nowadays, it is all I can do to make one step at a time. Another thing I've noticed is the small print that they're using. Newspapers are getting farther and farther away when I hold them, and I have to squint to make them out. The other day I had to back halfway out of a telephone booth in order to read the number on the coin box. It is ridiculous to suggest that a person my age needs glasses, but the only other way I can find out what's going on is to have somebody read aloud to me, and that's not satisfactory either, because people speak in such low voices these days that I can't hear them very well. Everything is farther than it used to be. It's twice the distance from my house to the station now, and they've added a fair-sized hill that I never noticed before. The trains leave sooner too. I've given up running for them because they start faster when I try to catch them. They don't put the same material into clothes any more either. My suits have a tendency to shrink, especially around the waist or in the seat of the pants. And the laces they put in shoes nowadays are much harder to reach. Even the weather is changing. It's getting colder in the winter, and the summers are hotter than they used to be. I'd go away if it wasn't so far. Snow is heavier when I try to shovel it. Drafts are more severe, too. It must be the way they build windows nowadays. People are younger than they used to be when I was their age. I went back recently to an alumni reunion at the college I graduated from in 1923, and I was shocked to see the mere tots they're admitting as students. They seem to be more polite than in my time, though. Several undergraduates called me "sir," and one of them asked me if he could help me across the street. On the other hand, people my own age are so much older than I am. I realize that

BIO page.2 my generation is approaching middle ageroughly the period between 21 and 110but there is no excuse for my classmates tottering into advanced senility. I ran into my old roommate at the bar, and he had changed so much that he didn't recognize me! "You've put on a little weight, George," I said. "It's this modern food," George said. "It seems to be more fattening." "How long since I have seen you, George?" I said. "It must be several years." "I think the last time was right after the election," said George. "What election was that?" George thought a moment. "Coolidge," he said. I ordered a couple more Martinis. "Have you noticed these Martinis are weaker than they used to be?" "It isn't like the good old days," George said. "Remember when we'd go down to the speakeasy and order some orange blossoms, and maybe pick up a couple of flaflpers?" "Hot diggity! You used to be quite a cake eater, George," I said. "Do you still do the black bottom?" "I put on too much weight," said George. "This food nowadays seems to be more fattening." "I know," I said. "You mentioned that just a minute ago." "Did I?" said George. "How about another Martini?" I said. "Have you noticed the Martinis aren't as strong as they used to be?" "Yes," said George. "You said that before, too." "Oh," I said. I got to thinking about poor old George while I was shaving this morning. I stopped for a moment and looked at my reflection in the mirror. They don't seem to use the same kind of glass in mirrors any more. (3) Well, we're living in a world of change. The structure of the world of reality is characterized by change or process. This is another characteristic of the structure of the world of reality. And, as far as we know, there is nothing in the worldsome nonverbal thingthat has not, nor ever will not, change. (4) With the naked eye, or macroscopicallythat is, in the largewe normally cannot see things change. Microscopically, with the aid of a microscope or telescope, we can see change, or process, going on that we might miss with the naked eye. Molecularly, submicroscopically, or on the subatomic level, even when we cannot see change, we can infer the change going onfrom the rusting of metals, wearing out of materials, and other effects of this changing process. (5) So one of the most important characteristics of the structure of the world of reality is that of change or process. Change Affects all of us and everything that we do, much more than we realize. While some things, such as the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, remain relatively permanent, most things, however, do change. A relationship, for example, will not vary between father/son, sister/brother, uncle/nephew. These are invariant relations, or relationships, undergoing transformation. (6) Change and process manifest itself in maturing, growing, deteriorating, shifting mor6s and customs, as well as attitudes and ideas that change with the times. The desk that 1 am writing on is changing. I cannot see that change, but you can be assured it is going on. The naked eye misses the deeper levels of process or change because of the limitations of the human nervous system. (7) While the world of reality, to Aristotle and others 2000 years ago, was pretty much what they could seethe macroscopic level of thingswe now know that the important scientific world of reality today is the submicroscopic world of electrons, protons, neutronsthe mad dance of the subatomic level. Science today realizes that underlying all matter is the submicroscopic level of process or change. Alfred North Whitehead, in Science and the Modem World, says: Concrete fact is process. Nature itself is a process of expansive development and change.

Appendix II, Section BIO: The Importance of Change D. Maas

BIO page.3

Thus nature is a structure of evolving processes. The reality is the process. One all-pervasive fact, inherent in the very character of what is real, is the transition of thingsthe passage one to another. (8) Heraclitus, the famous Greek philosopher, was 2,000 years ahead of his time when he said that "one cannot step into the same river twice." He was not just saying that no two things are exactly the same, but that nothing is ever exactly the same in two different instances. It changes not only because of its own inherent change, but because the person who steps into the river at two different moments has also changed, and he too is not what he was. As Byron said, "I am not now that which I have been." (9) , So the reality of human perception is also changed by our internal states at the time. Henry Bergson (Creat&tEvolution) states: First of all, I pass from state to state. I am warm or cold, merry or sad. Sensations, feeling, volitions, ideassuch are the changes into which my existence is divided. I change, then, without ceasing. There is no feeling, no idea, no volition, that is not undergoing change every moment. Let us take the most stable of internal states: the visual perception of a motionless external object. The object may remain the same; I may look at it from the same angle and the same light. Nevertheless, the vision of it I now have differs from that 1 have just had, even if only because the one is an instant older than another. (10) The truth is that we change without ceasing, and that the state itself is nothing but change. (11) Philosopher George Santayana, in The Realm of Matter, has said: "All substance, if it is to fulfill the function and virtue of which it is recognized and posited, must accordingly be forever changing its own inner condition. It must be in flux." And Henry Wadsworlh Longfellow has said: "All things must change to something newto something strange." (12) Now, while scientifically we know that a characteristic of the structure of the world of reality is process or change, we find that in our talking and behavior there is a tendency to act as if people and things do not change. There is an overemphasis of permanence in our language habits, in our talking and behaving. (13) In other words, we have static, non-changing orientations to the world around us. For example: A Chicago mother has raised her six sons to be staunch, straight-ticket Democrats. So, when one lad, back home from Army duty overseas, announced that he might vote for Nixon, if he won the G.O.P. nomination, his mother was most upset. "Mom," the soldier counteracted, "if the good Lord Himself were running on the Republican ticket, I don'j think you'd vote for Him." "Of course 1 0491!" she replied quickly. "He'd have no business to change now." (14) Here's another example of the refusal to change: We were boarding at an old farmhouse in Milford, Connecticut, whose owner gloried in still having her family's original colonial grants to the land. On the morning of July 4th, we heard the sounds of martial music from the village. I asked our landlady if she weren't going down to the parade. "Oh, no," she replied. "I'd love to, but I've never felt privileged to go to the Fourth of July celebrations. You see, my family were Tories." (15) Now, if we observe human behavior on the personal, social, national or international level, we find that our talking and behaving tend to overemphasize ideas of permanence, or the static nature of things, although the facts themselves are undergoing change. The result is that we tend to make static, non-changing maps of dynamic, changing things. Our general talking habits and behavior patterns make it easy to believe

BIO page.4 that things and people are static and non-changing, when they are in fact constantly changing. (16) Now, let us take a look at our language. What are certain characteristics of the English language? The English language tends to imply a sense of all-time-ness. It does not date the happening, as if the things we talk about don't change. The English language does not say when, or imply the changes to be found upon observation. It generally is a timeless language. (17) The implication is that what we say, therefore, tends to fit something for all time. There is in our talking a tremendous neglect of the fact of process. We try to make reality, or the nonverbal world, fit our timeless language. (18) Now, there are three things in our world which may stay put or relatively changeless: (19) (20) 1. 2. Words, meanings, and ideas. For example, the meanings which we receive from the Bible, or the writings of Aristotle, are still pretty much as they meant them in their dayalthough there has been some debate over meanings in the Bible, and other early writers. Human attitudes and feelings. We find groups of people or cultures with relatively little change in their cultures, assumptions, beliefs, or superstitions, down through the centuries. The Aborigines, or the Australian Bushmen, for example, have changed little during the past thousand years. Relations. There are certain relations which remain invariant under transformation. You will always be the son or daughter of your parents. No matter what kinds of transformations take place in the world, you will still be older or younger than someone else. The invariant relationship of brother and sister, as well as age, will not change. These are all relatively invariant relationships in a changing world.

(21)

3.

(22) So there are recurring relationships, invariant relationships which stay put, but most things in this world are in a state of process or change. We know that things, people, institutions, are in fluxthat they change. But we have seen that, in talking about these people, things, situations, institutions, which are constantly changing, we have the tendency (due to our timeless language structure) to neglect the time factor. We tend, in our talking, thinking, and behaving, to imply a greater timespan than any of the facts show. We give an over-scope to our talking, not only to ourselves but to others also. (23) So we must look for time changes. We must be conscious of the change and process character of things, people, situations, and we must make our evaluations fit those changes. People now are not the same as they were twenty years ago, but too often we abstract an element from a person's life and act as if it were good for all time. (24) For example, let a police officer make a mistake, and we won't let him live it down. Worse yet, the men in his department won't let him live it down. We tend to carry over our same old attitudes, dislikes, and aversions through the years and never stop to question whether or not the person has changed. A student wrote the following description of a mother-in-law who refused to change her attitudewho refused to keep up to date. The student wrote: I have an acquaintance, Mrs. X., who took a violent dislike to the young woman her son married. "She's no good; she is stupid; her background is all wrong. I'll never be able to stand her." These were only a few of the things the mother said about the girl. However, the young couple did marry, and went to live in Texas, where the man is serving in the army. Two years have now passed. Even to a casual observer, as I am (the girl said), I can see several changes in the wife. She doesn't dress or behave like a bobby-soxer any more. She likes to cook and experiment with foods her husband likes. She has a library card and gets books from the library, instead of "true romances" from the drugstore. I think she is doing pretty well, and she has certainly changed, but her mother-in-law still refers to her as cheap and stupid, forgetting about these changes which took place during the past two years.

Appendix II, Section BIO: The Importance of Change D. Maas

BIO page.5

(25) In her bitterness, the mother-in-law refuses to face the world of reality. Well, we find this kind of an attitude continually around us, serving no useful purpose, but creating more negative feelings among the persons involved. (26) How can we keep up to date? How can we make our thinking, communicating, and behaving fit the facts of the world of reality? (27) One important device is to say whento date our evaluationsin thinking about people, situations, and things. Date your thinking, talking, and behaving. For example, whenever we evaluate a happening, judge a person or thing, we must do so at a date. As Einstein has said, if you want to talk sense, you must include the fourth dimension of time. You must say when. You cannot judge a person, thing, or happening at no date. You cannot separate space from time, so all of our evaluations are obviously at a date. (28) Einstein has said that the world is comprised of four dimensions. For example, if you want to find the center of a straight line, you need only one dimension, the width. If you want to find the center of a rectangle, you need two dimensions: the width and the height. If you want to find the center of a cube, you need three dimensions: the width, the height, and the depth. But if you want to locate a happening, you need four dimensions: the three space factors and the time. (29) Something must occur at some rime; nothing can occur at no lime. Too often, however, we forget about the important time factor. In reporting an accident, sending a directive, or giving an order, failure to say when can lead to misunderstandings. It can also prove to be costly in terms of money, time, and energy wasted. (30) Einstein also says that whenever we talk about anything it must happen in time. If we are going to have scientific precision, we must introduce the fourth dimension of time in our talking and thinking. In talking about things, we must use the date, verbally or silently, which becomes the device for precision in our talking and acting. We can get little or no precision without including the fourth dimension of time. (31) General-semantics states that we must eliminate some of the false-to-fact implications or tendencies in our speaking and behaving. Assumptions such as: 1. 2. 3. Things are static and non-changing, Things happen for all time, or, That's all that happens.

(32) These are unconscious assumptions, false-to-fact assumptions that lead us into many kinds of difficulties. Too often whenever we characterize or talk about a person, there is a tendency to extend the date, to talk about the person for all time, without seeing if they have changed. (33) This is why, in our world, it is difficult to live down a mistake made years ago. We tend not to evaluate the person in time, or at a date. Therefore, just as we can have unlocated hatred, so can we have undated hatred. While unlocated hatred has generalized from the original source to all others in the group, undated hatred has no lime limitations. (34) We tend to hate through lime with little or no regard for the changes in ourselves, in others, or in the original situaiion that produced the feeling. We too often carry over or preserve our angers and haireds into time, where they don't belong. Our atlitudes and dislikes are preserved. But while ihe person might have changed greatly, what doesn't change along with our attitudes? His name. (35) Words tend to imply a static, non-changing world. They do not imply the changes to be found in the world of reality. Some of us are resenters, and stay mad. Doctors know thai the slow, seething resentment that simmers like water in a pot and never comes to a boil is responsible for much of our physical and mental distress. Some people are chronic haters. They don't limit their hate in time. They allow it to carry on for years, to no one's disadvantage but their own. Someone once said, "The only people you should try to get even with are those who have helped you." (36) Enrico Caruso could not apply this adage. As a young man, he was singing in his hometown in Naples, and was given an icy reception. The audience sat on its hands unresponsively, and the reviews were very bad. Years later, when he returned there al the height of his singing career, he remenfbered the

BIO page.6 unfavorable criticism given hM and he refused bitterly to sing. Caruso ate himself up, but like all offenders, he hurt himself more than the innocent objects of his hatred. (37) One of the most important skills that we can cultivate is the ability to forget, and dating allows us to achieve this. A man is not only what he remembers, but what he forgets. Memory is one of our most important possessions, but it is equally important to relegate from a dominating place in our thoughts the fears, the unhappy experiences, and unpleasant occurrences that should be forgotten. (38) Ralph Waldo Emerson had this in mind when he said, Finish every day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day. Begin it well, and serenely, and with too high a Spirit to be cumbered with your old nonsense. This day is all that is good and fair. It is too U with its hopes and invitations to waste a moment on the yesterdays. (39) So the important problem which the general semanticist is concerned with is: How can we keep up to date? How can people be trained to judge things, people, and situations when they are judging them, and not according to the likes and dislikes, the prejudices and the passions of the past or of previous similar situations? (40) The most important words in the English language, as well as most nouns, do not imply change or process. They imply a static, non-changing world. Words like "science," "education," "national defense," "John Jones," "France," "Republican," "Democrat," "religion." These do not show that change is continually going on. But science today is not the same as science 1496; education today is not education 1865; national defense today is certainly not national defense 1941. (41) So fast is the world of reality changing. Some Frenchmen think that France today is the world leader of France of yesterday. Some people act as if the Republican or Democratic Party (or the world affairs) never change, and are proud of having voted a straight party line for the past thirty years. (42) In a letter to the editor of a Chicago newspaper, a reader claimed that Richard Nixon, if selected as the G.O.P. candidate for President in 1968, "will never get my vote because I remember the Republican administration in 1930 and 1931." Another reader counteracts the first by saying, in effect, that he will not vote for Democrats in the future because he remembers the hell of the South Pacific war in 1941 through 1945. (43) By dating our evaluations, we counteract the static implications of the language we use. We introduce process and change into our talking, thinking, and behaving. Our evaluations fit the structure of the world of reality and the facts surrounding us. Words like "hopeless," "I'm a failure," "I'm no good," have the all-timeness implications. They are words without a date. They don't say when. (44) We must remember to limit the scope of our words. We must limit them at a date. Psychologists and psychiatrists continually must deal with this problem in patients. They must get the patient to re-evaluate himself, without implying the finality of such undated statements as: "I'm no good," "I am a failure," "things are hopeless," etc. These statements don't say when. They imply an all-time-ness. There is no time-limit to these kind of statements, and as long as we keep talking about ourselves in these undated terms, we should not be surprised If these negative attitudes or feelings continue to prevail. (45) Dating our evaluations is most important in our interpersonal relations, or in all human affairs. Consciousness of dating, of saying when, becomes an important factor toward maturity and sanity. If we are not conscious of the fact that people and relationships change, we become hurt, disillusioned, or have no faith in human nature, because we had assumed that the human relationship would remain the same. (46) A university coed wrote: During rush week, I remembered how impressed I was with the friendliness and courtesy of all the girls. After I made my choice of the sorority and was pledged, it was a great shock to see the difference between the treatment given a rushee and the treatment given a pledge. During rush week, I was treated like a queen, and everyone went out of their way to be

Appendix II, Section BIO: The Importance of Change

BIO page.7

D. Mau-s

especially nice to me. As soon as I was pledged, I became a sure thing, and everyone more or less ignored me and went their separate ways. I was so disappointed that I almost de-pledged. Since I was treated so royally during rush week, I had assumed that the same kind of treatment would continue, but it certainly didn't. Of course, I got adjusted to it, but it wouldn't have been so difficult if I had realized that the relationship between the actives and myself was apt to change as time went on. (47) So, by dating our evaluations, we become conscious of this change that surrounds us. We don't take too much for granted by assuming that everything will be as it is now. Life is full of changes, and we must learn how to cope with them. This is what we mean by maturity: being able to change and to handle change in ourselves, and in relationship to others. (48) Now, we don't have to date our statements out loud, but silently, to ourselves. The important thing is to date on the inside, to continually and constantly date our evaluations, whether we are talking, thinking, making decisions, driving our cars, dealing with people^ situations or things. The important thing is to remember the date, to remember to say when. Dating therefore becomes an important device to give us precision in our thinking, talking, and behaving. (49) Now let us talk about this problem of all-time-ness. What are some of the dangers of this failure to date? (50) 1. Assuming all-time-ness tends to make us exaggerate more than we should. There are examples where people complain that the dentist hurt them while he was working on their teeth, implying that he hurt the entire thirty minutes or an hour rather than the few minutes while he was drilling on the tooth. This makes one maximize the pain, and carry it over into the next visit. Assuming all-time-ness, or the failure to date, tends to make us peg people, without looking to see if they have changed. This is particularly true in police departments; for example, if a policeman makes a mistake, he is pegged for the rest of the time he is on the police force. Assuming all-time-ness promotes the "I'm a failure" attitude. This leads toward quitting instead of trying to become a success. Assuming all-time-ness, or the failure to date, leads toward prejudices, hates, constant dislikes, disagreements, and conflicts. Assuming all-time-ness leads toward generalized unsanity.

(51) (52) (53) (54)

2. 3. 4. 5.

(55) Now let me give you just a few conclusions relative to this particular principle on dating our evaluations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Change is characteristic of the structure of the world of reality. Beware of the static implications of language. Date your evaluations. Be conscious of the problem of all-time-ness. Say when. Datingsaying whengives you precision in thinking, talking, and behaving.

BIO page.8 Instructional Objectives

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Illustrate the effects of change on the aging nervous system. [BIO para.02] Illustrate the key difference between the macroscopic and microscopic levels of reality. [BIO para.04] Explain the assertion that the world of reality is characterized by change or process. [BIO para.03] Define and illustrate relative invariance under transformation. [BIO para.05] Differentiate between macroscopic and submicroscopic levels of reality. [BIO para.07] Summarize Bergson's observations about change in ourselves. [BIO para.ll] Illustrate how our language reinforces notions of permanence in our talking and behavior. [BIO para. 12] Illustrate how people tend to neglect the fact of process in their talking. [BIO para.16] Identify three things in our world that remain relatively changeless. [BIO para.20J Explain the assertion that we tend to make static, non-changing maps of dynamic, changing things. [BIO para. 15] Identify procedures for enabling us to keep up to date in our communicating. [BIO para.26] Explain the extensional device known as the date. [BIO para.27] Explain the fourth dimension as defined by Einstein. [BIO para.28] Identify some of the false to fact assumptions about time and change which general-semantics tries to eliminate. [BIO para.31] Explain the process of undated hatred. [BIO para.33] Explain how scientific precision can be attained only if the fourth dimension of time is included in the description. [BIO para.30] Explain how words tend to reinforce a static non-changing orienation. [BIO para.30] Explain the context in which the ability to forget is positive. [BIO para.38] Illustrate how the most important words in the English language do not change. [BIO para.40] Demonstrate how people can date their evaluations. [BIO para.43] Illustrate how a person is able to limit the scope of his words. [BIO para.43] Illustrate the process of consciousness of dating. [BIO para.46] Explain how to develop consciousness of dating. [BIO para.46] Identify some of the dangers of failure to date. [BIO para.49] Explain the relationship between all-time-ness and generalized unsanity. [BIO para.51]

Appendix II, Section BIO: The Importance of Change D. Maas

Index

BIO page.9

Allness All-time-ness Bergson, Henry Byron "Caruso" example Change Consciousness of dating/when CreatttttEvolution Dating "Democrat/republican" example Einstein Emerson "Failure": failure to date Failure to date Fourth dimension "George and I" Hatred: undated Heraclitus "Hopeless" failure to date Invariance under transformation Invariant relationships Macroscopic level Map/territory analogy Neglect of the fact of process Nouns: not change/process "Permanence" in language habits Process Process Relative invariance under transformation "Rush week" example Santayana, George Science and the Modem World Static Sub-microscopic level Timefourth dimension "Tories" example (The) Realm of Matter Undated hatred Whitehead, Alfred North

50 50 9 8 36 3, 5, 55 45 9
27,45 13 28 38 43 43 28 2 33 7 43

5 21
7 16 17 39 12 12 3,5 5 4 6 11 7 31 4

28 14 11 33 7

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas The Importance of Seeing Differences

Bl 1 page.l

Sanford Herman
Key Terms Differences, seeing Non-identity Failure to index Unlocated hatred Habit focus Vertical identification Horizontal identification Identification Index "Is" of identity Located hatred Marriage, agreement by definition Navajo language (1) Let me ask you a question: Can you find anything in the world which is identical with anything else? Take two pieces of chalk, two snowflakes, two grains of sand, two of anything. Are they identical? Can we find identity in the world of reality? How about identical twins? Are they identical, exactly the same in all respects? (2) So far as we know, no one has yet found anything completely identical with anything else. In other words, non-identity is a characteristic of the structure of things. No two things have ever been found to be exactly the same in all respects. Notice how easy it is for us to think of identity, however, or act as if two things were identical. But you cannot find identity. Parents of identical twins sometimes try to treat them as if they were identical, when [they] know they may be entirely different. (3) Alfred North Whitehead has said, "But there is a complementary fact which is equally true and equally obvious. Nothing ever really recurs in exact detail. No two days are identical. No two winters. What has gone, has gone forever." (4) So, if everything in the world is different from everything else, then each thing in our world is unique. We can find non-identity in the world if we look for it. But too often our observation of things is inadequate. There are instruments, for example, that can measure two billionths of an inch to show us the non-identity on the deeper levels, f[ /\. Q i~. _f Cl5 "f"f* (5) Take a look at the following. ^If I were to ask you, "What do you see?" what would you answer? (6) The late professor Irving J. Lee at Northwestern University used to point out that 80-85% of the responses are in terms of such words as figures, geometric figures, designs, etc., pointing out the similarities, or that which they had in common. Only 15 or 20% of the responses indicated uniqueness and the differences to be found among them, such as square, triangle, circle, etc. My own experiments with thousands of students have resulted in approximately the same conclusions. (7) Now, what does this indicate in our observationsour patterns of talkingand in our ways of behaving? Our language habits tend to imply similarities only. The moment we start talking there is a tendency for us to obliterate the differences and to notice only the similarities. There are many examples in everyday life to indicate that we tend to see similarities only, while neglecting the important differences among men, situations, and things. For example: (8) A young lady on a crowded street suddenly rushed up to a stranger and started beating him over the head with her umbrella, yelling, "How dare you remind me of someone I hate?" (9) And Samuel Johnson said, "I am willing to love all mankind except an American." (10) This almost insane hatred, dislike, or prejudice that we see continually around us is due in part to our inability to see the differences among peoplein seeing that people are not only alike in some respects, but also that they are not alike. And, I maintain, the ability to see differences is an important part of intelligence.

Bll page.2 Our intelligence tests, however, very often are predicated on the seeing of similarities only, on noticing what things have in common. But as we are now learning in psychology, the sciences, and in the area of creativity, the seeing of differences is equally important, but is too often neglected. (11) There are people in some cultures who see differences thai you and I might miss because their language emphasizes differences. In Cherokee, for example, there is no word for washing. There is no word to describe the similar acts of washing, but there are special words for different acts and situations in the process. In Arabic, there is no general word for camel, but a word for a camel that goes far without water, a good camel, etc. Greenberg has pointed out that the BororO of Brazil are said to be incapable of noting the features common to all parrots because they have names for individual species of parrots, but no term for parrots in general. And in Navajo, one cannot state motion in general, but must choose among a number of terms specifying the vehicle involved, and other aspects of the motion. Kluckhojtoi and L&pBBl report that the Navajo Indian thinks and perceives the world of isattty differently than we do because of the differences of grammar. Anthropologists KluckhobA and I jfepBf say. Take the example of a commonplace physical event, such as rain. We can and do report our perceptions of this event in a variety of ways, such as, we say, 'It has started to rain,' 'It is raining,' 'It has stopped raining,' etc." The Navajo people, however, convey the same ideas also, but they cannot convey them without finer specifications. For example, the Navajo uses one verb form if he himself is aware of the actual inception of the rain, another if he has reason to believe that rain has been falling for some time in his locality before the occurrence struck his attention. One form must be employed if rain is general around, within the range of vision, another if, though it is raining round about, the storm is plainly on the move. The Navajo take the consistent noticing and reporting of such differences, which are usually irrelevant from our point of view, as much for granted as the rising of the sun. KluckhoM and I jaJn conclude that the general nature of the difference between Navajo thought and English thought, both manifest in the language enforced by the very nature of the linguistic forms, is that Navajo thought is prevailingly so much more specific, so much more concrete. When a Navajo, for example, says that he went somewhere, he never fails to specify whether it was afoot, astride, by wagon, auto, train, or airplane; moreover, the Navajo always differentiates between starting to go, going along, arriving at, returning from a point, etc. Kluckhojd and LJpilB reel that it is not that these distinctions cannot be made in English, but that they are not made consistently. The nature of their language forces the Navajo to notice and to report many other distinctions in physical events, which the nature of the English language allows speakers to neglect in most cases. (12) Irving Lee has pointed out that some investigations of structure in the language patterns of primitive peoples indicate an unbalanced emphasis on differences only, so that often, common elements are neglected. Werner has summarized some of these findings. He says that the more primitive a society, the less interest there is in the generic name. Names are, above all, individual names. Among the Australian aborigines, there are no such class names as "bird," "tree," or "fish." But, on the other hand, there are special terms for particular species of birds, trees, and fishes. The same is true in "primitive" African tongues, and in the languages of the South Sea Islanders. The Lapps have 20 names for different kinds of ice^and.41 names for the various kinds of snow. Yet, in both cases, the language has no corresponding generic terms. (13) Lehman has shown in his experiments that people can readily discriminate only as many shades of grey as they have names for. If a person is given more names, he can distinguish more shades of color than before. (14) Now, while some languages tend to emphasize differences, the English language tends to emphasize similarities. This is important to remember in our consideration of the relationship between language, thought, and behavior. English is a language of many nouns and high-order abstractions. Name some things which imply a tremendous similarity, such as "art," "business," "American," "Negro," "Democrat," "Republican," "conservative," "liberal," "professor," "lawyer," "actor," "cop," "model," etc. All of these abstract labels seem to imply that everyone under this label is the same, or identical. The words do not point out the differences to be found in the world of reality. They do not fit the structure of the world of reality. But if we observe the people who happen to fall under these abstractions, we would find a tremendous range of individual differences. Our language does not help us to see these important differences in the world around us. On the contrary, our language, and therefore our minds, tend to blot out the differences. Our thinking and our language imply similarities not characteristic of the world of reality, but of the language used. (15) As the structure of the world shows both similarities and differences, we must look for both

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas

Bll page.3

similarities and differences, and be oriented by them. The trained observer, the mature and intelligent person, will see the similarities in the differences, and the differences in the similarities. (16) The discovery of differences is one of the earmarks of science and scientific progress. The great scientific discoveries show the differences never before known. It took the genius of an Einstein, a Freud, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Harvey, Darwin, Curie, etc., to notice important differences that their predecessors had missed. (17) In Aristotle's time, there were only four known elements: air, earth, fire, and water. Now there are over 100, with more being discovered continually, as our instruments for the seeing of differences are sharpened. (18) It is the recognition of differences that makes for sophistication and intelligent behavior. The sophisticated person sees the variety of differences in everything. The good detective will see things that the rookie will miss. The experienced psychiatrist or medical doctor will notice things that the intern will miss, because they weren't in the textbook. (19) Dr. Walter C. Alvarez illustrated this amazing ability of noticing important differences. The astuteness of Dr. Walter Alvarez, formerly of the Mayo Clinic, as a medical detective was demonstrated when he was handed a chest X-ray with no other information. (20) "It is an X-ray of a woman of about 50," Alvarez began at once, "rather tall and thin, always frail, interested in sports, and a Catholic. She has several children. In her youth, she had pretty severe tuberculosis; she once had pneumonia with empyema, and she was once thrown from a horse. She has high blood pressure, with some arteriosclerosis, and she suffers at times from arthritis. She used to go shooting." -,*; (21) How did Dr. Alvarez know so much? He explained: In the film, he could see the shadows of the breasts, and the small size of the bones, so he knew that this was a woman. Calcification of the rib cartilages and deformities in two neck vertebrae indicated that she was over 40. The length of the thorax suggested thai she was tall and thin; the narrow costal angle made by the ribs and cartilages as they spread from the lower end of the breast bone, that she was frail. The medal and chain around her neck bespoke Catholicism. Her sagging breasts indicated several children. Calcified scars in the lungs and in the side of the neck showed that she had early tuberculosis. A scar on one rib, showing where the drainage tube for empyema had been, betrayed the pneumonia. And the large left ventricle of the heart and a slightly calcified arch of the aorta told of high blood pressure and some arterial hardening. There were abundant signs of arthritis around her vertebrae. Two bird shots in the muscles of one shoulder suggest a hunting accident, and a healed collarbone fracture might mean a fall from a horse in a woman of her apparent sporting interests. Alvarez finished very triumphantly. (22) Well, such sophistication as to the nuances, shades, and differences is characteristic of the mature and trained observerthe scientist, the architect, the engineerwho must see important differences in their analyses. But how sophisticated is the average observer? Experience has shown us that some of us do not always orient our thinking and behaving in terms of the important differences among people, situations, and things. The unsophisticated and immature individual sees everything looking alike. This is one of the reasons why people react in terms of automatic, signal reactions, and the allness orientationbecause they see everything alike. They do not notice the tremendous amount of differences between people, situations, or things. (23) Mark Van Doren has said, "Men are so much alike, they couldn't be told apart by mosquitoes." Men are alike, or they would be mistaken for animals. They are different, or they would be mistaken for each other. We are both very much alike, and very different. But don't we, too, sometimes manifest the "mosquito mentality"? How often do we act as if all people are the same? Look around you, and you will see many examples of the failure to see differencesimportant differences between people, situations, and things. (24) In Milwaukee, for example, after walking up to a 205-pound policeman, slapping him across the cheek, James Thompson told the court, "I don't like policemen. I had all this inside of me; now I guess it's released." (25) In New Britain, Connecticut, a small boy marched up to a department store Santa Claus, punched him in the nose, and yelled, "That's for not bringing me a bicycle last year!" (26) Such indiscriminate lumping together is not limited to small boys, however. We all fall victim to it, more or less, in our thinking, communicating, and behaving. The seeing of similarities is important; because we recognize similarities, we can function in the world. This is one definition of sanity, or a sane way of

Bll page.4 behaving. Out of a world of change and complexity, each one of us has ordered or structured this world in terms of certain similarities, relationships, and order. Science, for example, exists in the seeing of similarities. This is what is meant by "science," where a number of individuals arrive at similar conclusions, tested and checked against the world of reality. (27) Likeness or the seeing of similarities is important in science, or in everyday life. Jacob B&rnowski indicates its importance in this respect. He says, "Man has only one means to discovery, and that is to find likeness between things. To him, two trees are like two shouts, and like two parents, and on this likeness he has built mathematics. A lizard is like a bat, and like a man. And on such likenesses he has built the theory of evolution, and all biology. A gas behaves l^ke a jostle of billiard balls, and on this and on kindred likenesses rests much of our atomic picture of matter. (28) In looking for intelligibility in the world, we look for unity, and we find this, in the arts as well as in science, in its unexpected likenesses. This indeed is man's creative giftto find or make a likeness where none was seen before. A likeness between mass and energy, a link between time and space, an echo of all our fears in the passion of Othello. (29) In learning and scientific discovery, we must see similarities. But we know that we must also see the important differences in the learning process. Arnold Toynbee or Bertrand Russell can see many more differences and relationships in international affairs against the background of man's scientific, political and intellectual history, than the average person. This is what we mean by the term "scholar"the person with a great deal of knowledge, who is able to see important differences as well as similarities in his particular field. But this important seeing of differences does not reside solely within our particular fields of specialization. Many men have stepped outside of their own fields of competency and have made important inventions. They saw things that even the men who were brought up in a certain line of work had never observed. They were not victims of "habit focus," a very common affliction which makes you see what you expect to see. Observation and the seeing of differences is the key that unlocks the door to creativity. What will make us observant? It is generally the detection of differences. It is seeing the significant, the out-of-the-ordinary and the important in what others will see only the common, everyday experiences of habit. AntonidtValentin said of Albert Einstein, "He is intensely observant. His glance fixes on some detail, and lingers over something which other people do not even notice." (30) Observation and this seeing of differences is no magic power. We simply have to take ourselves in hand, to make ourselves see. For we do not see with our eyes, but with our minds through our eyes. We must train ourselves to examine what is before us. This seeing of differences and this power of observation is one of man's most important possessions. It is not only important to observe, but to turn the observations over in our minds, and make something new happen out of them. As someone once said, There are people who make things happen, people who watch things happen, and there are people who just don't know that anything happened at all." (31) In our evaluating of the world and the people in it, our capacity to see similarities is greater than our capacity to see differences. Because man is more and more living a symbolic life, we have deteriorated in our capacity to notice important differences. Only in our specialties do we have the tendency to see differences, and even the specialist, when leaving his specialty, often reverts back to the generalizations of the unscientific mind. (32) The great problem is not only how to teach scientists to be scientific at all times, but how can the average person apply these scientific methods to his everyday behavior? (33) Now let us talk about the relationship between the seeing of similarities only: identification, prejudice, and hate. Race prejudices, riots, hates, and dislikes result when we fail to notice important differences. Irving J. Lee used to say, "To the degree that we fail to distinguish among people, to that degree do we discriminate against them." (34) This is what happens in human talking and human action when we obliterate the differenceswhen we see all people and all things alike or identical. We call this basic misevaluation "identification," where we identify different things as being identical. (35) We should like to differentiate between two different kinds of identification. Number one is what we call "horizontal identification," or Identification One. This is where we identify different situations, people, things, etc., as if they were identical. Horizontal identification can be more clearly understood if we think

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas

Bll page.5

about it in terms of timethe time element. If you went to a dentist two years ago and he hurt you, it is the simplest thing for you and your nervous system to identify that painful experience with your present trip to the dentist. But this is a misevaluation, if you carry over the pain of Dentist 1, two years ago, into the situation today, with Dentist 2. This is a common kind of misevaluation, and is very difficult 10 reach on the conscious or intellectual level, as it is a deeply emotional feeling. But we can add to the present feeling the memories of the past pain, and, in a spiralling, circular effect, achieve the kind of immature and unnatural reaction that Dr. A.0 Spfirling describes in his book, Psychology for the Millions. (36) He reports that there was the case of a youth who died of fright in a dental chair. An official medical statement reported that the official cause of death was "fright in a dentist's chair." According to a newsbrief, he says, the boy was shaking with fear as he sat in the chair. He collapsed before the dentist had time to begin extracting a tooth. (37) Identification One is the seeing of similarities only while neglecting the differences. Race prejudice, bigotry, hates, riots, and dislikes stem from the failure to notice the important differences in people, situations and things. Stuart Chase has analyzed this problem of identification, or as he calls it, "hate at first sight." He says, "Why do we sometimes take a strong dislike to a stranger on first meeting?Somebody who has never injured us in any way may arouse a sharp antagonism. A new face appears in school or office or shop and our blood pressure begins to mount. Why? What produces this irrational, even embarrassing response? 1. 2. 3. He reminds you of someone you dislike. He reminds you of something you dislike in yourself. He threatens your security.

(38) All of these work on the unconscious level, meaning that we are not conscious of these identifications. Too often we make so many foolish, unfair, and negative judgements of individual people because we use the most extreme or sensational members of that group. Racial and religious groups usually find that they are stigmatized by the most obvious members of their group. We all make these hasty and partial judgements about members of minority groups and they are in turn made right back at us. For everyone is a member of some minority group. To think in terms of such blocks can hardly be called a human way of thinking. It relegates us to the level of the identifications found among lower or more primitive forms of man or among animals. The importance of this cannot be underestimated, for until we stop thinking in such stereotypes and blocks and begin to make distinctions of individuality there will be little hope for genuine peace, love or understanding in the world. (39) Those of us who demand individualism in business and in life generally are usually the habitual conformists in everything else. We lead the proper and standardized lives. As Professor David Rftsman once said, "We live in a standardized world, ride in a standardized car, live in a standardized house, sleep in a standardized bed with a standardized girl." We are continually outraged when a true individualist appears in our midst. The cull of conformity is so great that some of the greatest original thinkers in the history of man would find it difficult to pursue and express their thoughts which might not conform to prevailing opinion. (40) Sgraney J. Harris presents this problem of group thinking versus individualism when he says that "no nation in the history of the world has ever been so group-minded as ours. We have tens of thousands of groups and clubs and associations for every conceivable purpose and for no conceivable purpose except for the warm feeling of belonging that it gives most people." Individualism is an obscure bubble in the sea of gregariousness. The man who wants to preserve his personal identity is ridiculed as an eccentric or resented as a snob. If he sees life at a different angle from his fellows, this difference is not encouraged and enjoyed, but feared and finally fought. It seems shallow and hypocritical, therefore, for us to clamor for a greater degree of individualism in one aspect of life while stifling it in another. If a man's freedom to do business should be respected what about his freedom of thought and speech and habit? Without the toleration of broad differences there can be no such thing as a genuine individualism. The man who is locked tight within his company, within his suburb, within his particular church and club and summer resort, within his commonplace magazines and mass produced entertainment is no more an individualist than an oyster floating

Bll page.6 down Chesapeake Bay. To be a captive of one's own position and prejudice is more intense slavery than any government could devise. (41) The men who took part in the American Revolution were convinced that the common man is, in reality, most uncommon. They had respect for the dignity of man and individual differences. Thomas Jefferson did not set up the common denominator as his standard when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Nor did the founding fathers have mediocrity or the goals of common sense in mind when they set up the image of man as an ideala realistic and achievable goal to be reached. They set their sights much higher than mediocrity, to aide man in the realization of his fullest potential through the democratic process. This is what we mean by democracy: allowingno, encouragingeach man to fulfill his fullest potential within the Bill of Rights, and allowing each man the right to be different, unique, and individual in the strictest sense of the word. Thomas Huxley has said, "If individuality has no play, society does not advance. If individuality breaks out of all bounds, society perishes." We must not just tolerate this right to be different within legal limits, this precious quality must be encouraged and nurtured like new ideas. This is the backbone of our country. This is the backbone of the democratic way of life. (42) The rewards of differentness are easy enough to see. No matter what field you choosescience, education, business, industrythe demand is for individual thinkers, individuals whose performance is above the common, average, and who are therefore different, pbt only |s man's earning power and worth generally correlated with his ability to be different and to produce new ideas, but also with his capacity to take chances, to be persistent, not afraid to be different. (43) Most people, unfortunately, have a fear of being different. Our cult of conformity, of course, fosters this fear, but there is perhaps no great leader, great thinker, great man of science or any other field who was not ridiculed or laughed at. No original pioneer in any field could escape it, but they did not fear the idea of being different. On the contrary, they welcomed it. Most of the great religious leaders of history have been nonconformists. It takes great personal courage to be different, but there is also an art to it. The thing that most people dislike about those who are different is not being different, but the attitude of superiority or hostility that so often goes with it. Too often great men like General Billy Mitchell do not have their novel and sometimes radical ideas accepted because they alsovin an equally dogmatic manner, state that anyone who happens to disagree with them is a fool. If we all granted to each other the right to be different we would all be different enough, indeed. (44) Now, Identification One, horizontal identification, is usually accompanied by another identification where we identify words with things. Let us call this Identification Two, or vertical identification. Identification Two, where we identify different levels of abstraction as if they were the same. In Identification Two, or vertical identification, we identify our inferences with statements of fact and therefore are not conscious of the differences between our assumptions and statements of fact. Jumping to conclusions, or passing off inferences as if they were statements of fact, is characteristic of this kind of vertical identification. Identifying two different levels of abstraction as if they were the same. Another kind of Identification Two, or vertical identification, is confusing the verbal world with the nonverbal world. When we react to the word as if it were the thing. (45) This kind of literal identification is exemplified in Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Ernest. Algernon, one of the main characters says, You have always told me that your name was Ernest. You answer to the name of Ernest. You look as if your name is Ernest. You are the most Ernest-looking person I have ever seen in my life. It is perfectly absurd your saying that your name isn't Ernest. And in Jersey City, arrested on a stolen car charge following a wild police chase during which five shots were fired, Peter Rabbit III, twenty, blamed his heavy drinking and his long police record on his name: "Every time you guys ask me my name and I say 'Peter Rabbit' you lock me up for being a wise guy." In Los Angeles two brothers have legally swapped names to match faces. Otto, eighteen, and Tito Voling explained in court, one of theT^aJrgiveVa German name and the other, an Italian name because their father was German and their mother Italian. However, it turned out that German-named Otto looked Italian and Tito looked German, the brothers said. So they had their names changed to conform with their features. And also in Los Angeles, Laurence Sex of Los Angeles applied to Superior Court to have his name changed to Laurence Six because

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas

Bll page.7

he was about to become an evangelical missionary. (46) This is what we mean by vertical identification, where we identify words with things. Sometimes we can identify ourselves to such an extreme degree that we become the label. Ley, who hanged himself, also left a suicide note to his U. S. army jailers in which he said that he had been treated well, but "the fact that I should be a criminal, this is what I cannot stand." Ley was buried today in a plain coffin in an unmarked grave. To him the word was the thing. Professional wrestlers realize that it is not the other wrestler whom they have to worry about as much as some of the fans at ringside. Some fans identify the p Jay-act ingthe cries and groanswith the real thing and have hit the villian over the head with chairs. In fact, the same week that this was being written, it was reported in the newspaper that a professional wrestler was listed in critical condition at a hospital with at least nine stab wounds in his body delivered by a spectator who had leaped into the ring with a knife in his hand. Some women have been known also to hit wrestlers over the head with the heels of their shoes and stick them with their hatpins. It cost a Peoria, Illinois, [resident] S8.50 for repairs to his television set. He got mad at the villain in a wrestling match and fired a pistol at the screen. (47) We find these kinds of literal identifications in the movies, also. In Karachi, the first showing of an American three-dimensional movie in the province of Hyderabad was a great success. Front row spectators bolted for the doors when huge rocks appeared to jump from the screen. Newspaper reports said the audience stampeded for safety so quickly that children were left behind. A similar example of identification happened in another theater. While watching Daisy Kenyan at our local theater I was amused by the old lady in the next seat. She was completely absorbed in the story and sighed, wept and occasionally clucked disapproval. Toward the end of the picture, Daisy Kenyan returns to a long-closed house and as she pulls back the curtains a cloud of dust filters down. Then she picks up a drawing and more dust billows out into the room. Suddenly, the old lady sneezed loudly. "Excuse me," she whispered to me, "But dust always does that to me." (48) We find other examples of vertical identification in IQ or psychological tests. One of the dangers of psychological tests, according to some executives, is the fact that we tend to confuse the score with the man. Personnel directors or lop management tend to act as if the psychological test or the score is the man. They look at the man in terms of the test without noticing any changes that might come about after being on the job for several years. It tends to be a kind of crutch where you pidgen-hole a man and consequently do not allow for differences, growth and change. (49) Just as the words are not the things, our ideas are not the things. Many people believe that they would like to be married. What really appeals to them is the idea of marriage that they see in the movies or television. But the realities of marriage with disagreements, arguments, restrictions, obligations, and the giveand-take of two or more people trying to make the nonverbal marriage successful is entirely different than the picture inside of some youngster's head created by popular songs, radio serials, television, and the movies. Many young\j|ves think they want a child, but what they really want is the idea of having a baby and not the crying, demanding, wetting baby which does not resemble the abstract ideal. Having achieved the dream world of matrimony some people think that their problems are ended. In reality, however, the opposite is usually the case, for their problems have just begun. This trememdous difference between the idea of marriage (or marriage in the abstract) and the realities of marriage is one of the causes of divorce in our dream-world semantic environment. It is this difference that drives some people to divorce, despair, drink, and nervous break-downs. For the world of reality is never the ideals and dreams which we get from love songs and movies which should have been recognized in the first place. (50) Before we consider a third kind of identification, let us consider the little word "is" that contributes toward vertical identificationconfusing words with things or individuals with class names or groups. The "is" of identity contributes toward the misevaluation of vertical identification. Whenever we say: "Mr. Jones is a lawyer," "He is a thief," "Mr. Smith is a negro," we are identifying a unique, individual person with a group, genus, or class, by the class label. Human beings must give labels or names to things, but the "is" of identity tends to make us act as if the individual person and the class are one and the sameare identical. We are identifying two different levels of abstraction. This identification does not allow us to see the individuality, the uniqueness and the differences that each person possesses, who happens to fall under these class labels. Too often we tend to identify all persons under these high order abstractions or class names with the same

Bll page.8 neurological response (or with the same meaning). (51) George Santayana, the famous philosopher, was conscious of the great implications that the structure of our language has in thought and behavior. In his book Skepticism and Animal Faith he said, "The little word 'is* has its tragedies; it marries and identifies different things with the greatest innocence, and yet, no two are ever identical, and if therein lies the charm of wedding them and calling them one, therein too lies the danger. Whenever I use the word 'is', except in sheer flftology, I deeply misuse it, and when I discover my error the world seems to fall asunder and the members of my family no longer know one another." (52) Now, let us consider Identification Three which is basically psychological identification. There is another kind of identification which is well knowjjin the psychological literature which should be differentiated from the above two kinds of misevaluations. The third kind of identification is when we identify ourselves with our families, jobs, country, school, or other organizations. In fact, our government went to considerable expense to manufacture company and battalion insignias and many other ways of having a soldier identify himself with his fellow soldiers and the goals that they represented. As many psychiatrists know, some people have an identification deficiency. They find themselves unable to identify themselves. For example, in the "father role." As Alfred Korzybski used to say, "Some men can make babies, but they are unable to be a father to their children. Some men might be husbands by definition as having a marriage contract, but they cannot assume the role of a husband." (53) It is very important that workers, as well as management, identify themselves with their job. But in all of these roles as father, husband, worker, teacher, etc., we too often find an emotional vacuum where people are unable to emotionally identify themselves with their role or job in our society. This lack of Identification Three, or psychological identification, was illustrated by the two salesmen who were leaving the Urlanger Theater where Death of a Salesman was playing. "I tell you," said one salesman who was visibly shaken by the play, "frjust proves what I've always contended, that New England territory is lousy." He was unable to identify himself with Willy Loman. Similarly, a friend of outfwho was serving his hitch at the Great Lakes Naval Station went into Chicago with two of his buddies to see The Caine Mutiny. They were struck by the resemblance between the infamous Captain Queeg and their own lieutenant. If the lieutenant could see the play, they reasoned, perhaps he could see himself as others saw him, and mend his ways. They decided to chip in and give him a ticket to the play for his birthday. On the morning after the lieutenant's outing the sailors approached him warily. "How did you like the play, sir?" one asked. "Fine, fine," beamed the lieutenant, "You know that Captain Queeg." The sailors nudged one another. The lieutenant continued. That S.O.B. was a dead ringer for a commanding officer I had down in Corpus Christi." (54) Well, we've seen that many of the most important words in the English language do not point out the differences to be found in the world of reality. Our language lends to imply similarities only. A device 10 imply these important differences is the "index." Let us make an analogy. When you go to put some important papers in a file cabinet, you do not throw the papers any old place. You index them according to different headings. This index points out the similarities and the differences among all the papers in the fife cabinet. You have ordered and structured the facts in some systematic way according to both similarities and differences. Similarly, we need a scientific method of making our evaluations fit the structure of the world of reality, and we know that nonidentity or differences characterize the structure of the world of reality. We need a language that adequately represents and points out these differences to be found on observation. (55) The index points out the differences that our language obscures. It reminds us of the differences. Look around the world and see the tremendous amount of differences among men and women, but do the words "men" and "women" imply these differences? How about words like "professor," "actress," "criminal," "doctor," "lawyer," "cop," etc. Do these words imply the differences which can be found on observation? There is a tendency when we use the language of high order abstractions or nouns to freeze our responses. This frozen response is well-known among animals, but humans too can respond in an automatic, signal response to these high-order abstractions without seeing the differences among the people who just happen to be classified under these arbitrary labels, In this respect, we allow our language to do our thinking for us. The degree to which we freeze our responses, to that degree do we notice similarities only and neglect the differences. Man One is not Man Two; Professor One is not Professor Two; Actress One is not Actress Two; Criminal One is not Criminal Two who is not Criminal Three who is not Criminal Four, etc. We might

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas

Bll page.9

understand this intellectually, but neuro logically we too often react to them as if they were all identical. This again points out the differences between semantics and general-semantics. While semantics is concerned with the meaning of words, general-semantics is concerned with the meanings inside of our nervous systemsthe meanings we continually carry around inside of us. (56) The failure to index people, situations, and things results in the misevaluation of Identification One and Identification Two, We can illustrate this in considering two different kinds of hatred. (57) Number one, "unlocated hatred," or Hatred One. Unlocated hatred is when we deflect our hatred from one person to all other members of a group. It is obvious that belief in identities or similarities governs this kind of unlocated hatred or displaced aggression. We would not have race riots and prejudice to the degree that we now find it, if we could learn to direct our energies against the source of itagainst a specific and individual stimulus. (58) For example, in Chicago, a young man who confessed to having a terrible hate against all negroes was picked up as the leader of a bomb-and-brick-bat campaign of racial terrorism on the south side. "I knew what it was to be on the receiving end," he said. "I was born in Latvia and as a child I took it first from the Nazis and then from the Russians. It is the hate I had," he said. "It is the revenge I wanted against someone, against anyone, for all the suffering of my people. I guess I picked on Negroes because everyone seemed to be picking on them," he said. His own hate was embedded deep beneath the scars of his family's European persecution. He first gave expression to it a year and a half ago after an incident in Douglas Park. He said, "A bunch of Negro boys demanded my money. I had only eighteen cents. They took it and they beat me up. Then 1 decided to get even." He joined some friends, he said, to deal with reports that Negroes were preparing to move into their neighborhood. "I learned to make bombs with hot fuses on them. Then the gang, equipped for terror, begin to seek out victims. It was indiscriminate choosing. Any Negro family was fair game, he said. "We started to break windows and set fires. We began to throw bombs," he related. Now that he was in trouble he realized the frustration as well as the injustice of his hate. But we still see the unsanity of this generalized hate around us more today than ever before: white against black, black against white. (59) Hatred is a vicious disease that usually spirals into unlocated hatred out of all proportions to the original hate. It is easy to see the assumptions of similarity or identity underlying this generalized hate, and for the hater it makes his problem simple, for with these assumptions it gives him a wide open target. Prisoners themselves have often made the observation that one characteristic seen often in prisoners and seldom noticed in outsiders is that of violently hating something. Hate is the motivation of anti-social behaviorhatred of society, hatred of one's father or mother, one's family and environment, which really means hatred of oneself. Prejudice is a common example of untocated hatred. Prejudice, in its more general sense, means a judgement or evaluation not grounded in reason or experfence. It literally means a prejudgement. This kind of prejudice is not only an intellectual fault or misevaluation indicating a lack of careful thought and proper evaluation, but it usually involves strong emotional feelings and ill will. Unfortunately until recently, we have not given too much scholarly consideration to this psychological disease. (60) It is true that for thousands of years great writers and philosophers have tried to teach to make judgements based upon logic, reason, and experience. Unfortunately, however, they themselves sometimes exhibited prejudice due to ignorance, distrust of aliens, confused emotional feelings based upon ignorance. Aristotle, for example, considered non-Greeks as inferior barbarians. Hegel and many others considered the Negroes non-human creaturesan argument carried on even today. And Dostoevsky engaged in the lowest type of antisemitic vilification. John Locke wrote the classic exemplification of political and religious tolerance, but he did not deal with racial and ethnic prejudice, for he did not extend toleration to atheists, Roman Catholics, and Jews. (61) Sigmond Freud was one of the first great writers to make a searching analysis of prejudiceits origin and manifestations against people of different beliefs and places. He felt that human beings have natural tendencies toward aggression and domination which must be satisfied in one way or another. Freud, therefore, was pessimistic about the possibility of taming the hostile human impulse toward aggression, prejudice, and bias. However, in the light of what happened during the Nazi regime in Europe and other examples of masshate and prejudice, modern researchers in psychology and psychiatry do not believe thai such bias is a convenient and relatively harmless form of satisfaction as Freud stated.

Bll page. 10 (62) We now believe that people can restrain their prejudices through understanding and educationunderstanding our own personal frustrations and emotional insecurities as well as understanding those who happen to be different. This understanding is a far cry from toleration which usually carries the implication that "I will tolerate you although I know that I am one of the chosen few or better than you." The psychology of toleration is based upon the assumption that we are better than someone else or another group, but truly understanding others is entirely different than tolerating them. (63) Now let us talk about the second kind of hatred: "located hatred," or Hatred Two. Located hatred is directed against the source, not deflected from one person against all others of a group. As we have seen, the semantic theory is: We tend to discriminate against people to the degree that we fail to distinguish among them. We need training in the direction of the object of hate or dislike. (64) Indexing is the device used to notice differencesto be able to locate the stimulus. We must attack the premise that men, women, people are all alike or identical because we know that they aren't. Again, the assumption of identity is at the heart of all this problem. The stereotypes which we all carry around in our heads is an important factor in our behavior of not noticing differences among people, situations, and things. Most of our fears, dislikes, prejudices, and hates have this assumption of identity or similarity behind this. Don't we often dislike fish, spinach, or other foods before tasting them? These aversions to people, food, things is a spreading and continuous response from one little simple situation to all others. It is the stereotypes or mental images coupled with the assumption of similarity or identity unconsciously projected onto the world of reality which keeps us from noticing the tremendous amount of differences in everything that we come in contact with. When you neglect the differences the world gets too simple. In this respect we manifest the "allness" orientation, but we have seen that a characteristic of the world of reality is complexity and magnitude of details. To the degree that we oversimplify the worldto that degree do we fail to manifest proper evaluation and intelligence. (65) A final, but most important, comment should be made relative to our educational system and the seeing of differences. Very little children have a great degree of ability in noticing differences in the world. Because their orientation is nonverbal rather than verbal they feel, observe, scrutinize the world of reality. They see things that the adult misses. We want to keep that. The natural seeing of differences is important in adult life, but we tend to lose this natural gift. Unfortunately our educational and training methods are verbally oriented rather than factually, or nonverbally, oriented, and we lose this great ability in the seeing of differences. We sacrifice the seeing of differences for common sense and everyday intelligence, which usually means the seeing of similarities only. We seem to have lost that important quality of observation on the nonverbal level of noticing differences in situations, and things. (66) Now let us make some general conclusions about similarities and differences. Similarities: It is easy and convenient to lump things together and notice only their similarities. Differences: Being able to see the differences is the mark of the trained observer. The more training you have, the more differences you see. Similarities: It is only because we can see that one thing is similar to another that we learn. Differences: We progress as we discover differences which heretofore were unrealized. Science progresses by the discovery of differences. Similarities: U is only through the learning of similarities that we can extend our vision or learning. Differences: By the seeing of differences in the world we do not oversimplify or identify different things as being the same. Similarities: By the seeing of similarities only, we tend to overgeneralize and carry our hates and dislikes into situations where they don't belong.

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas Differences:

Bll page.ll

By seeing differences we react to each unique individual thing in a unique and individual manner. Similarities: By seeing similarities only we substitute convenience for proper evaluation. Differences: By seeing differences we manifest observation, analysis, intelligence and proper evaluation. (67) Now, let us conclude with five points to remember on the importance of seeing differences in people, situations and things. 1. 2. 3. 4.
5.

No two things are identical. Our language, especially the nouns, tend to imply identity or similarities only. Index your thinking, speaking and behaving. Man One is not Man Two; Situation One is not Situation Two. Look for differences as well as similarities. We must learn to see the differences in the similarities and the similarities in the differences.
Practice this so you can get it into your nervous system so that you can behave this way.

Bll page. 12 Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Illustrate how our language habits tend to reinforce similarities only. [Bll para.07] Explain how inability to see differences leads to hatred. [Bll para.10] Illustrate the increasing specificity in Navajo. [Bll para.ll] Illustrate Werner's principles that the more primitive a society, the less interest there is in the generic name. [Bll para.12] Explain how the discovery of differences characterizes science. [Bll para.15] Substantiate Lehman's contention that English is a language of many nouns and high order abstractions. [Bll para. 14] Provide examples from history of the failure to see differences. [Bll para.22] Explain the context in which science exists by seeing similarities. [Bll para.26] Explain how science progresses by analogy. [Bll para.28] Describe the affliction known as "habit focus." [Bll para.29] Explain how greater reliance on symbols results in failure to see differences. [Bll para.31] Relate race prejudice to the Aristotelian law of identification. [Bll para.33] Analyze the misevaluation pattern known as horizontal identification. [Bll para.35] Describe the process of horizontal identification. [Bll para.37] Explain the process of "hate at first sight." [Bll para.37] Differentiate between horizontal differentiation and vertical differentiation. [Bll para.38] Trace the development of block or stereotypical thinking, relating it to horizontal identification. [Bll para.38] Explain how individualism depends on a toleration of broad differences. [Bll para.41] Explain the context in which Berman suggests there is an art to nonconformity. [Bll para.43] Analyze the process of vertical identification. [Bll para.44] Explain how inference/observation confusion could be classified as vertical identification. [Bll para.44] Illustrate the ideal/event confusion. [Bll para.49] Explain how the idea/reality confusion can lead to divorces. [Bll para.49] Explain the "is" of identity. [Bll para.50] Explain how identifying an individual with a group is an example of confusing two different orders of abstraction. [Bll para.50] Illustrate the problem of identification deficiency. [Bll para.51] Analyze the process of psychological identification. [Bll para.53] Illustrate the process of Identification or psychological identification. [Bll para.53] Explain how the indexing process allows for both similarities and differences. [Bll para.54] Explain the relationship of high order abstractions to frozen responses, [Bll para.54] Differentiate between general semantics and semantics. [Bll para.57] Describe the process of unlocated hatred. [Bll para.57] Explain how the indexing device can neutralize stereotypes. [Bll para,63] Differentiate between located hatred and unlocated hatred. [Bll para.63] Describe the process by which a child loses his ability to see differences. [Bll para.65] Summarize five major conclusions about similarities and differences. [Bll para.66] Summarize five helpful conclusions about the importance of seeing differences in people, situations and things. [Bll para.67]

Appendix II, Section Bll: The Importance of Seeing Differences D. Maas Index All ness Alvarez Analogy Aristotle Caine Mutiny Chase, Stuart Cherokee language Cult of Conformity Daisy Kenyan example Death of a Salesman Differences; seeing Dostoevsky Failure to Index Freud, Sigmund "Fright in the dentist's chair" example General semantics General semantics/semantics difference Generic name Habit focus Harris, ^dney Hate at first sight Hatred: located Hatred two Hatred: undated Hatred: unlocated Horizontal identification Identification Identification one The Importance of Being Ernest Index "Is" of identity Jefferson Johnson, Samuel 64 19 27 17 53 37 11 39 47 53 30, 66 60 56 61 36 55 55 12 29 40 37 63 63 57 57 35 34,52 37 45 54 50 41 9

Bll page.13

KluckhoM
Korzybski Lappsf 20 names for ice Lee, Irving Lehman Likeness and Science Located hatred Locke, John Marriage: agreement by definition Mayo clinic Navajo language Nazi regime Non-identity Observation: seeing differences Prejudice

11
52 13 12, 33 13 28 57 60 49 19 11 61 2,4 30 59

Bll page. 14 Psychological identification Psychology for the Millions Rftsmant, David Santayana, George Science Seeing differences Seeing similarities Semantics Similarities: seeing Skepticism and Animal Faith Sperling, A. R Stereotypes Tautology Toynbee, Arnold Unlocated hatred Van Doren, Mark Vertical Identification Werner's principle Whitehead, Alfred Lord North Wilde, Oscar "Wrestler" example 35

30, 67 31, 66 55 31, 66 51 35 64 51 57 44, 46 12 45 46

Appendix II, Section B12: The Either/Or Way of Thinking D. Maas

B12 page.l

The Either/Or Way of Thinking Sanford Berman Key Terms

Contradictory/contrary Degrees Dichotomous thinking Extremes Graded variations Moderation difficulty Multi-valued orientation One-valued orientation Pendulum effect Polar terms Polarity Two-valued orientation

(1) Someone once said, "Mankind is divided into two kinds of people: those who divide mankind into two kinds of people and those who don't." For most of us this either/or way of thinking is prevalent. We continually divide people, situations or things into two contrasting, or opposite, categories. For example, I should like to read some statements by famous people. Do you agree or disagree with their following statements? (2) Charles Lamb said, There are two races of men: the borrowers and the lenders." (3) Lord Chesterfield said, There are but two objects of marriage: love or money. If you marry for love you will certainly have some very happy days and probably many very uneasy ones. If for money, you will have no happy days and probably no uneasy ones." (4) Dwight Morrow said, The world is divided into people who do things and people who get the credit." (5) William Lyon Phelps said, "I divide all readers into two classes: those who read to remember and those who read to forget." (6) Helen Keller said, "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." (7) Do you agree with these statements, or is there something wrong with them? Why don't these statements fit the facts of the world of reality? If we would analyze the world around us, we would see that people are both borrowers and lenders, some more than others and at different times. (8) There are many objects of marriage. Love and money might be just two of the many, while not necessarily exclusive of each other. (9) We all probably fall into the category of both doing things and getting credit, although it is probably true that those who do the most get the most credit. It is interesting, however, that those who answer that they agree with Dwight Morrow's statement are usually the ones MB* believe that they are the doers and everybody else gets the credit. To a degree this is an interesting projeciftfCtest. (10) There are many reasons or purposes, of course, for reading. While we do not always read to remember, as we might a college textbook, we do not necessarily read to forget. The "forget" of course is ambiguousforget one's problems, forget what one is reading, etc. It is not only too ambiguous, but it too is all-inclusive, either/or and too extreme. (11) To Helen Keller, life was either a daring adventure or nothing. It is easy for some people so afflicted to act as if life were nothing. But her amazing philosophy and courage made her the kind of outstanding person she was. But for most of us this kind of an "either/or" assumption can be dangerous. If we orient our lives around the assumption that life is either a daring adventure or nothing, and life is not a daring adventure, then life turns out to be nothing. (12) These statements are too extreme, too exclusive, as if both could not exist simultaneously. They are two-valued statements which imply a contradiction, but which may coexist. We have seen just a few of the many kinds of either/or statements which can get us into difficulty. There are, however, two different kinds

B12 page.2 of either/or statements. It is important that we know the difference between the two and not confuse one with the other. (13) The first kind of either/or statement is the contradictory two. The contradictory two is characterized by the following: 1. 2. It involves an assertion and a denial. There is no middle ground. For example, you either are or are not, did or did not. A student either came to class or he did not. There is no middle ground. You either drank coffee for breakfast or you did not. You either did or did not. There is no middle ground.

(14) It is perfectly appropriate to use the either/or structure of language with contradictories. There are no dangers involved. There are many problems, however, which sound like contradictions, but which aren't. Most either/or statements sound like contradictories, but they are not. They are contraries or opposites. And the failure to distinguish between the two can present much difficulty. Contraries or opposites are statements of things which are at the opposite ends of a scale. Words like "hot and cold," "good and bad," "right and wrong," "smart and dumb," "success and failure," "happiness and unhappiness"these imply contradictions, but they are contraries. They are at opposite ends of a scale. While contradictions have a hard and fast rule, contraries do not. Aristotle himself was the first philosopher to point out important differences between contradictories and contraries. (15) Statistical studies of things reveal continuous or graded variations. Scientific analysis of the structure of the world of reality indicates degrees or graded variations. For example, people are not either tall or short, but they are five-one, five-two, five-three, five-four, etc. If we study physical events or persons, we find degrees or continuous variations of height, weight, quality, quantity, etc. We find a distribution with each person or thing varying in terms of degrees. And so we can add another characteristic of the structure of the world of reality: degrees or graded variations. (16) The language that most fits the structure of the world of realitythat points out these degreesis the language of mathematics. Mathematics is our most perfect language. Our English language, however, suggests that these degrees or graded variations do not occur. We do not have enough words in our English language to point out the degrees and differences to be found in the world of reality. (17) The English language, however, suggests that this continuous variation does not exist. For example, let us take a look at the following contraries and see if we can find a word, not including a mathematical term, which falls exactly in the middle. The point that we are now making is that we do not have words in the English language, except in mathematics, that stand for the exact middle of a continuum. Excluding mathematical terms like "average," "median," etc., see if you can find a word exactly in the middle of the continuum, neither to the right nor to the left: Good and bad Right and wrong Smart or dumb Hot or cold Success or failure Happiness or unhappiness (18) Now I have found with thousands of students that it is very, very, difficult to find words that fall exactly in the middle of the continuum. The English language does not have words that represent the exact middle. If we analyze the English language we will see that these "end" or "polar" terms prevail. These are terms that are at opposite ends of a scale. Now if we visualize the above contraries in terms of degrees, or on a continuum, we would see that most things in the world fall somewhere in between the two extremes. But in our talking we pay no attention to these degrees. There are no qualifying gradations in our talking. We do not employ a degree language of "how much." (19) Now let us make an observation about our English language and its influence on our thinking and talking about things and people. Because English is a language in which these end or polar terms

Appendix II, Section B12: The Either/Or Way of Thinking D. Maas

B*2

Pafie-3

i i I i i i i i i i I I i i i i i

prevail-terms that are at opposite ends of the scale or opposite ends of the pole-^ve tend in our talking to neglect the continuous variations or degrees in talking about things and people. We focus on the extremes. Our language habits indicate a temptation to obliterate the middle continuum, the tremendous amount of things that are in or near the middle. (20) Now, because we have fewer words for the gradations within the continuum, we lend to talk as if people and things were at opposite ends of a scale. We tend to behave that way too. The important point is this: What might have been a small difference of opinion, represented, let us say, between L and M, is often maximized and made greater because of the use of such polar terms. Extreme language widens the differences to points A and Z. If you argue at the extreme poles, differences become greater-much greater than they originally were or intended to be. (21) Just listen to divorce court proceedings and you will find many examples of this. What originally was a small difference of opinion has ended up in a divorce court proceeding. Jan Struther indicates this danger with the following two polar terms: "always" and "never." She says, I know a wise and witty woman who has been happily married for more than forty years. Whenever one of her younger friends who is about to be married comes to her for advice, she replies, "Well, my dear, I most sincerely hope that you two will never have a difference of opinion, but if you do get into an argument, avoid the word 'always.'" How simple, and yet how sane. Think of the many, many occasions in a marriage when what might have been nothing worse than a trifling spark of disagreement has been fanned into a conflagration because one of the two parties has let drop this kind of remark: "You always come tracking through the living room in your wet rubbers," or "you always leave the cap off of the toothpaste," or "you always want to go home just when the party's being fun," or "you always manage to get into long political discussions whenever Uncle George is around." Never say "always." Of all the mottos for marriage I have heard, I think this one is the shortest and the soundest. (22) One husband who found himself overworked with "always" did something about it and still found out that he couldn't win: When for the second time in all our years of marriage, to the best of my memory, I allowed cigar ashes to drop on the carpet one night last week, my wife asked, "Must you always drop ashes on the carpet?" This is not the first time such a charge has been made. I have been accused of late of such other crimes as "always letting the bathroom faucet drip," "always forgetting my latch key," and "always allowing the car to run out of gas." Understand now, I am never accused of "always bringing home a paycheck," or "always taking my wife to the theater." Not long ago we drove out to one of those new subdivisions to see a friend. Not only do the houses all look alike, but the streets all curve around to give the impression that the houses all don't look alike. It's very confusing. When after only ten minutes' circling I hadn't found the friend's house, my wife commented that, "it's funny that you always get lost." "When was the last time I got lost?" I asked quietly. "Last summer looking for Ted's tennis-racket-restringing shop," she answered. I sighed, "But it had gone out of business, dear and another shop was there. That's why I couldn't find it." Last month, the office force gave a surprise stag party for the boss's fifty-fifth birthday, and I told my wife regretfully that I had to attend, but she said, "I don't like having you always go out and leaving me home alone at night." "But darling," I protested, "the last time 1 left you alone at night was in the spring of 1951 when I was out fighting the flood." Her only comment was, "Oh, you're always exaggerating." I decided to make an issue of it, because the thing seemed to be getting out of hand.

B12 page,4 So, a couple of days later, after the two-ton truck had left, I called her out to the back yard. Upon seeing the ten-foot high mountain of ashes, she screamed, "What in the world is that?, That was/question I had been wailing for. "That, my love,' I said, 'is one thousand four hundred and thirty-nine pounds of ashes. After a great deal of precise calculation I arrived at that figure as being the amount of ashes that would be on our carpet if I had always dropped them every time I smoked a cigar." She looked at the mountain for a moment then said, "It's a good thing I clean them up then, isn't it?" (23) Well, the either/or structure of the English language, along with the tendency to speak in terms of end or polar terms, leads one into a common form of misevaluation known as the two-valued orientation. The two-valued orientation is when we allow ourselves only two values, only two solutions to problems when there are many more. Edward Sapir, one of America's most important anthropologists and linguists, indicates this relationship between language and the two-valued orientation when he says, There is another powerful tendency which makes for a formal elaboration that does not strictly correspond to clear-cut conceptual differences. This is the tendency to construct schemes of classification into which all the concepts of language must be fitted. Once we have made up our minds that all things are either definitely good or bad or definitely black or white, it is difficult to get into the frame of mind that recognizes that any particular thing may be both good and badin other words, grey. Still more difficult to realize is that the good/bad or blaclc/white categories may not apply at all. Language is, in many respects, as unreasonable and stubborn about its classifications as is such a mind. (24) We find this two-valued orientation in television where we see the good guys against the bad guys, and act as if the good guys were all good and the bad guys were all bad. Television, as we have seen, is an important part of our semantic environmentthe environment which creates meanings, ideas and pictures inside of our headsbut if we live our personal lives in terms of this fairyland, the false-to-fact stereotypes of "either/or," "all-or-none," we might very well become disillusioned. People are not all good or all bad, but more or less, or somewhere in the middle. Only children need heroes and villains. An important characteristic of maturity that distinguishes a cultivated mind from the mass mind is the ability to perceive and accept the badness in good people and the goodness in bad people. The two-valued orientation does not allow us to do this. People or things are either all good or all bad with no in-between. (25) "You are either for me or against me" is the motto of a two-valued person. This is why it is very difficult for us to be a moderate in our standing on a particular question or subjectespecially in the area of politics. This is an area which is usually charged with emotional feeling where you have more heat than light. (26) The two-valued orientation is usually accompanied by the tendency to oversimplify the world of reality. A characteristic of the structure of the world of reality is complexity. But there are no simple solutions to complex problems. The two-valued person conveniently and simply divides problems and people into only two values or two sides as if there were only two sides to every question. He usually, however, goes further than this, like the wife who said to her husband, "I didn't say there weren't two sides to every story; I just said I wasn't listening to your side." (27) Joseph Wood Krutch and S&ney J. Harris indicate another manifestation of this two-valued orientation. Sidney Harris says, A writer isn't often pleased when another writer takes the words right out of his mouth, but in this case I am delighted that so distinguished a critic as Joseph Wood Krutch beat me to the punch on a topic I was just getting around to. In an issue of The American Scholar, Krutch remarks, "From experience I have learned that you can't criticize anything without having it supposed that you favor some opposite extreme. If you say, for example, that automobiles should not be built to run ninety miles an

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section B12: The Either/Or Way of Thinking D. Maas

B12 page.5

hour, you are asked scornfully if you want to go back to the horse-and-buggy days, as though nothing between ninety miles an hour and eight miles an hour were possible. To take an older example: In the past, if some radical opposed the twelve-hour working day, it was assumed that he was advocating a life of almost uninterrupted leisure for labor, and today," Krutch adds, "if you confess the suspicion that a certain specific demand of a single union is unreasonable, then you are accused of wanting to hand the manacled working man over to the exploiters." It is curious how everyone preaches moderation, but hardly anyone believes in it except as an abstraction. We seem to be continually compelled to make choices between extremes, neither of which is wholly desirable. If I write a column against strict training of children, I receive dozens of letters wrathfully asking whether I believe children should be left to run wild, and if I write a column against too much permissive parenthood, as many equally wrathful letters demanding to know if I think it is right to break the child's spirit or cripple his self-expression. When I commented some months ago that I did not have many electrical gadgets in my home because I do not want to become enslaved and in utter dependence on service men and such, many readers suggested that I go to a log cabin and use oil lamps. This was their idea of irony, but these are never exclusive alternatives, as Mr. Krutch sensibly points out. Some gadgets are convenient and desirable, and some are more trouble than they are worth. The horse-and-buggy is too slow for modern travel, but perhaps the three hundred horse-power auto is too fast. Must we perpetually oscillate between the extremes-of yesterday and tomorrow, and does rejection of one extreme imply the other? (28) This is one of the most common and unfortunate results of the two-valued orientationthe assumption that a person favors the opposite extreme. When we get in with extremists, notice how easy it is for us to become extreme also. There is something about extremism that breeds its own opposite. When we are confronted by an extremist, we become a passionate defender of the opposite view. The danger of extremism and the two-valued orientation is that it forces its opponents to adopt an equally extreme view, thus making it difficult to achieve agreement. (29) William Haney calls this the "pendulum effect." He says, One of the most destructive consequences of polarization is the pendulum effect. This hypothetical argument will demonstrate the way it operates: Two friends are drinking coffee at a restaurant counter. They have just begin to discuss the value of unionsa subject on which both are essentially neutral. Tom says to Mike, "Did you see the newspapers this morning? That senate investigating committee is really digging up the dirt. I guess some of these unions are out for what they can get." Mike perceives this as an off-center remark. He wants to move the pendulum back to center, but to counterbalance, he makes an equally off-center comment in the opposite direction. Mike says, "Now, wait a minute. Sure, there are a few crooked unions, or at least a few crooked officials in them, but most of the unions have been a terrific boost for the working man." Tom sees this as a bit extreme, and he must counterbalance it. So Tom says, "What do you mean, a 'boost for the working man?' Sure, the union man puts more dough in his pockets, but what can he buy with it? Less than when he was getting half the money, and you know why? Because the money comes from the companies and they get it right back from the workers as consumers, with jacked-up prices. And who's scooping up the gravy while all this is going on? The unions!" To which Mike replies, "Says who? Don't forget the fat company executives who are raking in a half million or more a year with their stock options and delayed salaries and so on. And don't forget about Uncle Sam's share, either!"

B12 page.6 Tom replies, "Listen, you.. .." Well, by the time the alternating swings of the pendulum have reached an almost irreconcilable amplitude; the men are clearly at the feudal "you are wrong; I am right" stage. (30) Too often parents treat their children as if they were either good or bad, or always good or always bad, which can of course be more undesirable. One mother reported, My little daughter often misbehaves, and I have to rebuke her, but one day she had been an especially good girl, hadn't done a single thing that called for reprimand. That night, after I tucked her in bed and started down the stairs, I heard her sobbing. Turning back, I found her head buried in the pillow. Between sobs she asked, "Haven't I been a pretty good girl today?" That question, said the mother, went through her like a knife. She had been quick enough to correct her daughter when she did wrong, but when she tried to behave, the mother did not notice it. (31) Some teachers or executives assume that students or workers are either good or bad. Such a dichotomous view fails to make any provision for the range of possibilities in human behavior and further assumes the student or worker is always the same. This either/or or two-valued orientation also falls victim to the misevaluation of not being able to see important differences or change. We need to use more adjectives or qualifiers in order to get away from the extreme eithe^grcharacter Mi>ur_language, or perhaps we need to create new words as suggested by an editorial in the JHlKitVPHL It read. Many of the good things in life, including, so they say, roast pork, are the happy by-products of chance. Many scientific discoveries owe their recognition to an acute eye viewing an accidental happening and correlating it with other facts. All of which leads to the main pointnamely, that an esteemed younger contemporary of the New York Times inadvertently created a new word the other day. It-is a word of tremendous possibilities and it is solely with that thought in mind that its brief life may be saved, thai we now mention the matter. The story had to do with a certain public official who was considered by the state department to be (so the story said) a "pood" security risk. Obviously there was mental conflict in the production of this word, wavering as it does between "good" and "poor"a "pood" risk indeed! How many things are there in life that dangle halfway between good and poor? . .. "How's the show last night?""Oh, not too good, not too bad. Just about pood I'd say." In fact everything, including people, falls into the "pood" category. Most singing is pood. Most people are pood at sports. Most cooking ranges from pood to poor or, if you are lucky, from pood to good. Most people have a pood time at parties and enjoy pood health. We could go on like that ad infinitum to bolster the position that none of the words we now have indicating safe middle ground is nearly so effective as the word created by the Times linotype operator. We suggest that it would be a pretty pood idea for the Times to throw its respected weight behind this new word. (32) Well, we must all be conscious of our own tendencies in arguing or talking at the extremes. We must remember the dangers in using allness language such as "always" or "never," which often deepens the differences between people. Whenever we hear the words "either . . . or," we must be on guard for a false, extreme, or two-valued classification. We must say when, how much, or to what degree, as a way of getting on the continuum. (33) Now, even more extreme than the two-valued orientation is the one-valued orientation, where we do not see any degrees or differences-^when we do not date our evaluations at all, or we give only one value to the many unique individual people, things, and situations in the world of reality. The one-valued orientation is easily identifiable by the allness language of "all," such as "all cops take bribes," "all women are no good,"

Appendix II, Section B12: The Either/Or Way of Thinking D. Maas

B12 page.7

"all lawyers are schisters," "all doctors are butchers," "all redheads have tempers," etc. This is the kind of thinking we do when we don't do any thinkingwhere we give only one value to the millions of people who happen to fall under these arbitrary classifications. (34) Some people in mental institutions are victims of the one-vaiued orientation. Alfred Korzybski, while working at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, was working with a mental patient, and the patient asked him, "What nationality are you?" When Korzybski told him that he was Polish the patient lunged for his throat and started to choke him, because he hated all Poles. (35) Such thinking is not limited to the inside of mental institutions, however. We continually find many examples of the one-valued orientation in daily lifeespecially some whites who hate all blacks or some blacks who hate all whites. (36) How can we lessen the one- and two-valued orientation in our thinking, talking and behaving? By indexing and dating our evaluations, by seeing differences and changes in the world of reality as well as applying the other principles of proper evaluation, we can achieve a multi-valued orientation in our daily lives. (37) Now, let us talk about proper evaluationthe multi- or many-valued orientation. The one-valued orientation, as we have seen, allows for only one value toward people, situations, or things. The two-valued orientation allows for only two values. The multi-valued orientation, however, allows for many values in dealing with problems or responding to people, situations, and things. For proper evaluation, we must manifest a multi-valued orientation. In the multi-valued orientation, we reevaluate our evaluations continually in light of specific cases, changes, differences, and all of the other facts at our command. We reevaluate each unique, individual person, situation, and thing in a unique and individual manner. We have seen that the child's world is all good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains, black or white. Growing up, however, means beginning to understand that grey is the predominant color of human nature, not black or white. And when we are able to move up and down the continuum of greys in our responses to people, situations and things, rather than being rigid in the one or two-valued orientations, we have achieved the flexibility, maturity, and probably the self-insight to deal with the changing problems of life. (38) Let us therefore present a few conclusions or consequences of the either/or or two-valued orientation. (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In our arguments with people, the two-valued orientation tends to push us farther apart than we are or ought to be. Oliver Wendell Holmes was conscious of this when he said, "Controversy equalizes fools and wise men the same way. And the fools know it." The two-valued orientation makes it difficult to be a moderate in our standing on any question. People tend to push us from a moderate position to one which is all-or-none, either-or, but Charles Horton Cooley has said, "It is the mark of a rarely stable mind that antagonism cannot drive it to extremes." The two-valued orientation tends to deepen the conflict between two people or between two groups or factions. The two-valued orientation makes a third alternative or possibility difficult when we assume only one or two solutions to problems when there well may be many more possibilities.

Let us now consider five points to remember: 1. Z 3. 4. 5. Beware of the word "all" and the one-valued orientation. The danger of the either/or statement is with contraries or opposites, not with contradictories. Beware of the "either/or." Introduce degrees in your thinking. Say how much. Reevaluate your evaluations with the use of the "etc." or indexing or dating, seeing differences and changes in people, situations and things. The multi-valued orientation is when you reevaluate each person, situation and thing in a unique or individual manner. This is the essence of the scientific method. It also is a characteristic of maturity, intelligence and ultimately sanity.

B12 page.8 Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Provide examples from history illustrating the two-valued classification. [B12 para.04] Illustrate contexts in which either/or assumptions can be dangerous, [B12 para.10] Differentiate between contradictory and contrary either/or statements. [B12 para.15] Explain the context in which Mathematics could be termed our most perfect language. [B12 para.16] Provide examples of the prevalence of polar terms in the English language. [B12 para.17] Explain how the English language forces speakers to focus on the extremes. [B12 para.19] Characterize or describe the two-valued orientation. [B12 para.23] Explain how the two-valued orientation militates against maturity. [B12 para.24] Describe or explain the process Haney characterized as the pendulum effect. [B12 para.29] Explain or characterize the multi-valued orientation. [B12 para.37] Explain or characterize the one-valued orientation. [B12 para.37] Identify five consequences of the either/or or two-valued orientation. [B12 para.38] Identify five safeguards to the either/or or two-valued orientation. [B12 para.44]

Appendix II, Section B12: The Either/Or Way of Thinking D. Maas Index All ness "Always" example Always/Never (The) American Scholar Chesterfield, Lord "Cigar Ashes" example Complexity Contradictory/Contrary Cooley, Charles Morton Counterbalance Dating Degrees Dichotomous View Divorce Court Proceedings Either/or thinking Etc. Extremes Graded variations Haney, William Index Indexing Keller, Helen Korzybski, Alfred Krutch, Joseph Wood Mathematics Moderation: difficulty Morrow, Dwight Multi-valued orientation orientation Pendulum effect [Haney] Polar terms Polarity Pood "Pretty good girl" example Qualifying gradations Sapir-Whorf- Korzybski hypothesis "St. Elizabeth's hospital" example Stereotypes Struther, Jan Two-valued orientation "Union" example
21
22

B12 page.9

21 27 04 22 26 13, 14, 44 41

29 44 5,15 31
21 44 44 19

15
29 27 31 44 44 06 34 27 16 40 04 44 44 29 17
17

Quviul

31 30 18 23
34
24

21 23,39 29

Appendix II, Section B13: The Importance of Small Talk D. Maas

B13 page.l

Key Terms
Compliment club plan Phatic communion Sane asylum Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis Silence and tension Silent treatment Small talk Solitude (1) Sfrney J. Harris, in his book Majority of One, has said, "It's hard to decide which are the most exasperating to be withstupid people who never talk, or the bright people who never listen." One of my former students wrote, Sometimes it is very disturbing to live up to the principles of general semantics, especially when you are engaged in a conversation with someone you are fond of. As an illustration: He: "Darling, I will always love you." She (student of general semantics): "How can you be so sure? Everything changes and I shall change too. How can I know that you will still like me when I shall be different from what I am now?" He: (too startled to answer). (2) Now there are times when we should be scientific and critical in our talking and thinking, but there are other times when it is out of place. There is a vast area of human communication where we are not concerned whether or not a person is jumping to conclusions, assuming more knowledge than he really has, or all of the other kinds of misevaluations because this kind of communication has an entirely different purpose. (3) We are now referring to small talk where we talk for the sake of preventing silence. What is the worst penalty that is given to a prisoner? Solitary confinement is one of the worst forms that can be giveflfto a prisoner short of torture. Man is a gregarious being and solitariness is something that we make great efforts to overcome. In our human relations we make great attempts to break through the wall of solitary confinement. Human beings continually engage in small talk to break this wall. Small talk plays a very important psychological role in our lives. Mark Twain once said, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." From our point of view nobody should do anything about it. Talking about the weather is the best form of small talk because it is constantly changing and affects us personally in one way or another. Talking about the weather is the easiest form of small talk to establish sociability and communion with others. (4) Sometimes we meet individuals or students who say or orient their lives in terms of "I won't say anything unless I have something important to say." We continually meet people who are unable or unwilling to engage in small talk, who feel that it is intellectually beneath them to engage in anything but serious talk, but they do not understand the psychological importance of small talk. Small talk is necessary to bridge the large gap of the coldness of silence, of establishing fellowship, of the feeling of belonging, and ultimately and more deeply, of being loved. Thomas Mann has said, "Effective speech is civilization itself. Silence isolates; words draw us together." (5) Small talk is found in all societiesprimitive as well as modern civilization. Anthropologist

B13 page.2 Malinowski refers to small talk as "phatic communion." There is in all human beings [he says] the tendency to congregate, to be together, to enjoy each other's company. And even to primitive man, another man's silence is something alarming and dangerous. The stranger who cannot speak the language [he says] is to all savage tribesmen a natural enemy. The breaking of silence, the communion of words is the first act to establish links of fellowship, and the English expression "Nice day today" or some similar expression is needed to get over the strange and unpleasant tension which men feel when facing each other in silence. (6) Malinowski has further said, There can be no doubt that we have here a new type of linguistic use: phatic communion, I am tempted to call it (actuated by the demon of terminological invention)a type of speech in which ties of union are created by a mere exchange of words. Let us look at it with the special point of view with which we are here concerned. Let us ask what light it throws on the function or nature of language. Are words in phatic communion used primarily to convey meaningthe meaning which is symbolically theirs? Certainly not. Tliey fulfill a social function, and that is their principal aim, but they are neither the result of intellectual reflection nor do they necessarilyjlouse reflection in the listener. Once again, we may say that language does not function here as a means of transmission of thought. (7) So language can serve many purposes, and a social purpose rather than communicating meaning is paramount in phatic communion or small talk. Malinowski has shown that in the human dimension there is need for human tapping, for human sociability. Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have long recognized this, and place a great emphasis on listening, as people need to be listened to as well as to engage in small talk. To ask the question of whether or not people are talking sense in a small-talk situation misses the point completely, for in this respect, speech is only to establish sociability or social cohesion. H.G. Wells has said, "Words are sometimes only spoken to break the tension of silence or to evade the conspiracy of silence." (8) Another anthropologist, Edward Sapir, who was a scholar in linguistics and anthropology, points out further important uses of small talk in primitive as well as more civilized human communication. He says, There is another important sense in which language is a socializer beyond its literal use as a means of communication. This is in the establishment of rapport between the members of a physical group such as a house party. It is not what is said that matters so much as that something is said. Particularly where cultural understandings of an intimate son are somewhat lacking among the members oijphysical group, it is felt to be important that the lack be made good by a constant supply of small talk. This caressing or reassuring quality of speech in general, even where no-one has anything of moment to communicate, reminds us of how much more language is than a mere technique of communication. Nothing better completely shows how the life of man as an animal made over by culture is dominated by the verbal substitutes for the physical world. (9) Some people do not understand these psychological and social purposes of small talk and cannot realize it when it does occur. When you ask a friend, for example, "Well, how do you feel, Joe?" you do not want to really know. In fact we tend to evade those who start to give us a medical description and history of their illnesses unless we are a medical doctor. His purpose of asking such a question is to gain informationalthough such a question even by a doctor is very often of psychological purposes of small talk. This ability to engage in small talk is one of the most important tools that a doctor, dentist, executive, manager, or almost all of us can use on our job. It sets people at ease. It establishes a better working climate and is one of the most important kinds of communication that one can engage in. (10) As contradictory as it might sound, small talk is of no small importance in human communication.

Appendix II, Section B13: The Importance of Small Talk D. Maas

B13 page.3

If you were driving along the road in your automobile and you got a flat tire on a broiling hot day and someone came and asked you, "You got a flat?" what would your answer be? Well, probably not too pleasant. Dr. Karl Menninger mentions such a case in his book Love Against Hate. The motorist pulls off the road and makes preparation to change the tire. At that moment a farmer strolls up and asks the obvious question, "You got a flat?" According to Dr. Menninger, the psychological meaning of such a question is an awkward, but conventionalized way of saying something like this to the motorist, Hello, I see you're in trouble. I'm a stranger to you, but I might be your friend now that 1 have a chance to be, if I had any assurance that my friendship would be welcomed. Are you approachable? Are you a decent fellow? Would you appreciate it if I helped you? I'd like to, but I don't want to be rebuffed. This is what my voice sounds like. What does your voice sound like? (11) "This could be done in a more direct way," says Dr. Menninger, "such as 'I'd be glad to help you, stranger,'" but, as Dr. Menninger points out, People are often too timid and mutually distrustful to be so direct. They want to hear the other person's voice, to get reassurance that others are like themselves. Not as much content goes into the apparently trite question as "Hot enough for you?" or "How do you feel?" But much the same psychological method is at work. It is a means of establishing- good will, sociability, and communion with others. "Maturity" or "growing up" implies learning to understand what people really mean when they say obvious things. (12) Small talk or "phatic communion" has especially important purposes in business and industry or in selling. While too much small talk can waste time and interfere with productivity, not allowing small talk and sociability can have equally disastrous effects. Just try to stop the grapevine and you will find that you not only can't, but you will encounter disastrous results. Small talk through the grapevine can prevent a feeling of isolation among employees and contribute to their feeling of belonging or being on a team in an organization. This is most important in the motivation of people. David Rftsman, in his book Individualism Reconsidered, says, "What matters about the individual in today's economy is less his capacity to produce than his capacity to be a member of a team. Business and profession^uccess now depend more than ever before on one's ability to work on a team in far-flung personnel networks." (13) Many psychological studies have indicated that the most important quality of people in business and industry is the ability to get along with others. And when this was broken down more specifically, it amounted to the ability to engage in small talkto engage in productive phatic communion. Human communication is most important in all areas of human relations, and small talk is one of the most important kinds of human communication. (14) Now, we have referred to the kind of silence that breeds hostility and tension. Before considering this kind of silence more fully, let us first consider a different kind of silenceone which is important in getting down to facts in thinking, evaluating, making decisions, and in reflective thought generally. Let us call this Silence Onea good kind of silence which allows us to get down to the nonverbal or factual level. The scientist very often must stop talking and get down to the nonverbal world to study and observe the world around him. It is much more difficult to get this kind of silence today compared to two hundred or two thousand years ago. We continually have radio, television, movies, automobiles, and other kinds of noise interfering with the silence or solitude that we might desire. Solitude is practically a lost word in modern society, and writers and busy or reflective people must get away in order to think. They must shut themselves off from society in order to get the silence necessary for productive thought. (15) As we have seen, man is a social being who needs small talk and communion with others, but he is also a thinking being who needs to communicate with himself for his own mental and spiritual well-being. Solitude is psychologically and physiologically important even if [we] do not want to think, for it gives one the

B13 page.4 mental and physical relaxation from the contact with others during the hurry-scurry of a busy day. Philosophers and mystics have sought solitude as the most important condition for meditation and reflection, where spiritual peace and contemplation are attainable. In the thoughts of a Yogi we learn. Through word and speech man reaches beyond the animals; through silence, beyond himself." Some men seek solitude in order to get closer to nature, to other men, or to their god, but it is this solitude that is lacking in many of our lives. (16) Few of us seek the quiet and peace of solitude. We seem almost afraid to be alone, as though it were a sign of unpopularity. But we do know that people who cannot be alonewho must continually have people around themare sick people. Half a century ago the great German bacteriologist, Robert Koch, predicted, "The day will come when man will have to fight noise as much as cholera and plague." Sir Walter H JM*. the late chairman of Britain*s Noise Abatement Society, said, "If the general noisy condition of everyday life continues, it is not inconceivable that we shall become a race of shouting maniacs." Noise in our modern society is a greater problem than we realize. It has driven many to the peace and quiet away from the industrial life. It has driven one industrialist to establish a sane asylum. (17) Until Axel FabBr came along, geniuses had to live pretty much like ordinary folkin a world of honking auto horns, howling babies, jangling telephones and babbling neighbors. No longer. A retired Danish industrialist living in Mexico City, Fabfir has opened a chain of sane asylums where Nobel prize winners and other intellectuals of equal standing can get away and just think. His islands of quiet contemplation already include a large house in Acapulco, a castle in Vienna and homes in Brazil and Japan. FabBr has started looking for others in London, Paris and New York. Among his first guests, Dr. Donald A. Glaier, a Nobel Prize winner in physics and his bride who honeymooned at the Acapulco refuge and emerged with a glowjry> testimonial: The Nobel Prize has taught me one thing already," Dr. Glafer said. "I can stand the public lipp for a while and then I really begin to see the need to sit quietly, read some serious books, and not talk to anyone. If you don't do it you go crazy." (18) Sir Isaac Newton learned to sit in silence at his farm and contemplate. He stated that he did all of his important thinking in two years: 1665 and 1666. During these two years, when he was twenty-three and twenty-four years old, he determined the nature of gravitation, white light, and invented calculus. Albert Einstein, who extended Newtonian physics even further, said, "For the most part, I do the thing which my own nature drives me to do. It is embarrassing to earn so much respect and love for i^aJLH\&U1,!^31 solitude which is painful in youth, but .delicious in the years of maturity." Psychiatrist Jm Mmtifin his book Conversation and Communication, says, "Cultivated man of past and present has always valued silence more highly than speech. Speech is silver, but silence is gold." (19) While Silence One is most desirable, Silence Two is not. This is the kind of silence that occurs when we should be talking, at parties, in social gatherings, or on the job, in order to establish rapport or a relaxed or productive atmosphere. There are many occasions for small talk and many times when silence can create tension and hostility. (20) People who can freely engage in small talk get places where others don*t. There are many occupations where the ability to do this places a high premium on small talk. Good salesmen, dentists, doctors, businessmen, executives, managers, teachers are those who make small talk easy. We like to be around people who are able to engage in small talk, and if we think about it, those people who we define as a person with poise or a good personality are those who have the ability to engage in small talk. (21) The shy, unadjusted person looks upon phatic communion as nonsense if people don't say important things, but if people laugh at the value of small talk, they don't understand its main purpose. We look at small talk for something other than factual content and ask the question, "Does it aid the other person psychologically, emotionally, and socially?" (22) One of my former students, an engineer, came up after a lecture on the importance of small talk and said. You know, this principle has been the most important to me so far. I had always been one of those who considered small talk unimportant. I consider myself a pretty serious thinker and never did realize the importance and value of small talk before. Failure to engage in

Appendix II, Section B13: The Importance of Small Talk D. Maas

B13 page.5

small talk had gotten me into a lot of personal problems. I will certainly work on my own small talk from now on. (23) I have had few students who did not realize the value of small talk and the necessity to work on their own phatic communion in those situations where it is valuable and necessary, and there are more situations than we realize (24) Dr. MiM points out that Even to sophisticates, silence and refusal to respond can be as disconcerting as outright contradiction. Silent nonconformism is often experienced as more hateful than open aggression. In an uncongenial social group, people do their best to prevent the silences that can occur. Silence, once it occurs, grows into a contagious feeling of discomfort. (25) He goes on to say, Some people deny life*s problems by systematically silencing conversation about them. Such a man was my uncle, who the moment he entered my family's circle imposed an aggressive conspiracy of silence on topics we had always discussed freely. His visit was still a nightmare to recall, for though I finally was able to get along with him, I never could bear the painful silences his presence created at the table. In my hatred for him I even watched* to see if he took too many sweets with his tea. For a while there would be conversation, butAhe moment always came when certain subjects threatened to be mentioned. Then we would all grow tense and cautious and I could feel the emotion rising in my parents. After that visit, my family was not on speaking terms with him. I cannot stand this significant silencing of words. Silence may be a form of tact and tact itself may impose silence, but tact should never frustrate us. (26) So we might describe Silence Two as a bad kind of silencethe silence of hostility, discomfort or uneasiness in a social situationsilence in a small-talk situation when we should be talking. Now there are several reasons why we should not confuse small talk with serious talk: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In a small-talk situation, we should not worry about imsevalua lions. A critical mind should not be carried over into a small-ialk situaiion. Our guards are down in a small-talk situation, and critical or prejudice statements can be uttered in a phatic communion atmosphere. When criticism, prejudice, or hate has been introduced into a small-talk situation or phaiic communion atmosphere, it no longer is a small-talk situation. Small talk and serious talk can change from one to the other in a moment's notice. Know which is which, and behave accordingly.

(27) One reason why we project so much and have many misunderstandings is because there is small talk rather than serious talk, and too often we carry over our uncritical mind in a serious situation. Likewise, we too often carry over a critical mind in a small-talk situation. The general semanticist says to worry about situations only in the serious talk, but if a person lakes advantage of a phaiic communion aimosphere and introduces talk of criticism, prejudice, or hate, it no longer is a small-talk situation. In buses, trains or al parties there is much danger of bringing misevaluations, prejudices, and criticisms into a phatic communion situation. Once it changes from small talk to serious talk, the principles that we have considered thus far must be introduced, for it has changed into serious talk. (28) In small talk we are not concerned about fact/inference, allness, failure to date, indexing, dating, twovalued or either/or orientation, for there are many times and places where we must engage in small talk and forget about proper evaluation.

II
B13 page.6 (29) There is another kind of silence that can be used most effectively in motivating or persuading people. The only way you can reach some people is by ignoring them or by giving them the "silent" Batment. In some situations and with some people this is the most effective means of persuasion. Dr. MJSapoints out that in a little village a farmer was unjustly accused by one of his richer neighbors who, because of his position, could not easily be caught by law. Moreover, when the farmer tried to report the rich man's crimes, he was punished for libel and slander, although everybody knew that his claims were justified. After this experience, he proceeded to stand silently for ten minutes each day in front of his neighbor's house. After three months the rich man fled the village, unable to bear any longer the farmer's attacking silence. (30) As we have seen, man is a gregarious being. He needs to communicate with people, to get the feeling of belonging, of being loved. And by ignoring himgiving him the silent treatmentyou are cutting off one of the most important needs of man in modern society. Silence can sometimes convey more meaning than words and therefore can sometimes be more effective in persuading or motivating. W.R, Goldsmith understood this when he said, "Nothing so stirs a man's conscience or excites his curiosity as a women's dead silence." George Bernard Shaw has said, "Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn." And someone else once said, "Love me if you can; hate me if you must, but for God's sake don't ignore me." (31) Doctors have often said that isolation is a frequent factor in mental and emotional disturbances. Very often the psychiatrists' advice to their patients is to get away from themselves by reaching out toward other people or toward nature. One of the most important steps in this direction is the conscious effort of engaging in more small talk than one normally does. In .order to apply these principles to their own behavior, I ask my students to engage in more small talk during the week. I asked them to choose a persona neighbor or someone at work whom they did not like or do not communicate with. (32) One former student, a doctor's wife, said that she didn't like the elevator operator in her building. I asked her why, and she did not know the answer. (33) "You know, I really do not know why," she said, "I've been living in the building for nine years and have never said 'Good morning* to him." (34) I asked her to say "Good morning" to him or comment on the weather: "Engage in small talk just for this week and see JMB if you have a different attitude toward him." (35) Well, she came to class the next week and said, "You know, the elevator operator is a very nice person after all. I tried what you had suggested, and before I knew it, I was engaged in a very lovely conversation with him. We started talking about our grandchildren and other things, and I actually look forward to riding in the elevator, as he is such a pleasant man. It is funny how much I used to dislike him before." (36) Dr. George W. Crane has suggested the same thing in his "Compliment Club Plan." In an article, The Taming of a Boss By His Secretary," Dr. Crane shows how a compliment or small talk can be used in the office or at work. He says, Arlene Zee, twenty-two, is a stenographer in a large office. "A month ago I decided I would try out your Compliment Club Plan," she smiled. "You have told us many times that we should employ a compliment even on our enemies or those we hated. You said that it would produce a miracle, for we would soon like the person we had formerly hated. Well, the man who was my boss had only recently come into the firm, and if ever I disliked a human being it was this man. He irritated me to such an extent that my digestion was upset. I finally had to go to a physician for aid. He told me it was simply nerves and advised me to get a different job, but I had an excellent salary, so I hesitated to make a change. Then I decided that here was the perfect time to try your compliment idea. The next morning, just before I launched on the compliment club plan, my boss made a caustic remark about a typographical error in one of the letters I had typed. It made me more resentful and upset than ever, but I gritted my teeth and within an hour I screwed up my courage enough to tell him I thought his tie was one of the most attractive I had ever seen. This was the truth, much as I begrudged admitting it to him. He simply grunted an

Appendix II, Section B13: The Importance of Small Talk

B13 page.7

D. Maas acknowledgement of my remark and then said that his wife had picked it out. That one compliment exhausted my energy that day so I waited until the next morning before I gave him a second bit of praise. Then I told him I appreciated the fact that he did his dictation in the morning so I could have ample chance to get his letters done before quitting time. I said that many men fail to organize their work like that. He looked up for a moment and half smiled. It was the first time I had ever seen him look human. Then he said, 'You're a very efficient person yourself.' I was so dumbfounded I blushed, and after thanking him I hurried back to my typewriter. I didn't feel so hostile to my boss that day and for the first time in weeks I ate my lunch and enjoyed it. "The third morning I found it was much easier to approach him. I complimented him on not smoking, saying that many a man keeps a cigar hanging out of the corner of his mouth while he dictates. Smoking bosses are often difficult for a girl to understand, especially since she must keep her eyes on her notebook. Thus she misses the man's lip movements. Well, he actually smiled then, and told me that his wife would be glad to hear what I said. He also mentioned that he had told her of my compliment about his tie and that she had said I must be a girl with good taste. Later that day he came out into my office and asked my advice about some new letterheads we were getting printed. Since then he has let me make many decisions about office supplies and gave me a pair of theater tickets which he and his wife couldn't use. I heard him tell a visitor that I was the best stenographer he had ever had, and I have such a different attitude toward him that I can't believe I used to hate him not six weeks ago." (37) Well, small talk or a compliment can work magic, but the compliment must be truly meant. There are many things about others that we can honestly compliment if we would look for the good things in them. But sometimes in our isolation and refusal to engage in small talk, we see the bad side of people and life generally. "Self-centeredness," said one doctor, is the cause of one our most common allergies: people are allergic to themselves. If the shy and withdrawn will reach out toward others through small talk, he will be in for a great surprise. He will find that other people will seem to have changed and changed greatly, and it will be a very strange feelingall that change in others when the only real change has been in himself. (38) The importance of small talk is not generally understood. We engage in small talk, but we are not usually conscious of the psychological and social values inherent in this important kind of communication. Before pointing out certain points to remember, let us make some general observations that we might make about phatic communion: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. There are many instances when rigorous and purposeful conversation is out of place. Small talk should prevail. Certain towns and cities have a higher phatic communion index than others. Smaller towns usually rate higher than large cities. The apartment house in a large city is not as conducive to small talk as is the back fence. Many times the only difference between shy, bashful people and well adjusted or poised people is the ability of the latter to engage in small talk. A policeman in uniform, a man with a dog, or a woman with a babythese promote small talk. Some policemen, as well as others, unwittingly alienate people by virtue of their failure to recognize and respond to the attempt of a person to make small talk.

(39)

All right, let us present five points to remember, or five conclusions:

B13 page.8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. There are important psychological purposes of small talk. Man is gregarious. He has great psychological needs for sociability and communion with others. There are two kinds of silence: Silence One, which is good, is when you are in solitude, thinking, planning, creating, etc.; Silence Two, the bad kind, is when you should be engaging in small talk at parties, dinners, social affairs, and at times, on the job. Don't confuse serious talk with small talk. Each has a different purpose and each is important. Too much or not enough of small talk, depending upon the situation, is equally bad. Many of us seem to have a reluctance to engage in small talk. Engage in small talk willingly. Practice this consciously.

Appendix II, Section B13: The Importance of Small Talk D. Maas Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

B13 page.9

Indicate the contexts in which rigorous critical thinking is out of place. [B13 para.02] Discuss the role of small talk in breaking the wall of silence. [B13 para.04] Discuss the therapeutic value of small talk. [B13 para.04] Describe the process known as phatic communion. [B13 para.05] Define phatic communion. [B13 para.06] Explain the social and psychological functions of small talk. [B13 para.04] Explain the importance of small talk in business, industry, or selling. [B13 para.12] Explain the context in which small talk can be one of the most important kinds of communication. [B13 para.12] Differentiate between silence! and silence^. [B13 para.13] Describe Axel Fabfr's concept of a sane asylum. [B13 para. 16] Discuss the psychological, emotional, and social value of small talk. [B13 para.23] Differentiate between small talk (phatic communion) and serious talk. [B13 para.27] Describe Sanford Berman's "compliment club" plan. [B13 para,31] Explain why extensional devices can be suspended in phatic communion. [B13 para.28] Identify the conditions under which small talk flourishes. [B13 para.38] Summarize 5 significant conclusions about small-talk. [B13 para.39]

B13 page. 10 Index Compliment Club plan Conversation and Communication Crane, George W. Fabtr, Axel Glaler, Donald A. Goldsmith HajfiBS/Sir Walter Contradictory/Contrary Cooley, Charles Horton Counterbalance Dating Degrees Dichotomous View Divorce Court Proceedings Either/or thinking Eta Extremes Graded variations Haney, William Harris, Sfdney Individualism Reconsidered Isolation Koch, Robert Love Against Hate Majority of One Matinowski Mann, Thomas Mennineer, Karl MHft* Newton, Sir Isaac Noise Abatement Society Phatic Communion Psychological purposes of small talk Rttsman, David Sane asylum Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis Shaw, George Bernard Silence: and tension Silence: need for Silence, (thinking/evaluating) meditation Silence2 (conspiracy of silence) Silent treatment Small talk Small talk: psychological purpose Small talk: social function Small talk: therapeutic value Social purpose of language Solitude Tension: and silence 36 18 36 17 17 30 16 13, 14, 44 41 29 44 5, 15 31 21 44 44 19 15 29 27 12 03 16 10 01 06 04 10 18 18 16 05 09, 39 12 16 08 30 07 17 14 26 03 03 09, 37 06 04 07 14 07

I
I I I l I I I I I

Appendix II, Section B13; The Importance of Small Talk

D. Maas

B13 page.ll

Twain, Mark "Yogi" example

Appendix II, Section B14: Visual Aids for Individual Cassettes D. Maas

BI4 page.l

VISUAL AIDS FOR INDIVIDUAL CASSETTES

IV-4

SIGNAL & SYMBOL REACTIONS HOW TO [STOP) TO THINK

IV-6

WHY 00 WE JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS?

happening

nervous impact

talk

n
SIGNAL REACTION

^antVor act
nr

NON-VEMAl WORLD OF MAtm FACTS )

sui-Mictoscortc LEVEL Of EUCTIONS. FIOIONi. ETC.

MMCROfCOMC LEVEL OF THINGS

happening

nervous impact

human evaluation

talk ani^ir act ITATfMSNT Of fACT

I E TTT SYMBOL REACTION

(GO 8EVQND OBSERVAIION) litlud* ^uciici. opinioni. rlCU<AIni. ttttmtttoni, rv..!.,* l>onv nd fkl.cn.

IV-7

THE CLOSED MIND

IV-9

HOW TO LESSEN MISUNDERSTANDINGS

SUBMICROSCOPIC LEVEL

CHARACTERISTICS LEFT OUT CHARACTERISTICS ABSTRACTED MACROSCOPIC LEVEL

ANIMAL'S MACROSCOPIC LEVEL

(LEVELof THINGS')
o: o *
GQ

DIAGRAM 1

STATEMENT OF FACT
OUR INFERENCES

INFERENTIAL STATEMENT

r6

gC

s~

ETC.,

~\R INFERENCES

ALFRED KORZVBSKI'S STRUCTURAL. "*, . _ _ INDICATING DIFFERENT ORDERS OF ABSTRACTION. SfifiSE3.W8.gf KORZTBSK.'S

EDUCATIONAX CASSETTES
P.O. BOX 98022 LAS VEGAS, NV. 89193-8022

Appendix II, Section Dl: Introduction D. Maas Introduction

Dl page.l

Joseph DeVito
Key Terms
Abstracting/abstraction Animal communication Chemistry binding (class of life) Dating Etc. Extensional devices Extensional orientation General semantics
Hyphen

Infinite (indefinite) complexity Man/animal distinction Map/territory analogy Metalanguage Non-allness Non-identity Patterns of misevaluations Quotes
Science of man

Structural differential WIGO

Index

Self-reflexiveness

(1) General-semantics deals first and foremost with man. And perhaps we had best at the outset ask what man is. Or, differently, what is there about man which is most distinctive? What is there about man which distinguishes him from his animal ancestors? What is there about man which enabled him to develop and progress while the animals have remained essentially the same? Some said it's man's opposable thumb. His opposable thumb enabled him to grasp and pick up things with his hands and enabled him to wield an axe to cut a tree or throw a stone to kill some animal for food. Desmond Morris has pointed to man's hairlessness. If man were placed alongside his ape ancestors, the most obvious distinguishing feature would be his nakedness, so Morris defines man as "the naked ape," Philosophers have long defined man as homo sapiensman capable of wisdom. That is, his brain size distinguishes man from the animals, and indeed it does. Man in fact has the largest brain, in proportion to his overall body size, of all the animals. (2) More recently, man's ability to use language to symbolize has been used by psychologists, anthropologists, linguists, and others to distinguish man as man. Homo loquonsman capable of speech or languagemay then better describe the truly unique aspect of man. (3) Language is the other half of general-semantics. Put differently, general-semantics is the study of man's use of languageman's symbolizing activitieshis production of symbols and his reception of symbols. Actually, man as man can hardly be separated from the ability to symbolize and use language. Man is man largely because he, of all the animals, can use symbols. (4) Leslie White, the cultural anthropologist, puts this distinction so well that I'd like to quote a short passage from his book, The Science of Culture. It is impossible for a dog, horse, bird or even an ape to have any understanding of the meaning of the sign of the cross to a Christian, or of the fact that black (white among the Chinese) is the color of mourning. No chimpanzee or laboratory rat can appreciate the difference between holy water and distilled water, or grasp the meaning of Tuesday, three, or sin. No animal save man can distinguish a cousin from an uncle, or cross-cousin from a parallel-cousin. Only man can commit the crime of incest or adultery. Only he can remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. It is not, as we well knowjftnat the lower animals can do these things but to a lesser degree than yourselves. They cannot perform these acts of appreciation and distinction at all. (5) Consider, for example, a bird or a beaver. The bird builds a nest and the beaver builds a dam, and when they die, the next generation of birds and beavers build their nests and dams in almost exactly the same way. And the next generation, and the generation to follow that onethey'll all build nests and dams in almost

Dl page.2 exactly the same way. While the birds have been building nests and beavers, dams, for thousands of years, there's been virtually no change in nest- and dam-building habits. A nest or a dam built today, and one built two thousand years ago, and one built two thousand years from now, will all be essentially the same. (6) Man, however, is different. A home built today is quite different from the home built two thousand years ago. It will be quite different, we can be sure, from one built two thousand years from now. (7) If we observe animal behavior, we can observe that they are capable of moving about in space. They are space-binders. They can take a twig or a leaf from one place and put it in another, and can move about from one place to another and so satisfy their needs by binding space. Plants are one step lower. They cannot move about in spaceat least not any appreciable distancebut they can utilize those chemicals in safe photosynthesis, and so on. They, then, might be called chemistry-binders. Man, however, is different. In addition to the ability to bind chemicals and to bind space, he can bind time. Man, of all the animals, is the only time-binder. (8) A bird cannot learn from past generations of birds, nor can a beaver learn from past generations of beavers. All the mistakes which the birds of this generation make will probably be made by the next generation of birds, and were probably made by the birds of a generation before this one. (9) But man need not repeat the mistakes made by his ancestors. He can learn what he should not do, and, of course, more importantly, what he should do. In other words, he can profit from the wisdom of the past. All that was known previous to his birth can be made known to himat least as far as his capacity for assimilating knowledge will allow. (10) Yet man is different in another way. Paradoxically, man is the only animal who can give himself a nervous breakdown. He's probably the only one who can lie. He's the only one who can fool himself completely. And man, of all the animals, is the only one who knows he must die, and who can contemplate and worry about this inevitable happening. (11) It's not totally foreign to see or hear of a man who thinks he is Napoleon or Julius Caesar, but [doubt if anyone has ever seen a dog walking about thinking he's Lassie or Rin Tin Tin. (12) In a word, man uses language or symbols of any kind to profit from the past and to bind time, as well as, it would seem, create numerous problems for himself and for society. (13) Alfred Korzybski was one of the men who observed man's use of language toward the view of bringing it more in accord with the methods of science. Why is it, Korzybski wondered, that a bridge, after it's built, seldom, if ever, collapses? And if it does, the cause of it is found out relatively quickly and corrected. Why isn't this true of social institutions? Why aren't the causes of divorce found out just as quickly and remedied just as rapidly? Why aren't the causes of various emotional problems likewise solved without difficulty? Why is it that a scientist gets along quite well in his laboratory, but when he comes out, he is subject to the same ills and maladjustments which characterize many others? (14) The answerat least, part of it, Korzybski feltwas in the language being used. In the laboratory the scientist uses a language which is suited to the purposes at hand, while in everyday life a language might not be so well suited. (15) And so Korzybski set himself the task of analyzing man's language and suggesting ways in which man's language could be made to more accurately reflect reality. The results of his theorizing are known as generalsemantics. (16) In 1921, Korzybski published Manhood of Humanity, in which he set forth the concept of time-binding. But his most important work, the one which really began the science of general-semantics, was a book called Science and Sanity, published in 1933. This book is extremely difficult to read, but one you should spend some time with. (17) Despite the difficulty of this work, however, Korzybski won for himself a number of followers, scholars and writers who saw in his work concepts and principles which they felt should be made available to the average layman, who could probably not get through Science ana" Sanity. And so a number of these men wrote their own works on general-semantics. The first popularization was Stuart Chase's The Tyranny of Words, which became an immediate best-seller. Three years later, in 1941, S. I. Hayakawa published his Language in Action, later revised as Language and Thought in Action. And Irving Lee published his Language Habits in Human Affairs. These were followed by Wendell Johnson's People in Quandaries, The Semantics of Personal

Appendix II, Section Dl: Introduction D. Maas

Dl page.3

Adjustment, and numerous others. Colleges and universities began offering courses in general-semantics, and these texts of Chase, Hayakawa, Lee, Johnson, and others became standard textbooks for these new courses. (18) Today there are many courses in general-semantics at all levels of instruction. .Colleges, as well as business training programs. Recognition of the importance of general-semantics, I think, is growing steadily, and is likely to continue as the role of language in human behavior takes on greater and greater importance. (19) It's interesting to note, I think, that even the building of this system of general-semantics reflects the most important difference between man and animal. Both man and animal can communicate information. The bee, for example, can tell other bees almost exactly where the nectar is. She does a very intricate dance to indicate in what direction and how far the nectar is from the hive. The bee, however, cannot dance about her dancethat is, she cannot talk about her language. Man, on the other hand, can talk about his language. He can, in fact, create another language just for talking about language. He can create what is called a metalanguage for talking about an object language. (20) General-semantics is a metalanguage; it's a language for talking about language. To give you just a little better idea of what general-semantics is, let me read a few definitions of general-semantics. Taken together, I think, they should further clarify the nature and purpose of this study. (21) Korzybski said: General-semantics is a general theory of evaluation, which in application turned out to be an empirical science, giving methods for general human adjustment in our private, public, and professional lives. (22) Irving Lee said: The body of data and method leading to habits of adequate language-fact relationship Korzybski called general-semantics. (23) Wendell Johnson: General-semantics may be regarded as a systematic attempt to formulate the general method of science in such a way that it might be applied generally in daily life. (24) Nicholas RAfihevsk)!: As I see it, general-semantics is a movement the purpose of which is to make every rank and file intelligent individual appreciate and use in daily life the rigorous methods of scientific thinking. (25) Harry Weinberg says: General-semantics is a very broad methodology, containing much more than directions for controlling worry, hate, feelings of inferiority, etc. It covers the whole range of human evaluation, and the prescriptions offered for control of such unwanted feelings or emotions are derivable from, but not inherent in, these basic assumptions and general theoretical foundations. (26) S. I. Hayakawa defined it this way: General-semantics is the study of the relations between language, thought, and behavior; between how we talk, therefore how we think, and therefore how we act."

Dl page.4 (27) Elsewhere, Hayakawa has defined general-semantics, and the definition I like best "Generalsemantics," said Hayakawa, "is the study of how not to make a d n fool of yourself." (28) Central to the study of general-semantics is the concept of abstraction. To make this process clear, Korzybski developed a visual illustration called the structural differential. Let me try to explain the general structure of this illustration first, so you might draw it, and then we can refer to it later as we discuss it. (29) The first part consists of a parabolic curve, the top edge of which is jagged. (A parabolic curve looks like the letter V, but with a rounded base.) The sides of the parabolic curve continue indefinitely. In the structural differential, the sides are connected by a jagged line to indicate that the curve does not end, but is cut off merely so it can be drawn in convenient form. You may remember from geometry that a parabolic curve encompasses infinity. (30) In this parabolic curve, there are tiny holes. In drawing this, you might make twenty or thirty or so holes, but in theory, a parabolic curve would contain an infinite number of these holes. (31) Below this is a circle. You can draw the circle a little smaller in size than the curve. The circle also contains these tiny holes, but less in number than the parabolic curve. (32) Below the circle is a tag-shaped figure, similar to the many labels that you see on garments in a store, and this lag should be drawn a little smaller in size than the circle. This figure also contains these little holes, but less in number than the circle. (33) Below this tag is another tag, identical to the preceding one, except that it contains less holes. Below this tag is still another tag, identical to the preceding one, but containing still less holes. (34) [Join the holes in the curve] with those in the circle by simply drawing a line. Now since the parabolic curve has more holes than the circle, some strings on the parabolic curve will not connect with the circle. Draw these lines from the holes in the parabolic curve and end them somewhere outside both the curve and the circle. (35) Next, connect some of the strings extending from the curve and into the circle, with the holes in the first tag. Since the holes in the first tag are fewer in number than the holes in the circle, some strings will not connect. So just have these lines end outside the figures. (36) Then connect some of the strings that have been connected to the first tag to the second tag. Some will not fit, and will fall outside the figures. Now do this again for the third tag. (37) Now you should have a visual illustration of the structural differential. I should say at the outset that from this diagram many, if not all, of the principles of general-semantics can be derived. So if you understand this diagram, the rest will fall easily into place. (38) The only books I'm familiar with in which this diagram appears more or less as described are Korzybski's Science and Sanity and Irving Lee*s Language Habits in Human Affairs. And so you might wish to consult one or both of these for additional insight. But your diagram should be relatively complete and accurate now, or you may wish to modify it or add to it as we discuss it, around the basis of your reading. (39) Now let me try to explain it. Let's focus first on the parabolic curve. This is the event level, and it's characterized or represented by the parabolic curve to indicate that the event level encompasses infinity. It is the symbolic picture of what is going on in the real world. This we can designate, following J. S. Bois, as WIGO (W. I. G. O.What Is Going On). This event level is characterized by three things: infinite complexity, constant change, and non-identity (no two things are identical). (40) The event level is the level of atomic goings-on. That is the level that we surmise exists from the evidence of science as of this date. We don't really function at this level, but rather we function on what we abstract from this levelthat is, we function on the basis of what our senses perceive from this level. (41) . Now if we take any particular thingsay the room you're inwe can abstract many things from it. And by abstraction, I mean those things we feel, see, taste, touch, and hear. That is, we abstract from the thing or event with our senses. We abstract from the room various things; we see the colors, the material the room is made of, the people in it, and so on. But if a person is color-blind, they'll not be able to abstract color as well as will someone else who's not color-blind. If a person is deaf, he will be able to abstract much less in terms of the sounds and noises that are present, and so on. Some persons, on the other hand, have particularly acute sense perception. A person who hears extremely well will be able to abstract sounds and noises that most of us cannot. The wine taster, with an extremely acute sense of taste, will be able to taste

Appendix II, Section Dl: Introduction D. Maas

Dl page.5

differences, for example, that we would not be able to taste. (42) The important thing to see, in addition to realizing that not all of us abstract in the same way, or the same things, is that there are characteristics in the event which none of us can abstract, even if we use various specialized scientific instruments. Yet we know they are there, because science tells us. And here would be included such things as atoms and particles that no-one sees, but whose effects can be observed and measured. (43) Therefore, when we abstract from the event, we must realize that we are doing the abstracting. And because of this, no two people are going to abstract from the event in exactly the same way. We all abstract differently from the same event, and the things we abstract are dependent upon many factors, as we'll see later: our past, our present, our expectations of the future, etc. (44) It's important to realize that what we abstract is not what the thing is. We've left out a great deal. And we have changed many things from what they actually are merely by abstracting them. We have, for example, abstracted colors when only light rays of different lengths really exist on the event level. (45) Korzybski used the analogy of the map and the territory a great deal, and perhaps this will further clarify the nature of abstracting. He is fond of saying, "The map is not the territory, and the map does not represent all the territory." These are the basic principles of general-semantics, which will actually take a great deal of time to learn. "The map is not the territory. The map is not all the territory." The territory is the event; it's the actual thing. The map is what we abstract from the territory. The map is not the territory, and, of course, since it is not the territory but only an abstraction from the territory, it cannot be the whole territory. (46) In this parabolic curve we have a number of tiny little circles. These circles represent the characteristics of the event. There are infinitely many of these. They're constantly changing, and no two are the same. These are the major characteristics of the event level: infinite complexity, constant change, and non-identity. (47) It's from this event that we abstract certain things, and we come to the second level, represented by the circle. This is the object level. It is the level on which we live our lives. Notice that some characteristics of the event level are also contained in the object level. These are represented by the strings connecting both the event and the object level. Some characteristics, however, are not abstracted, and these are represented by the strings from the event level which do not connect with the object level. There are a finite number of characteristics in the object level. That is, there are limits on what we can abstract. These limitations are imposed by the limitations in our abilities to perceive characteristics in the eventlimitations in our ability to see, to hear, to taste, to touch, to smell. This level, as mentioned before, is different for each individual. No two object levels are ever the same. Each is unique. (48) The object level, then, is the level of sense impressions. But the event and object levels are nonverbal levels. We've not yet begun to speak. These are the levels on which babies, who have not yet learned to use symbols, functionand the levels on which animals function. You might want to draw a dotted line underneath the object level to indicate that what is above the line is nonverbal, and what is below the line is verbal. (49) The next level is the first verbal level. This is the level of concrete namingthe level of descriptive statements and of factual statements. The circles represent characteristics of the object which are included in the labelthat is, which are included in the name or descriptive statement. Notice that the number of characteristics at this level is quite a bit less than those on the object level. Notice, also, that although many people may use the same labels, or make the same descriptive statements (that is, statements that are alike in form)notice that the characteristics which will be included in the label will necessarily differ from one person to the next. (50) We have a limited number of words to express or name something, but there are an infinite number of ways of seeing things. And the sameness which results in describing things is not the result of a sameness in seeing things, but rather results from the fact that we are all working with a rather limited set of symbols. This first verbal level is the level at which children function. (51) The next level is the second verbal level. This is me level of class terms, of inferences, theories, generalizations. These are the labels and statements which are used to refer to the first verbal level. They are statements about first verbal level statements. That is, they are abstractions from first-level or descriptive

Dl page.6 statements. These statements are less probable than are the statements on the first verbal level, and ought to be tested by going back to less abstract levels. These statements contain more of the observablemore of you^n them than do statements on the first verbal level. (52) The next level is the third verbal level. This is the level of inferences about inferences. This process continues without end. We can always make inferences about inferences about inferences about inferences, etc. Let's take one simple example and work it through the structural differential. (53) Let's take John Jones. At the event level, science tells us John Jones consists of various atoms, chemicals, molecules, or whatever. We don't see these directly, but rather infer their existence from what scientists tell us. At the object level, John Jones is the person we see, touch, and so on. When we see John Jones coming down the street, we're operating on the object level. (54) At the first verbal level, we might have something like the name "John Jones" itself, or the statement, "His name is John Jones," or a descriptive statementsomething like, "John Jones is smiling." (55) At the second verbal level, we have statements, or inferences about what has been observed. And so, we might have something like, "John Jones is happy," an inferential statement based on the previous descriptive statement, "John Jones is smiling"which, in turn is based on the object-level observation that he is smiling. (56) At the third verbal level, we make an inference about an inference. We might have something like, "John Jones passed his test," an inferential statement based on the previous inferential statement, but moving farther and farther away from the actual John Jones, and... incorporating more and more of ourselvesour own assumptions, inferences, expectations, and so on. (57) Notice also that as we move farther and farther from the nonverbal levels, our statements have less and less probability of being correct. For example, based on the information we have, the statement that John Jones passed his examination is less probable than the statement, "John Jones is happy," which is less probable than the statement, "John Jones is smiling." In fact, the statement that John Jones is smiling, although we may consider this a descriptive statement, is actually an inference which we deduce from the way in which his facial muscles are positioned. (58) Although it may be obvious, it should be emphasized that as we go down the diagram, from the event to the object to the first, second, third, verbal levels, we're actually going up in terms of abstraction. Because the process of abstraction is so important in general-semantics, and because the structural differential so clearly expresses so much of the theory of general-semantics, it should really be learned cold. And I'd suggest that you do at least three things to help you learn this concept: (59) First, consult Korzybski's Science and Sonify or Irving Lee's Language Habits in Human Affairs, and read up on the structural differential. Also, look at the alternative representations of this diagram. I've presented one in General-Semantics Guide and Workbook and in a book entitled, The Psychology of Speech and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Harry Weinberg has presented one in his Levels of Knowing and Existence. S. I. Hayakawa has one in Language and Thought in Action. Wendell Johnson has one in his People in Quandaries: The Semantics of Personal Adjustment. So read as much as you can about these diagrams. (60) _Second, construct your own structural differential. That js, try to construct a visual representation of the levels of abstraction. Compare with that presented by Korzybski and those of the other writers. (61) Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, explain the structurafdifferential as developed by Kbrzybski or someone else. Explain it in as much detail as you can. Try to answer this person's questions and make notes on those aspects you feel you don't understand completely. Then go back and re-read the explanations offered by the various general semanticists with these questions in mind. (62) Now, this certainly seems like a great deal of work for a seemingly simple diagram, and I agree it is. Yet your understanding of general-semantics will depend in great part on your understanding of this diagram, and so the effort will be well worth it. (63) Now, much like geometry has its theorems, general-semantics has its principles. The three principles of general-semantics are deceptively simple, buf^is we'll see later, they have extremely important implications. (64) The first is the principle of non-identity. This principle of non-identity is a scientific truism: no two things in the universe are identical. Regardless of how hard you might try, you will not find two things which

Appendix II, Section Dl: Introduction D. Maas

Dl page.7

are completely and totally identical. And similarly, no one thing is the same at two different times. Put somewhat differently, the principle of non-identity calls for a realization that the verbal levels and the nonverbal levels are not the same. As Korzybski put it, "The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory." (65) Now, in discussion of intensional orientation, we'll return to this principle in some detail. "The word is not the thing." Of course, we all know that the word is not the thing. But, as I will try to demonstrate later, we often don't act as though we know it. (66) The second is the principle of non-allness. We can never know all about anything. Reality is characterized by infinite complexity, and infinite complexity can never be known completely. The word is not the whole of the thing, nor does it represent the whole of the thing. The map does not represent all of the territory. Again, this is a simple principle, one we would all agree we know, yet do we know it? More importantly, do we act as if we know it? And, in our discussion of allness, we'll return to this principle somewhat later. (67) The third is the principle of self-reflexiveness. This is perhaps the most difficult of the principles, and the one least written about in general-semantics, yet it's extremely important. Following the map/territory analogy, the principle of self-reflexiveness refers to the fact that an ideal map would have to include a map of itself, if the map were a part of the territory. And then that map would have to include a map of the map. This is similar to the notion of infinite regression in physics, which is often illustrated by the example of the artist painting a landscape. (68) The artist painted a landscape, but to include all of the landscape, he had to paint a picture of himself painting the landscape, since at that time he was part of the landscape. But so is the picture of the artist painting the landscape part of the landscape. And so he painted a picture of the artist painting a picture of the artist painting a picture of the landscapeand then painted a picture of the picture of the picture of the artist painting the landscape, and so on. (69) In terms of language, the principle of self-reflexiveness reminds us that statements can always be made about statements, and of course we can make statements about statements about statements about statements about statements, and so on without end. These statements exist on different levels of abstraction. A statement about the object level exists on the first verbal level. A statement about a statement about the object level exists on the second verbal level. A statement about a statement about a statement about the object level exists on the third verbal level, and so on. (70) J, S. Bois put the concept of self-reflexiveness this way: "The map is not a map, but a mapping of the mapper mapping both himself and the territory." The map is not a map, but a mapping of the mapper mapping both himself and the territory. Put somewhat differently, the principle of self-reflexiveness reminds us that the observer is part of what he observes. Any observation is a product of the observed and the observer. (71) These principlesthe principle of non-identity, the principle of non-allness, and the principle of selfreflexivenessare basic to an understanding of general-semantics. And as we'll see, problems arise when we fail to act as if we know these principles. (72) If J had to sum up in one sentence the nature and purpose of general-semantics, I'd say that generalsemantics seeks to foster a more extensional orientation. By extensional orientation I mean an outlook, a point of view, a perspective, an awareness of things, facts, and operations, and the way that they are related in natureinstead of the way in which they're talked about. To be extensionally oriented is to be in tune with the infinite complexity, non-identity, and constant change characteristic of reality. (73) Opposed to extensional is intensional. An inlensional orientation is an orientation to words and symbols, rather than to the reality which the words and symbols only represent. We will return to these important concepts later. Here I only want to mention briefly the extensional devicesthose linguistic devices which will help us to bring our language to more accurately reflect the nature of reality. (And I should add at this point that both extensional and intensional, as they are used in general-semantics, are spelled with an "S" rather than a "T, E-X-T-E-N-S-I-O-N-A-L, and intensional, I-N-T-E-N-S-I^O-N-A-L.) (74) The first extensional device is the index. Written as a numerical subscript, for example, politician; is

Dl page.8 not politician2. The index serves to emphasize the characteristic of non-identity: no two things are ever the same, despite the fact that they both might be designated by the same word or label. (75) The second extensional device is the date, also written as a subscript. Nixon1Kg is not Nixon im. The date emphasizes the characteristic of constant change. Nothing remains the same from one time to another. (76) The third device is the "etc." The "etc." emphasizes that no statement can say everything about anything, or be in any way final. There's always more to be said. The "etc." emphasizes the characteristic of infinite complexity. (77) In addition to these three extensional devices, called working devices, there are two safety devices: the quotes and the hyphen. Quotes serve to emphasize the terms are being used in a special sense and need special attention. If I were to say, for example, that the principles of general-semantics are easy, I'd probably put the word "easy" in quotes, to emphasize that "easy" is being used in a special sense. The principles of general-semantics are easy to understand intellectually, but to internalize them, to make them a part of our everyday behavior, is not so easy. (78) The hyphen serves to emphasize that many terms separate verbally what cannot be separated in reality. For example, "body" and "mind" can be separated verbally, but in reality, they cannotand so "body-hyphenmind" seems a better way of putting it. And the same is true for concepts such as substance-form, mentalphysical, cause-effect, space-time, and so on. (79) This, then, is just some of the basic theory of general-semantics. In the ne^l six lectures, I'll focus on what have been called "the patterns of misevaluation"that is, problems in communication which result from the failure to act on one or more of the principles of general-semantics. In the eighth lecture, I'll focus on general-semantics and the self, and attempt to suggest some applications of general-semantics to our own personal adjustment. In the ninth and last lecture, I'll attempt to consider some aspects of general-semantics theory and research, and present a somewhat different slant to the nature of general-semanticsan approach which will hopefully be productive of concentrated research and theory building.

Appendix II, Section Dl: Introduction D. Maas Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

DI page.9

Explain the crucial distinction between man and animal. [Dl para.OI] Explain the role of general semantics in differentiating man from animals. [Dl para.03] Differentiate among chemistry-, space-, and time-binding classes of life. [Dl para.07] Identify the single measurable feature which differentiates homo sapiens from the other living organisms. [Dl para.12] Describe the quandary which led Korzybski to develop his formulations of general semantics. [Dl para. 13] Summarize the major thesis of Korzybski's Manhood of Humanity. [Dl para.16] Identify the major seminal works of general semantics. [Dl para.16] Identify at least three popularized renditions of general semantics. [Dl para. 17] Define and describe the term meta-language. [Dl para.19] Provide at least five separate definitions of general semantics. [Dl para.21] Illustrate the process of abstraction by referring to the structural differential. [Dl para.28] Identify and describe the components of the structural differential. [Dl para.28] Illustrate how the major principles of general semantics can be explained by the structural differential. [Dl para.37] Characterize the event level of reality represented by the parabola. [Dl para.39] Define and illustrate the process of abstraction. [Dl para.40] Illustrate by using the structural differential that people abstract different things from the event level. [Dl para,43] Relate the map and territory analogy to the structural differential. [Dl para.46] Identify and describe the three corollaries of the map/territory analogy. [Dl para.46] Illustrate that two object (or perception) levels are never the same. [Dl para.47] Explain the function of the strings in the structural differential. [Dl para.47] Differentiate non-verbal from verbal levels of reality. [Dl para.47] Illustrate the limiting characteristics of symbols. [Dl para.50] Differentiate descriptions and generalizations from inferences. [Dl para.51] Illustrate the decreasing order of probability as one descends the structural differential. [Dl para.56] Identify three alternative descriptions of the structural differential. [Dl para.57] Identify and describe the three major principles of general semantics, [Dl para.63] Explain the principles of non-identity. [Dl para.66] Explain the principle of self-reflexiveness. [Dl para.68] Using the map/territory analogy, explain the principle of self-reflexiveness. [Dl para.70] Differentiate between extensional and intensional orientation. [Dl para.73] Describe or characterize extensional orientation. [Dl para.73] Describe or characterize intensional orientation. [Dl para.73] Identify and describe the five extensional (3 working/2 safety) devices advocated by Korzybski. [Dl para.79]

Dl page. 10 Index Abstracting Abstraction Animal communication "Beaver/dam, bird/nest" Bois, J. S. Characteristics: circles Chase, Stuart Chemistry binder Chemistry binding (class of life) Circle (structural differential) Courses in general semantics Dating DeVito, Joseph Etc. Event level Extensional devices Extensional orientation First verbal level General semantics General Semantics Guide and Workbook Hayakawa, S. I. Homo-loquons Hyphen Index Inference Infinite complexity Intensional orientation Johnson, Wendell Korzybski, Alfred Language Language Habits in Human Affairs Language in Action Language in Thought and Action Lee, Irving Levels of Knowing and Existence Man/animal distinction Manhood of Humanity Map/territory analogy Metalanguage Misevaluations/misevaluation patterns Morris, Desmond Naked Ape Non-allness; orientation/principle Non-identity (principle) Object level Parabolic curve Patterns of misevaluations People in Quandaries Quotes 42 42 19 5 39, 70 46 17 7 32 17 59 76 40 10 49 21 59 26, 27, 59 78 74 52 66, 72 23, 59 13, 21, 38, 45 3 17, 59 17 17, 59 59 1 16 45, 67 20 79 1 1 66 64 48 29 79 59 77

Appendix II, Section Dl: Introduction D. Maas (The) Psychology of Speech and Language; an introduction to Psycholinguistics RAfihevsld, Nicholas Science and Sanity Science/scientific approach/method The Science of Culture Science of Man Second verbal level: class terms Self-reflexiveness Sources for structural differential Space binder Space binding (class of life) Strings (on structural differential) Structural differential Tag Third verbal level: inferences (The) Tyranny of Words Verbal level Weinberg, Harry White, Leslie W.I.G.O. 59 24 17 4 4
1

Dl page. 11

51 69,70 59 7 7 34 28,59 33,36 52 17 49 25 4 39

Appendix II, Section D2: Polarization D. Maas Polarization

D2 page. 1

Joseph DeVito
Key Terms
Aristotle's laws of thought Continuum Contradictory Contrary Degree Either/or thinking Excluded middle, law of Graded variations Insane Multi-valued orientation Polarization Polar terms Polarity Two-valued orientation Unsane

(1) During World War I, when the casualty rate for aviators was very high, the fliers developed a somewhat cynical philosophy concerning their prospects. This philosophy was expressed in the series of either-or propositions which attempted to prove that there was really nothing to worry about. It went something like this: (2) If all goes well, then there's nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if all doesn't go well, then there are just two possibilities. Either you will crash or you won't crash. If you don't crash, well then there's nothing, to worry about. If you do crash, there are just two possibilities. Either you'll be badly hurt or you won't be badly hurt and if you*re not badly hurt, then there's nothing to worry about. But if you are badly hurt, there are just two possibilities. Either you'll recover or you won't recover. If you do recover, there is nothing to worry about and if you don't recover, you really can't worry.

(3) This illustrates the fallacy of polarization, what logic texts discuss as the fallacy of black-or-white or the either-or fallacy. It is easy, of course, to see the problems in this kind of reasoning. Clearly, there are more than two possibilities for each eventuality. You might recover, but without a leg or without an arm or you might crash and not be badly hurt but be captured and so on. That is, there are degrees of being hurt, of recovering, and so on. (4) Few of us would be taken in by this brand of "logic." Consider some of the pronouncements Of some of our most respected people. Rousseau, for example, "Do the opposite of what is being done and you will be right." Jonathan Swift, "For all human actions seem to be divided like Themistocles and his companies. One man can fiddle and another can make a small town a great city, and he that cannot do either one or the other deserves to be kicked out of creation." Charles Lamb, "There are two races of man: the borrowers and the lenders." Helen Keller, "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." Although some of these statements have persuasion as their purpose and so make things seem more extreme or some have perhaps phrased them this way for shock value or for some kind of emphasis, the point is that when they are read they are often taken as truth, as accurate descriptions of life, of people. And, of course, often the writers, however gifted, are simply dividing the world into two rather unrealistic divisions. (5) Adolph Hitler knew well, too well in fact, the tendency of many to think in terms of polar opposites, in terms of extremes. Here's what he says about propaganda in Mein Kampf:

D2 page.2 The task of propaganda is, for example, not a weighing of the various rights but the exclusive emphasis of the one advocated by it. It has not to inquire objectively into the truth, so far as it favors the other sides, in order to represent it to the masses in doctrinary honesty, but it has to serve its own side continuously. The thinking of the masses is not complicated, but very simple and conclusive. There are not many differentiations but a positive or a negative, love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, but never half-so and half-so, or partially. (6) To illustrate how deeply seated this tendency is, let me try a brief word association test. I'll say a list of words and after each word, respond with the very first word that comes into your mind. I'll pause after each word so you'll be able to write down your responses if you prefer. The first word which comes to your mind is the only acceptable response. O.K. here are the words: (7) easy black up over beautiful clean man east north good life war light true hot guilty

(8) If your responses are similar to those of most others, you probably responded by giving opposites: to "easy" you said "difficult" or perhaps "hard," to "black, "white," to "up," "down," to "over," you said "under," to "beautiful," "ugly," to "clean," "dirty," to "man," "woman," to "east," "west," to "north," "south," to "good," "bad," to "life," "death," to "war," "peace," to "light," "dark," or perhaps, "heavy," to "true," "false," to "hot," "cold," to "guilty," "innocent." So ingrained is this habit, that even without thinking we automatically respond to a term with its opposite. We don*t do this with all terms, of course, but we do it with many, as this little exercise should have demonstrated. (9) This tendency to think in terms of extremes is called polarization, either-or thinking. Some statements in situations phrased in either-or terms are legitimate and justified. These statements are called contradictory statements, for example: this is a pencil or it is not; he will pass the course or he will not pass; she will get an "A" or she will not get an "A" and so on. Now let's take one of these statementsthis is either a pencil or it isn'tand with it examine the properties of contradictory statements. (10) There are five basic properties, and some of these overlap, and I separated them simply to emphasize each point as clearly as possible. (11) (12) 1. 2. The first property of contradictories is that one alternative must occur, but not both. The item is either a pencil or it isn't. It cannot be both a pencil and not a pencil. Ifjisn't a pencil then it cannot also be a pencil. ff Second, the two categories, or alternatives include all possibilities. Although it may sound strange when you think about it, everything in the world may legitimately be classified as either pencil or not pencil. The categories of pencil or not pencil include the universe. Third, there's no middle ground, no "on the fence" category. Any item is either a pencil or it isn't and this we establish by a definition of the word "pencil." If we define a pencil as anything which writes with lead, then anything that writes with lead is a pencil and anything which doesn't write with lead is not a pencil. Fourth, an item must be in one or the other category but not in both. This is similar to the last criteria. We establish which category a given item is by definition. Since pencil

(13)

3.

(14)

4.

Appendix II, Section D2: Polarization D. Maas

D2 page.3

and non-pencil include the universe, and since each is by definition mutually exclusive, any given item must be in one or the other category.
(15) 5. Fifth and lastly, if one alternative is true, the other must be false and vice versa. That is,

if a given is a pencil, then the statement that it is not a pencil must be false. Conversely, if an item is not a non-pencil, then it must be a pencil. These then are the basic properties of contradictory statements. (16) Contrary statements, on the other hand, have the same basic linguistic form as contradictories, but the contrary statements are not legitimate, not logical, not true to the facts. Some contrary statements are: "He is either a genius or an idiot," "She is either beautiful or ugly," "He is either good or bad," "It is either hot or cold," and so on. Taking the example of hot and cold, (it is either hot or cold) you can examine some of these properties of contrary statements. (17) 1. First, in contrary statements, both possibilities may occur. This can be easily demonstrated with three pails of water. One pail should be around 175, another around 80 and a third around 35. Put one hand in the 175 and another in the 35 pail and keep them there for a few minutes. Then place both hands in the 80 pail. If you do this little experiment, you will quickly see that the single pail of water of 80 is both hot and cold, hot to the hand previously in the 35 water, and cold to the hand previously in the 175 water. Second, the two categories do not include all possibilities. Clearly, there are degrees of hot and cold. Something need not be hot or cold but may be warm, cool, tepid and so on.
Third, there is middle ground and this middle ground includes everything between the

(18)
(19)

2.
3.

(20) (21)

4. 5.

extremes of hot and coldclearly the vast majority of cases. Fourth, an item may be in both categories. When you place both hands in the SO* water, you and the water were both hot and cold. Similarly, when you have a fever, you are hot, but you might also experience chills and therefore be both hot and cold. Fifth, and lastly, both alternatives may be true or both may be false. This property simply restates what was already said. Something may be both hot and cold, for example, the 80 water, or something may be neither hot nor cold but, for example, warm or cool. The most important property to note is that in contraries, we are dealing with items which are of a degree nature: intelligence, beauty, strength, temperature, and so on.

(22) The tendency to think in terms of two values or to treat contrary statements as if they were contradictory statements seems to stem from the Aristotelian law of thought which states that either one or the other of the following statements must be true: "A is B" and "A is not B." If the statement, "A is B," is true then the statement, "A is not B," must be false or if the statement, "A is B" is false then the statement "A is not B" must be true. Put differently, "A is either B or it isn't," This law is absolutely true. There is nothing wrong with this law as stated. Obviously, A is either B or it isn't. (23) The problem arises when we substitute other terms in the statements. Let's say A stands for John Smith and B stands for honesty. Now our law would read, "John Smith is either honest or he is not honest," or to use an example from Anatol Rapfdport's Science and the Goals of Man, (a book I strongly recommend, by the way) have A stand for man and B stand for good. Now the law becomes, "A man is either good or not good," and of course, not good for all practical purposes means bad and so we have, "a man is either good or bad." (24) The absurdity of such reasoning is probably obvious and needs little further discussion. The point is that although we may not think or speak in such obvious two-valued, either-or style, we nevertheless have a tendency to view things from two points of view and only two points of view, the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, the ethical or the unethical, the honest and the dishonest, the clean or the dirty, the right or the wrong, and so on. (25) Some time ago, I was teaching at another college and they had decided to establish standards of dress and behavior. One of the people involved was interviewed by the student newspaper and had this to say, "'It isn't all the boys* fault,' Miss Shone said, 'but she admitted that we want to set these standards of behavior while the number of boys on this campus are still low.' She denied, however, now that opinions on the code were divided according to sex. 'Responsible people like it,1 she said, 'and irresponsible people

D2 page.4
don't.'" Wouldn't it be simple if we could divide people into two neat, tight classes of responsible and irresponsible? (26) Here, from a local newspaper, a reader writes a letter to the editor and says, "It's time for the action suggested by Assemblyman McCluskey. Castrate the rapists and child molestors. Psychiatry had its chance and it's been a big farce." Here the problem seems boiled down to, either you cut the problem out psychologically or physically. Here are two further examples, these on the war in Viet Nam. "Every time I hear a person describe himself as being somewhere between a dove and a hawk on Viet Nam, I can only assume that he is a chicken." The wording here is clever but the idea quite stupid. Another one: "Hurrah for Governor Reagan! He spoke for the many who were being killed in Viet Nam. He was concerned and so am I. Stop the killing. Use the ultimate force or get out." (27) What we need to remember, it seems, is that in most situations we're dealing with characteristics and elements which vary in degree, and we can't easily group these items into two classes. People simply aren't stupid or bright, but vary by degrees in intelligence. An individual, for example, may be extremely capable when it comes to chemistry but extremely incapable when it comes to, say, history. What is he then, stupid or bright? If we must use terms like stupid and bright, and I guess we will use them, we would have to say that he is both stupid and bright, or better and more descriptive, that he receives high marks in chemistry and feels himself a capable chemistry student and receives low marks in history and considers himself a poor history student. (28) But at the same time that we want to recognize the degree-nature of things, we must not allow ourselves to be deceived by it. We might take a lesson from our friend and neighbor, the frog. If we placed a frog in a pail of cold water and raised the temperature bit by bit, in time we would have on our hands a very dead frog, cooked to death because he couldn't perceive small differences in temperature. The moral of this story is that some differences make a difference. The young girl, who after reading about polarization and the dangers of either-or thinking and told her parents that they shouldn't worry, after all, she was only a little bit pregnant, didn't have a very strong case. Some differences do make a difference. (29) We also need to recognize that there are differences between evaluating a problem and acting on it. We should evaluate problems and questions from a multi-valued orientationwe should explore as many aspects as possible. When it comes to acting, we are often faced with two alternatives, either we do something or we don't do it. S. I. Hayakawa, in his Language in Thought and Action, probably the most popular of all books on language, clarifies this distinction very well: (30) In spite of all that has been said to recommend multi- and infinite-valued orientation, it must not be overlooked that in the expression of feeling the two-valued orientation is almost unavoidable. There is a profound emotional truth in the two-valued orientation that accounts for its adoption in strong expressions of feeling, especially those that call for sympathy, pity, or help in a struggle. "Fight polio!" "Down with slums and up with better housing!" "Throw out the crooks!" "Vote the reform ticket!" The more spirited the expression, the more sharply will things be dichotemized into the good and the bad. Where there are expressions of feeling and therefore affected developments in speaking and writing, the two-valued orientation almost always ajpars. It is hardly possible to express strong feelings or to arouse the interest of an apathetic listener without conveying, to some extent, the sense of conflict. Everyone who is trying to promote a cause, therefore, shows the two-valued orientation somewhere in the course of his writing. It will be found, however, that the two-valued orientation is qualified in all conscientious attempts at presenting what is believed to be the truth. The two-valued orientation, in short, can be compared to a paddle, which performs the functions in primitive methods of navigation both of starter and steering aparatus. In civilized life, the two-valued orientation may be the starter since it arouses interest with its affect of power, but the multi-valued or infinite-valued orientation is the steering aparatus that directs us to our destination.

(31)

(32)

(33) There is one further important point to be made, and I'd like to get at this by posing a few problems. The first is in the form of an ancient puzzle. Simply stated, the question is, "How many hairs on a man's face constitute a beard?" How many do you think? Probably, most would agree that a thousand hairs constitute a beard but that ten do not. Further, I think we would agree that 999 make a

Appendix II, Section D2: Polarization D. Maas

D2 page.5

beard but that eleven do not; still further, that 998 make a beard but that twelve do not. Now, at what point do we say we have a.beard when with one hair less, we do not have a beard. How many hairs on a man's face constitute a beard? (34) Let's leave this problem for a moment and turn to another one, this one dealing with colors. Pure white, we know is a surface which reflects 100 percent of the light which falls upon it. Pure black, on the other hand, reflects no light. Pure whites and pure blacks are seldom found, however. What we call white and black are actually shades of gray. Some reflect more light than others and so some are seen as whiter and others as blacker than others. If you put two white or two black surfaces together, you would see that one white will be whiter than the other and one black will be blacker than the other. Supposedly, the human eye is capable of distinguishing forty thousand different shades running from pure white to pure black. Now, suppose we spread out these forty thousand shades in a line. The difference between any two adjoining shades will be almost imperceptible. Now where would we draw the line separating white from gray and gray from black? If we say arbitrarily that the first ten thousand shades are white, what about the shade number 10001? Shouldn't this also be considered white? What about shade 10002shoudn't this too be considered white? Just where does white end? Just where does black begin? (35) One last problem: in school we use a passing/failing system. If a student gets above a sixty, we say he's passed. If he gets below sixty, we say he's failed. Passing the course says that MI the student has mastered the course content to a satisfactory degree. Failing the course means that he has not mastered the course content to a satisfactory degree. But isn't mastery of subject matter a question of degree? What happens to the student who gets a fifty-nine average? Shouldn't he too pass? Most, I think, would say he should also pass. Now what about the student who gets fifty-eight? Clearly he is now as far from the passing fifty-nine as the fifty-nine was from the traditional passing grade of sixty. Again, I thjnk, most would say he too, should pass. Now what about the fifty-seven, again, he is as close to the fifty-eight as the fifty-eight was to the fifty-nine and as the fifty-nine was to the sixty. We could, of course continue with this line of reasoning until we got down to 1* the student with one. The same argument would hold here too. He too should pass because he is only one point below the person who got two, who is only one point below the person who got three, who is only one point below the person who got four and so on. (36) All of these problems involve the same basic assumptions. They can only be solved by recognizing that standards, whether they be standards about beards, about color, or about grades are arbitrary. They are established because they are conveniences and because they allow us to make needed decisions. The standards for grading are arbitrary, but we must have some standards in order to determine whether or not, for example, a given student should be permitted to go on to a more advanced course. (37) What's important to see is that the standards themselves do not exist in nature. There is nothing natural or magical about sixty being the passing grade. In many places it probably isn't. Sixty is simply a convenient number to use. Standards, whether used to separate geniuses from normals and the normal from the retarded or whether used to separate psychotics from neurotics and neurotics from normals or whether used to separate misdemeanors from felonies are all arbitrary, agreed upon by men because of the convenience they provide us. Too often, however, we treat these standards as ordained by nature. The teacher who will not even consider passing the student with a fifty-nine average is such a case. He views sixty as something sacred as something that can not be tampered with and so simply draws a line between sixty and fifty-nine. Those above the line pass and those below the line fail. (38) Standards are arbitrary and therefore can and should be changed when conditions warrant such change. Many of the current legal battles, for example, over the penalties for smoking marijuana are battles over standards. These standards were set when marijuana was thought to be extremely harmful but if research does prove conclusively that it is not harmful and does not lead to more powerful drugs, for example, then the penalty should be changed. (39) Let me try to put this whole issue of polarization into a somewhat different perspective. Imagine, if you will, that you own a large piece of property through which runs a river, and you want a bridge constructed over the river. Would you settle for an engineer's statement that the bridge he will build will be strong, will last longer, and will be cheap to build? Probably, and hopefully not. I think we would all want to know exactly how strong it will be. Will it hold ten tons, fifty tons, a hundred tons? Similarly, how long will it last? How long is long, five years, twenty years, a hundred years? And of course, how much is cheap? Is cheap $2,000, is cheap $5,000, $20,000? Just how cheap is cheap? Similarly, we would, not settle for a weather report which says that the temperature will be cold or hot. We would want to know how cold or how hot? That is, what temperature will it be?

D2 page.6
(40) Scientists and non-scientists when dealing with such matters are not content with terms such as strong, weak, cheap, expensive, hot, cold and so on. Neither should we be content with such terms when dealing with people, with objects, with events. People aren't good or bad, happy or sad, healthy or sick, honest or dishonest. There are degrees of goodness, happiness, health, honesty, just as there are degrees of the strength or lifespan of a bridge. Nature did not create things and put them in two classes, and this is true whether we are dealing with brains, colors, strength, beauty, or whatever. We need to see that naturethat realityis a matter of degree and exists along continua, not in discreet categories. (41) Classifications that do exist, whether between sane and insane, happy or sad, healthy or ill, we created it and we created them primarily for convenience. It's often convenient, even necessary to speak of a person as being sane or insane simply because we must make decisions based on sanity. We have to know whether a person should be considered sane or insane in order to make decisions based on his being responsible or not responsible for a crime, for example, or for decisions pertaining to his being committed to an institution or not being committed. These are conveniences, not accurate reflections of reality. (42) In the real world, we do not find people at either one extreme of sanity or at the other. Most people are somewhere in between. I might add here that different cultures will often define these things differently. What is sane in one culture may be considered quite insane in another. What we should remember is that classes of polar opposites are human creations and reflect reality with varying degrees of accuracy. But because each object, person and event is unique, no either-or classification is totally accurate. Rather than see or talk about reality as being conveniently divided into two classes, we should see reality as being distributed on a continuum. (43) The familiar bell shaped curve from statistics is a useful device for visualizing this principle. This curve is shaped like a bell with most of reality somewhere in the middle and as we go to either extreme, fewer and fewer cases are included. This seems true of beauty, strength, happiness, wealth, whatever. Our evaluations should take into consideration this continuum nature of things and this hopefully will help us to abandon the inaccurate two-valued orientation and to substitute for it a multi-valued orientation, a point of view that recognizes that any question, any problem, any person, any object, any event has not two sides but many sides, many aspects, many dimensions.

Appendix II, Section D2: Polarization D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

. D2 page.7

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Explain and illustrate the fallacy of polarization. [D2 para.03] Provide examples from history of the either/or orientation. [D2 para.04] Illustrate from Hitler's Mein Kampf examples of the tendency to think in polar opposites. [D2 para.05] Illustrate the prevalence of polar words in the English language. [D2 para.06] Illustrate the tendency of speakers to use polar expressions. [D2 para.07] Define and illustrate the process of polarization. [D2 para.09] Characterize and provide examples of contradictory statements. [D2 para.09] Differentiate contradictory from contrary statements. [D2 para.ll] Identify and describe the five basic characteristics of contradictory statements. [D2 para. 13] Identify and describe the five basic characteristics of contrary statements. [D2 para.12] Identify the Aristotelian laws of thought which support contradictory statements but not contrary statements. [D2 para.22] Define and illustrate examples of the multi-valued orientation. [D2 para.29] Explain how one puts language of degrees or graded variation in his verbal repertoire. [D2 para.39] Defend the assertion that classifications do not exist in nature. [D2 para.41]

D2 page.8 Index Arbitrariness of standards Aristotle's law of thought "Beard" example Bell-shaped curve "Black/white shades" example "Boiling frog" example "Color spectrum" example Continuum nature Contradictory (ies) Contrary(ies) Contradictory/contrary Contrary/contradictory Degree (s) "Dove-hawk-chicken" example Either/or thinking Excluded middle (law of) Graded variations "Grading" example Hayakawa, S. I. Hitler: polar opposites Insane/insanity Keller, Helen Lamb, Charles Language in Thought and Action "Little bit pregnant" example Multi-valued orientation Paddle analogy "Pails of water" example "Passing/failing" example Polarization Polar terms Polarity Predictable answers RapJOport, Anatol Rousseau Sane/insane Science and the Goals of Man Standards: arbitrariness of Steering wheel analogy "Stupid/bright" example Two-valued orientation Unsane Word association test

38
22 33 43 34

28
34 43

16 16
10

13, 14, 44 40
26 3 22 36 36 29 5 42 4

4 29 28 30 33 21 35
9,39 3,7 3 S 23 4 42 23 37 32 27 22 42 7

Appendix II, Section D3: Intensional Orientation D. Maas

D3 page,l

Intensiona! Orientation Joseph DeVito

Key Terms Extensional orientation Intensional orientation "Meanings are in people" Misevaluations Misevaluation patterns (1) I'd like to begin this discussion by reading to you three short poems. After I read each one, write a brief evaluation of it. Use any of the standards you feel are applicable to the evaluation of poetry. If you wish, listen to each poem a number of times before writing your evaluation. After you have listened to all three poems, stop the tape and rank the poems in order of merit. Use number one for the best, number two for the next and number three for the one you thought least of. (2) The first poem is called "The Crocodile" and is written by James White. How doth the little crocodile improve his shining tail And pour the waters of the Nile on every shining scale How cheerfully he seems to grin, how neatly spreads his claws And welcomes little fishes in with gently smiling jaws (3) (4) Now write a brief evaluation of this poem before going on to the second one. The second poem is by John Donne, entitled "Holy Sonnets, Number 7." At the round earth's imagined corners blow Forty years back when much had place Your trumpets, angels and arise, arise That since has perished out of mind Of souls and to your scattered bodies go He spoke as one of foot will wind All whom the flood did and fire shall oer'throw A morning horn ere men awake All whom war, death, age, agues, tyrannies His note was trenchant, turning kind Solemn and gray the immense clouds of even Despair, law, chance have slain And you whose eyes pass on their lowering, unperturbed way Shall behold God and never taste death's woe. Through the vast whiteness of the rain-swept heaven But let them sleep, Lord, and me, mourn a space The moving pageants of the waning day The counterfeits that time will break Brooding with sudden and titanic crests Teach me how to repent for that's as good. (5) Now, write your evaluation of this poem before going on to the third one.

I
D3 page.2 (6) The third poem is by Oliver Goldsmith, called "Elegy for Pink and Blue." The forests are old and black, the clouds are heavy and brown, But the world is red and gold and its people pink and blue, The heavens are pale and tinted, the skies are still and cold, But the water is pure and clear and its people pink and blue, The dogs are lonely and sad, the cats are crying and still, But the streets are joyful and gay and its people pink and blue. (7) After writing all three evaluations rank the poems in order of meritnumber one for the poem you feel is the best, number two for the next and number three for the one you thought the least of. Complete these evaluations and rankings before you continue with the tape. (8) One of the difficulties in discussing problems in evaluation, whether its in the evaluation of poetry or of people, is that most of us don't see ourselves making the misevaluations which other people make. We tend to think of the misevaluations of others as stupid, immature based on ignorance, and so on. What we fail to see is that we all misevaluate. We are all taken in by words. I've used this poetry evaluation exercise for the past six years and always get similar results. (9) The first poem, "The Crocodile," is generally seen as something as less than substantial literary merit. It is basic and has no real depth. Many students will rank this poem number three. I confess that the poem was not written by a James White, but by Lewis Carroll, and is the only respectable poem in the group. (10) The second poem is generally seen as difficult to understand, but clearly containing much that requires thoughtful consideration. Many students are convinced that if I gave them more time to do their evaluations, they'd be able to get all the meaning out of this poem. Some of the words used to describe the poem are "deep," "profound," "intellectual," "mystical." Many of my students like this poem very much and many rank it number one. Here to, I have a confession. This poem is actually a compilation of lines from three different poems. I simply arranged the lines in random order. One of the poems used was Donnes* "Holy Sonnet 7." Lines 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are from this poem. The other lines are from Christina Rosetti's "Spring Quiet," and Wilfred Roland Child's "Ivory Palaces." (11) The third poem is probably even worse than this last compilation. It is not by Oliver Goldsmith, but one I wrote myself, specifically for this exercise. I must confess that I have absolutely no idea what the poem means, if anything. Personally, I think this poem could stand among the very best examples of what a poem should not be. (12) I should offer one qualification here and mention an important principle which we will consider in some detail later. This is the principle that meanings are not in words, but in people. The meaning of a poem is clearly more in the reader than in the poem itself. If you got a great deal of meaning out of the second poem, for example, the one labeled, "Holy Sonnet 7," that's fine. But if you did get meaning out this poem, that meaning was clearly more in you than in the words of the poem. The meaning was actually a product of your own interaction with the words of the poem. The meaning was a function of your own nervous system interacting with the words on the tape. Many people, however, write evaluations of these poems, not on the basis of the meanings they derive, but on the basis of the labels attached to the poem, specifically in this case, the names of the poets. (13) You may wish to stop the tape here and review your evaluation, asking what specifically did you base your evaluations on. Was it what you had previously learned about John Donne and Oliver Goldsmith? Was it that your past experience with poelry taught that poems of high literary merit are difficult to understand. Try to analyze your own motivation in as much detail as possible. If you are particularly brave, you might want to compare your responses with the responses of otheri. (14) Most people respond to labels whether they are the names of poets or of actors and actresses endorsing products, of politicians defending or criticizing proposed legislation or whatever. A liult later I will mention some studies done on prestige-suggestion and how college students responded toylfabel rather than to things. The problem with discussing these studies is often that we dissociate ourselves from

Appendix II, Section D3: Intensional Orientation D. Maas

D3 page.3

the subjects of experiments, thinking that we would not fall into the same traps and misevaluate like the students in these studies. That's why I use this poetry exercise. Hopefully it provides a useful preface to one of the most important [principles] of all general semantics: the distinction between intensional and extensional orientation. (15) Intensional orientation is the tendency to become absorbed with the words used and to subsequently neglect the real world which the words describe. It's the tendency to give more attention to the words than to the reality. It is the tendency to be guided by words and not by the real world. (16) Extensional orientation is the other side of the cointhe tendency to first observe the reality and then to use language which accurately describes it. (17) Intensional orientationresponding to words as if they were more important than the things they symbolize, can be easily seen in the story of the primitive hunter when he first encountered the ways of the Englishman. "Can you possibly imagine," he said, "people who are so primitive that they love to eat the embryo of certain birds and slices from the belly of certain animals? And they grind up grass seed, make it into a paste and burn it over a fire, and then to top it off, they smear it with a greasy mess they extract from the mammary fluids of animals?" Put this way it sound pretty terrible. Yet all it describes is a breakfast of bacon and eggs with buttered toast. (18) Or take the story found in Haney's Communication and Organizational Behavior, of the old man who sold hot dogs at a roadside stand. All this old man knew about was hot dogs. He didn't read the newspapers and didn't listen to the radio. But he sold good hot dogs. As his business grew, he put up a sign on the road advertising his hot dogs and more and more people came. So he increased his orders of frankfurters and rolls and enlarged the little stand until it was four timeSthe size of the original-one and his business continued to grow. His son, home from college, came to help him. But the son was disturbed and told the father of the terrible depression we were in and how both the domestic and international situations were worsening. "Money was extremely tight," the son said, and here his ignorant father had enlarged his business. So, the father figuring that the son had been to college and knew about economics and politics took down the sign, closed off three-fourths of the restaurant, decreased his orders for hot dogs and buns and amazingly enough, almost Ml immediately his sales fell to practically nothing. The father was proud of his son. "Yes, son, we certainly are in the middle of a great depression." (19) Intensional orientation is also seen in the tendency to go to authority rather than to look for yourself at the real world. Aristotle, for example, said that flies have eight legs. For hundreds of years people simply accepted the word of the great man, Finally someone, who perhaps was too stupid to go to Aristotle, turned the fly over and discovered not eight, but six legs. Aristotle also postulated the law of falling bodies. Basically this law, or verbal map, stated that the velocity of falling bodies is directly proportional to their weight. This law was consistent with the prevailing theory of gravitation. For nineteen hundred years this law was accepted as an accurate description of the behavior of falling bodies. Finally, Galileo put this law to a test and demonstrated that the law of falling bodies accepted for nineteen hundred years was, quite simply, incorrect. (20) I don't mean to imply that we can't learn anything from Aristotle or from the theorists and philosophers. Certainly we can. Of course, from those who have preceded us we should learn as much as we can, utilizing our time-binding ability to the fullest. Yet, the way to determine how many legs a fly has is not to go to a book, but to go to the fly itself. (21) Bronislaw Malinowski tells of an incident which illustrates very well, I think, the tendency in so many people to persist in all beliefs, even when the facts contradict these beliefs. Malinowski was a cultural anthropologist who did much work among the TrobEan Islanders. To ihe Trotjpan Islanders, yams are extremely important. The islanders had established all sorts of elaborate rituals for growing this food. One of their beliefs was that it was necessary to utter incantations over the yams in order to get them to grow properly. (22) Malinowski attempted to get them to see that this wasn't necessary and that the yams would grow just as well without these incantations, He figured that the best way to illustrate this would be to conduct a simple experiment. For this experiment he had the natives plant two patches of yams. Over one patch of

D3 page.4 yams, incantations were uttered, then over the other patch nothing was said. When they returned to a later date to inspect the progress of the two patches of yams, they saw that each patch had grown equally well. The case looked proven: incantations were not necessary. But the natives explained that this merely showed that he had sneaked out in the night and muttered incantations when no one was watching. Of course, it is easy to explain this type of behavior by simply saying that the Trot&an Islanders of that time were primitive peoples who didn't understand that incantations don't make yams grow. They were not a scientific people who would be willing to experiment first and then draw conclusions. (23) In an article entitled "Progress Under Protest" in Reader's Digest, incited by Irving Lee in his Language Habits Jim Human Affairs, a number of examples are given which make it difficult for us to conclude that only primitive peoples would not be willing to experiment and then draw conclusions. It seems that even sophisticated, educated people often draw conclusions without experimentingwithout turning over the fly to see how many legs it hasor sometimes, in spite of experiment. Here are some of the examples cited: In 1797 the cast iron plow was rejected because they claimed it would poison the land and stimulate the growth of weeds. The railroad came under severe attack because of this claim that the sight of the locomotive speeding across the country would drive people mad and would require the building of numerous insane asylums. In Germany it was "proved by experts thai if trains travelled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour, blood would spurt from the nose and passengers would suffocate going through tunnels." [we do not have any more of the unit on our tape]

Appendix II, Section D3: Intensional Orientation D- Maas Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

D3 page.5

Explain how the DeVito poem evaluation exercise illustrates intensional orientation. [D3 para.02] Differentiate between extensional and intensional orientation. [D3 para.15, 16] Explain how DeVito's poem ranking exercise reflects the principle that meanings are not in words, but in people. p3 para. 12] Relate the tendency to respond to labels with intensional orientation. [D3 para. 14] Define and illustrate intensional orientation. [D3 para.15] Define and provide examples of extensional orientation. [D3 para. 16] Explain the relationship of intensional orientation to dependence upon authority. [D3 para. 19] Illustrate from history examples of intensional orientation. [D3 para.23]

D3 page.6 Index Aristotle Carroll, Lewis Communication and Organizational Behavior "The Crocodile" Donne, John "Elegy for Pink and Blue" Extensional orientation Goldsmith, Oliver Haney, William "Holy Sonnets" "Hot dog stand" example Intensional orientation Language Habits in Human Affairs Lee, Irving "Legs on the fly" example Malinowski, Brownislaw Meanings are in people Meaning: not in words but in people Misevalutations/misevaluation patterns Poem evaluation "Primitive hunter" example "Progress under protest" Reader's Digest White, James "Yam incantation" example 19 9 18 2 4 6 14, 15, 16 6 18 4 18 14, 15, 17, 19 23 23 19 21 12 12 7 1 17 23 23 2 22

i i

i i i i

i i

Appendix II, Section D4: Fact/Inference Confusion D. Maas Fact-Inference Confusion

D4 page.l

Joseph DeVito
Key Terms
Fact/inference confusion Fact Factual statements, characteristics of Inference Inferential statements, characteristics of Uncritical inference test (1) Let me begin this discussion with a short story I borrowed from one of Harry Maynard's many articles: A woman went for a walk one day and met her friend whom she had not seen or heard from or heard of in ten years. After an exchange of greetings, the woman said, "Is this your little boy?" And her friend replied, "Yes, I got married about six years ago. The woman then asked the child, "What's your name?" and the little boy replied, "The same as my father's." "Oh," said the woman, "then it must be Peter." (2) Now, the question is simply this: If the woman didn't know whom her friend had married, how could she know the child's name? (3) If you had any difficulty in answering this question, it was probably caused by your having made an inference. That is, you assumed something without much conscious thought. Very probably, you assumed or inferred that the friend mentioned in this story was a woman, but nowhere in the story is there reference to the sex of this friend. Actually, the friend was a man called Peter. (4) Let me read the story once again and perhaps you'll be able to spot the nature of your inference more specifically. A woman went for a walk one day and met her friend whom she had not seen or heard from or heard of in ten years. After an exchange of greetings, the woman said, "Is this your little boy?" And her friend replied, "Yes, I got married about six years ago. The woman then asked the child, "What's your name?" and the little boy replied, "The same as my father's." "Oh," said the woman, "then it must be Peter." (5) This example is similar to the one recently used on some quiz programs. It goes something like this: Is it possible for two children to have their birthdays on the same day, to be both exactly 20 years old and to have the same parents and yet not be twins. If you answered "no", very possibly you made the inference that only two children are involved and therefore, they must be twins if they're the same age and have the same parents. Actually such a situation can occur and it's not really very uncommon. The children referred to, quite simply, might be two children of triplets, quadruplets, and so on. (6) Making inferences such as these doesn't cause any real problems. The popularity of these and similar puzzles, I guess, probably attest to a more or less universal tendency to make such inferences. So in such examples there are really no significant consequences and hence, no real cause for concern about our making inferences without much or any conscious awareness. (7) Let me, however, read you three brief articles from a New York newspaper. Each of these articles is about different people but all involve similar incidents and similar consequences.

D4 page.2 Gun-joke backfires and bar patron is dead. As a joke on one of his bar customers, yesterday, the manager of a 42nd street tavern later told police he pulled what he thought was a starter's pistol from his pocket, pointed at her and fired. There was a blast and the woman, twenty-five years old, fell fatally wounded in the chest and was pronounced dead at St. Clairs Hospital. (8)This one is datelined Mexico City. A young man, twenty-one, scoffed when his friend told him his ninety-year-old pistol still worked, police said today. "Go ahead and shoot, I'm not afraid of that museum piece," he told his friend. The friend pulled the trigger of the forty-one caliber weapon. The pistol worked. The twenty-one-year-old boy was dead-on-arrival at a hospital. (9)The third one: A playful husband lobs pistol for wife to catchit kills him. A father of four children was shot fatally in his home Wednesday morning when a pistol his wife said he had playfully tossed at her was discharged as she caught it. The victim was shot in the left temple after picking up the pistol which had fallen to the floor from beneath his pillow and lobbing it to his wife, Margaret, thirty-one, an expectant mother. "Here, it won't bite," the wife said he exclaimed as he tossed the twenty-five caliber Colt automatic to her. As she grabbed it with both hands, one of the five shells in the magazine fired. Her husband was killed instantly. (10) Such examples could easily be multiplied. Similar incidents probably happen everyday somewhere in the world. In each of these examples, the person involved made the inference that the gun would not go off. Making such an inference doesn't cause any problems. Real problems are caused, however, when the people act on the inferences as if they are facts. That is, there was nothing wrong in making the inferences that the gun would not go off. If they had made this inference and then acted on this inference as if it were in reality an inference, they would not have shot the gun while pointing it at a friend or tossing it to his wife and no problems would have been created. Instead, however, they acted on the inference as if it were a fact. They were, in effect, so sure that the gun would not go off that they shot it while pointing at another person. (11) Like the first two examples, the puzzles, these examples of the gun that wouldn't go off demonstrate how prevalent our tendency is to make inferences and then to act on these inferences as if they are not inferences at all but actual facts. They further demonstrate, I think, how important it is to keep our inferences and our facts separate and to act on inferences as inferences and not as facts. (12) Sometimes the results of fact/inference confusion are not so tragic. The story often told in this connection is the one about a young girl who confided "& her mother the great anxiety she had about looking so flat-chested, and so the mother corrected the situation, at least temporarily, by inserting some padding in strategic places, then placed around the young girl's neck a string of pearls that had been in the family for generations. The young girl returned home from the date and had closed the door behind her, she immediately burst into tears. "I'll never go out with him," she cried. "Do you know," she said to her mother, "He said I looked real attractive and then had the nerve to ask, 'Are those real?' The mother too, was indignant and said, "Well I hope you told him they were, they've been in the family for years." "Oh, the pearls, I'd completely forgotten about them." (13) Take the example of the young girl who was given the present of a new mink coat from her boss. She opened the present, held up the coat in amazement. "I can't understand," she said, "how such a magnificent coat could come from such an ugly, rodent-like creature." "Well," said the boss, "I should have known the coat wouldn't change your opinion of me." (14) Sometimes, however, the results are not so amusing. When I was a graduate student in Philadelphia, a number of us used to drive to New York for the weekends. On this particular weekend, I

Appendix II, Section D4: Fact/Inference Confusion D. Maas

D4

Paee-3

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

and a few other students got a lift from ajurLwho was also doing graduate work there. When we got to the bridge, she leaned over with her right/to pay for the toll and she was barely able to reach over and the guard had to make some effort to get the money. "What the heck is the matter with you? Can't you use your other hand?" he yelled. None of us in the car could speak, we were so shocked. Unfortunately, the driver could not use her left hand since it was crippled. (15) Perhaps, at this point, we should define what we mean by factual statements and what we mean by inferential statements. In that way, perhaps, we'll be in a better position to see how they differ and perhaps why they are so often confused. I should say, first, that there are probably many ways to define what is a fact and what is an inference. The definitions I'll give here then, are certainly not the only ones possible, but they will, however, help to clarify and to distinguish these two kinds of statements, at least for our purposes. (16) A factual statement may be defined as one which: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. may be made only after observation may only be made by the observer is limited to what has been observed may only be about the past or the present, never the future the factual statement is one which approaches certainty. Since our powers of observation are not perfect, we cannot say that our observations are certain but only that they approach certainty.

(17)

An inferential statement, on the other hand, may be defined as one which: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. may be made at any time goes beyond what has been observed may be made by anyone may be about any time, past, present, or future involves varying degrees of probability.

(18) For example, 1 took out my window and see it's snowing. Now if I say, "It is snowing," that is a factual statement It was made after observation; it was made by the observer (me); it is limited to what has been observed and is about the present. IE, on the other hand I say, "It is snowing a mile away from here," or "It will be snowing ten minutes from now," I've made an inferential statement. I did not observe it snowing a mile from here and could not, ofcpurse, observe something in the future. (19) Now that we have our definitions, lefitsk you to test yourself a bit on your ability to distinguish facts from inferences. I'll read you a short account of a particular incident and read some statement about it. Assume that all the information given is true. In responding to the statements, answer "true" if the statement is definitely true as given in the story. Answer "false" if the statement is definitely false, as given in the story. Answer with a question mark if there is insufficient information in the story. That is, answer question mark if you can't say either true or false on the basis of what's in the story. Put differently, true and false responses would be given to statements of fact and question mark would be given to statements of inference. (20) The story I will read is based on one used by Irving and Laura Lee in their book Handling Barriers in Communication and it's used by practically every teacher of general-semantics I know. I've adapted it somewhat. Here's the story: (21) The police were called by an elderly couple reporting a robbery. The facts of the case were as follows. The couple had, the previous night, just finished painting their entire apartment. They had placed their valuables in a locked cabinet and went to sleep. The next morning they found that the door to their apartment had been opened, the locked cabinet broken into, their valuables gone. The police searched for fingerprints and found

D4 page. 4 fingerprints on ihe door and cabinet to exactly match those of the notorious criminal, Joe Zoe. (22) These then are the facts of the case and you can replay the story as many times as you wish Now let me read you some statements based on the story. Write down your answers or responses. True, for statements that are definitely true, false for statements that are definitely false and question marks for the statements that can be either true or false. After reading all ten statements we will return and discuss each one. (23) 1. The apartment was broken into. (true, false, or question mark) 2. The valuables were gone, (true, false, or question mark) 3. Joe Zoe stole the valuables, (true, false, or question mark) 4. The valuables were stolen by someone, (true, false, or question mark) 5. The cabinet was never broken into, (true, false, or question mark) 6. Joe Zoe's fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. (true, false, or question mark) 7. Joe Zoe opened the cabinet. (true, false, or question mark) 8. Joe Zoe was at least in or near the apartment after it was painted. (true, false, or question mark) 9. Joe Zoe was guilty of robbery. (true, false, or question mark) 10. Joe Zoe was trespassing. (true, false, or question mark) , (24) Now let's go over each of the statements and your responses. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The first question, the apartment was broken into, would have to be answered question mark since the story doesn't say that the apartment was broken into, but only that the doors of the apartment had been opened. Second, the valuables were gone would have to be answered true since the story says exactly that. Third, Joe Zoe stole the valuables. This would have to be answered question mark since the story doesn't say anything about Joe Zoe stealing anything. Fourth, the valuables were stolen by someone. This would also have to be answered with a question mark since all the story says is that the valuables were gone. They could, of course, be gone without having been stolen. Fifth, the cabinet was never broken into. This would have to be answered false since the story says that the cabinet was, in fact, broken into. Sixth, Joe Zoe's fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime would have to be marked with a question mark since although his fingerprints were found in the apartment, it has not yet been shown that a crime has been committed. Seventh, Joe Zoe opened the cabinet would have to be scored with a question mark since all the story says is that his fingerprints were found on the cabinet. Eighth, Joe Zoe was at least in or near the apartment after it was painted would again have to be marked with a question mark since the story does not say that Joe Zoe was there, only that his fingerprints were found. Now, if you have an objection to this question mark, hold it a second until I give you the facts of the case as they were later discovered.

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Appendix II, Section D4: Fact/Inference Confusion D. Maas 9. 10.

D4 page.5

Ninth, Joe Zoe was guilty of robbery is obviously a question mark since it's not proven that a robbery occurred. Tenth and lastly, Joe Zoe was trespassing is also a question mark since it has not been demonstrated that any trespassing had occurred or that Joe Zoe was one of the people who even entered the apartment.

(25) Now you may be saying this involved a number of tricks and it certainly did. The case of Joe Zoe is actually based on a famous robbery, the Marlborough Jewel Case of Scotland Yard. It's a case which because of it's very peculiar nature is often used in police training programs. Actually, two criminals were involved, Joe Zoe and another one. One criminal killed Joe Zoe, dismembered his hand, committed the robbery and left Joe Zoe's fingerprints at the scene. Admittedly, however, such a case is extremely difficult and the statements were, in fact, worded to throw you off. I did that, however merely to illustrate how difficult this business of distinguishing facts from inferences really is. You were sensitized to the whole business of facts and inferences and you no doubt knew that some trickery would be involved, and yet, unless I miss my guess completely, you made at least a few errors. You fell into the very traps we had been talking about for the last fifteen minutes or so. (26) It is extremely difficult to separate our facts from our inferences even when we're confronted with a very short [story] which we can hear over and over as many times as we like. This difficulty, I think, only illustrates how much more difficult it is to distinguish between facts and inferences when the story is long and complicated, when we only hear it once and when we have not been sensitized to the whole area of fact and inference confusion. (27) I want to make clear that both factual and inferential statements are necessary. One type is not better or more useful than another. There are simply different types of statement that serve different purposes. Certainly, we can't always and everywhere talk in factual statements; that would be impossible. We have to make inferences every day of our lives, it would be impossible jiot to make inferences. (28) The master of inferences, of course, was Sherlock Holmes. I'd/\to read you a short excerpt from one of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries to illustrate more fully the nature of inferences. Here Holmes is speaking to Dr. Watson: (29) "How do I know that you have been getting yourself very wel lately and that you have a most clumsy and careless servant girl?" "My dear Holmes," said I, "This is too much. It is true that I had a country walk on Thursday and came home in a dreadful mess, but as I have changed my clothes I can't imagine how you deduced it. As to Mary Jones, she is incorrigible and my wife has given her notice. But there again, I fail to see how.vou worked it out." He chuckled to himself and rubbed his long nervous hands tofather. "It is simplicity itself," said he. "My eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously, they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scraped around the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud from il. Hence, you see, my double deduction: that you have been out in vile weather and that you had a particularly malignant boot-slicking specimen of the London slavery."

(30) As Sherlock Holmes so beautifully demonstrates, in all his cases, inferences and the power to make such inferences are most important and useful. There is, then, no problem with making inferences. There is a problem when we make inferences and act on them as if they were facts. But unfortunately, we often do treat inferences as if they were facts and recognizing that so many people do confuse factual and inferential knowledge, some people have attempted to capitalize and profit from it. (31) One very clever example of this concerned the old-time actor, Francis X. Buschmann. Buschmann, (those of you who are film buffs will know played Marsella in the original Ben Hur and was for place and

D4 page.6 time one of the leading box-office attractions. At the time of this incident, however, Buschmann was earning a respectable but not outstanding salary of $250.00 a week, playing in Chicago. (32) His manager took him to New York to meet the staff at Metro, which was then located at 42nd Street, hoping to have them sign Buschmann to a more lucrative contract. The man who engineered this met Buschmann at Grand Central Station to take him to Broadway where the offices of Metro were located. With him, his manager carried a stack of 2,000 pennies, twenty dollars worth. As they walked to Metro's offices, he dropped behind him a trail of pennies. Children and then curious adults began to follow these two very peculiar men who were leaving a trail of pennies behind them. By the time they reached the offices of Metro, a vast crowd had gathered. The executives of Metro noted the crowd and quickly signed Buschmann to a contract of $1000 a week, four times what Buschmann had been earning up till then. (33) You can, of course, find examples of this type of stratagem, though in a much more subtle form and hence a more dangerous form, in hundreds of advertisements daily. Examples of confusion between facts and inferences are extremely common. In literature there are literally thousands of examples. In most, if not all, of Shakespeare's plays the plot turns on one of the characters making an inference and then acting on thai inference as if it were a fact. For example, in Romeo and Juliet, Romeo sees Juliet stretched out on the slab and makes the inference that she's dead, acts on that inference as if it were fact and kills himself. In Hamlet, Hamlet makes the inference that Claudius is standing behind the curtain, acts on that inference as if it were a fact and runs his sword through the curtain, killing, not Claudius, but Polonius. Consider the numerous inferences Othello makes about Desdemona and acts on them as if they were facts. (34) Perhaps the classic example of fact/inference confusion in literature is Guy de Maupassant's The Necklace in which the heroine makes the inference that the necklace she has borrowed and lost was genuine pearls. Acting on this inference as if it were a fact, she works throughout her life to pay back the loss only to discover that the necklace was not genuine at all but merely paste. (35) In George Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith makes the inference that Charington, the second-hand store owner, is not in complete sympathy with the party/that there is no telescreen in the room, and so on. Acting on these inferences as if they were facts, he reveals his true feelings in this supposedly secluded and safe room. Charington, of course, turns out to be a member of the iM^to police and a very cleverly hidden telescreen has recorded all his indiscretions which eventually lead to his arrest and prosecution. (36) In Moliere's Tartuffe, Orgon finds the penniless Tartuffe in church and makes the inference that Tartuffe is a religious man and that he therefore has the best of intentions. Acting on this inference as if it were a fact, Orgon then takes Tartuffe into his home and soon has promised his daughter Mariane to Tartuffe, signs over his whole estate to Tartuffe and disowns son Damis because he will not apologize for his criticism of Tartuffe. Tartuffe, of course, was always a scoundrel of the first order. (37) In soap operas, the plot, if we could call it that, when it does turn, most often turns on the basis of some confusion over factual and inferential knowledge. Situation comedies seem to be developed in the same way and seem, in fact, to be the principle technique in developing the story line. But we should not get too far from real life in dealing with any of these patterns of misevaluation. The prevalence of these misevaluations in literature, however, is, I think, reflective of their prevalence in real life. (38) There are examples in the daily newspaper which don't achieve an audience as wide as say, Shakespeare's plays, but which testified all too clearly to the problems created by confusing facts with inferences and acting on inferences as if they were facts. One article, for example, reported that a laborer working on a pulp-mixing machine turned it on only to find later that two men were inside cleaning it. Another reported an incident in which a truck driver flattened a huge cardboard box in the street as kind of a service to motorists. Unfortunately, this time two small boys were playing in the box. Here is an article about two small boys who had a "water-gun" fight. The article continues that they nearly killed each other. That's because the boys didn't realize their ammunition wasn't water, it was flesh-eating sulfuric acid left over from charging car batteries. In each of these instances, inferences were made and acted upon as if they were facts (the pulp-mixing machine was empty, that the cardboard box was empty, that the liquid was empty).

Appendix II, Section D4: Fact/Inference Confusion D. Maas

D4 page.7

(39) One of the most popular illustrations of fact-inference confusion is the story entitled "The Point of View" by A Auberchenko It's a very short story but will illustrate very clearly the types of problems created by confusing inferences and facts. It was originally published in This Week magazine and it's been reprinted numerous books on general-semantics. (40) "Men are comics," she said, smiling dreamily. Not knowing whether this indicated praise or blame, I answered noncommittally, "Quite true." "Really, my husband's a regular Othello. Sometimes I wonder why I married him." I looked helplessly at her. "Until you explain," I began. "Oh, I forgot. You haven't heard. About three weeks ago, I was walking home with my husband through the square. I had a large black hat on, which suits me awfully well, and my cheeks were quite pink from walking. As we passed under a streetlight, a pale dark-haired fellow standing nearby glanced at me and suddenly took my husband by the sleeve. 'Would you oblige me with a light,' he says. Alexander pulled his arm away stooped down and quicker than lightning banged him on the head with a brick. He fell like a log. Awful!" "Why, what on earth made your husband get jealous all of a sudden?" She shrugged her shoulders, "I told you. Men are very comic.1' Bidding her farewell, I went out and at the corner came across her husband. "Hello, old chap," I said, "they tell me you've been breaking people's heads." He burst out laughing. "So you've been talking to my wife. It was jolly lucky that brick came so pat into my hand, otherwise, just thinj I had about 1500 rubles in my pocket and my wife was wearing diamond earrings." "Do you think he wanted to rob you?" "A man accosts you in a deserted spot, asks for a light and gets hold of your arm. What more do you want?" Perplexed, I left him and walked on. "There's no catching you today," I heard a voice say from behind. I looked around and saw a friend I hadn't set eyes on for three weeks. "Lord!" I exclaimed, "What on earth happened to you?" He smiled faintly and asked in turn, "Do you know whether any lunatics have been at large lately?" "I was attacked by one three weeks ago. I left the hospital only today." With sudden interest, I asked, "Three weeks ago? Were you sitting in the square?" "Yes, I was. The most absurd thing, I was sitting in the square dying for a smoke, no matches. After ten minutes or so, a gentleman passes with some old hag. He was smoking. I go up to him and touch him on the sleeve and ask in my most polite manner, "Can you oblige me with a light?" And what do you think, the mad man stoops down, picks something up and the next minute I'm lying on the ground with-a broken head, unconscious. You probably read about it in the paper." I looked atyand asked earnestly, "Do you really believe you met up with a lunatic?" "I'm sure of it." An hour afterwards I was eagerly digging in old back numbers of the local paper. At last I found what I was looking for, a short note in the accident column. "Under the influence of drink. Yesterday morning, the keeper of the square found on a bench a young man whose papers show him to be of good family. He had evidently while in the state of extreme intoxication IMHM broken his head on a nearby brick. The distress of this prodigal's parents is indescribable."

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44) If we recognize the distinction between statements of facts and statements of inferences and learn to act on inferences as if they are inferences and not facts, we will have achieved a great deal. Specifically, we will be less dogmatic about what we say and that is especially, today, most welcomed. We will be open to conflicting ideas and possibilities. Our minds won't be closed. If we realize that most of our knowledge is inferential, we will perhaps be more open and receptive to alternative inferences and we will be prepared to be proved wrong and will therefore be less likely to be hurt, whether physically or emotionally. (45) One man (and whether he had a course in general-semantics or not, I don't know) was quite aware of the distinction between facts and inferences and was very aware of the tendency of so many

D4 page.8 people to confuse the two. So he prepared himself for such confusions and one day he was found face down in the street and was rushed to an emergency ward of the local hospital. There, as the doctors unbuttoned his coat, they found a note pinned to his shirt. The note read, To all members of the medical profession: Please do not attempt to remove my gall bladder, tonsils or any other organ. You have tried twice already. I am merely drunk. Let me sleep it off."

Appendix II, Section D4: Fact/Inference Confusion D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

D4 page.9

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Provide examples of tragic events which had their origin in fact/inference confusion. [D4 para.07] Explain the context in which relying on inferences is dangerous. [D4 para. 10] Differentiate factual from inferential statements. [D4 para. 15] Identify five characteristics of factual statements. [D4 para. 16] Identify five characteristics of inferential statements. [D4 para. 17] By using the Haney Uncritical Inference Test, demonstrate the ability to distinguish statements of fact from statements of inference. [D4 para.23] Explain the context in which inferences are necessary. [D4 para.27] Illustrate from literature examples of fact/inference confusion. [D4 para.33]

D4 page. 10 Index Auberchenko "BuschmanlijFrancis" example "Cardboard box in road" example "Drunk" example Fact/inference confusion Fact/inference distinction Factual statements (characteristics) "Flat chested" example "Friend not a woman" example Hamlet Handling Barriers in Communication Inference Inferential statement (characteristics) Inference/fact confusion "Joe Zoe" example Lee, Irving "Marlborough jewel case" example de Maupassant, Guy "Mink coat" example Moliere "Museum piece" example Necklace Nineteen Eighty-Four (2984) "Ninety (90)-year-old pistol" example Orwell, George "Point of view" example (Auberchenko) "Pulp-mixer" example Romeo and Juliet "Sherlock Holmes" example Tartuffe "Toll booth" example "Twins/quadruplets" example Uncritical inference test 39 31 38 45 12, 26 44 16 12 2 33 20 8,17 17 8, 12, 26, 44 21 20 25 34 13 36 8 34 35 8 35 39

28 36 14 5

Appendix II, Section D5: Allness D. Maas

D5 page.l

Allness Joseph DeVito Key Terms

Abstracting Abstraction Allness orientation Change Complexity Dogmatism Etc. Interest Limiting factors to knowing all Intolerance Misevaluations/misevaluation patterns One-cause fallacy Perception Point of view and interest Refusal to change Refusal to look again

(1) Francis Bacon once said, "I have taken all knowledge as my province." Many people interpret him as meaning that he knew all things, that he had mastered everything there was to know. In fact. Bacon is commonly regarded as the last man in history to have been able to do this. After Bacon, supposedly, knowledge increased so rapidly that no one man could possibly acquire alt knowledge. Bacon, however, was more likely referring to his concern, his interest, his respect for all knowledge and not to his having mastered or acquired it. But, regardless of what Bacon did or didn't mean or did or didn't say, it seems quite obvious to us today that no man, however brilliant, however diligent, could know all there is to know. With this, there seems to be little disagreement (2) Yet, how often do we act as if we know all there is to know? How often do we close our minds to opinions and arguments because we feel we know all there is to know on the subject? I think we all act as if we know all there is to know, at least sometimes, and on some topics. When we do, we are into the pattern of misevaluation called allness. (3) Allness is based on two false assumptions. The first is that it's possible to know and say all or everything about something. The second assumption is that what I am saying or writing or thinking includes all that needs or could be said or written or thought. Allness is all around us. Irving Lee, in his Language Habits ^A Human Affairs, puts it so well. I want to quote a short passage. (4) The list of those who have taken the adequacy of language coverage for granted is a long one. It includes the social scientists who wait for decisions until the evidence is all in, the demagogues and panacea-makers who assert the single principles which promise to solve the whole of life's complexities; the guardians of doctrines who require that you shall not add unto the words, neither shall you diminish aught from it; those who would burn the papers of anjqbelard because he would argue the usefulness of doubt; the Hitlers who exalt the finality of onesidedness ("Once I have decided on my course, I am filled with boundless fanaticism."); the historians who insist that their callings and sortings somehow piece together into the definitive history as it actually was, the debaters who ereci their approximate descriptions into compelling totalities, the Ciceros who know that mental stains can neither be blotted out by the passage of time nor washed away by any waters, the practical men who believe only what they see, the judges who, quoting but a few passages from the shelf of his books, pronounce the immorality of a Bertrand Russell; the students who so readily assume they understand what they read for the first time; those who keep up with affairs by reading but one newspaper; and on and on.

I
D5 page.2 (5) With allness all around us, perhaps we should start with discussing just a few of the many factors which prevent our knowing all, which limit our abilities to obtain complete and total knowledge of anything. (6)1. One factor is space. Where we are and where the object of investigation is will greatly influence what we are able to see and what we are unable to see. When we look down from a tall building or through a very small opening the influence of space is/oovious, but it's always present. Another is time. No one of us has unlimited time to spend observing any given thing and yet, the more time we spend, the more we are able to see. One of the exercises I use in class (and you might want to try it yourself) is to give each student a stone and I ask them to examine the stone as carefully as possible. For this exercise, I give them perhaps twenty or thirty minutes. The interesting thing that happens is that after one or two minutes they think they know all about the stone. But after twenty or thirty minutes, they become convinced that there is still much more to be learned, and stones, such simple things compared to people and ideas. Complexity is another influencing factor. We live in a world of infinite complexity yei we have only finite means Ifor investigating any given thing and so we really can't learn all because all is infinitely complex. Another factor is our previous knowledge. Whatever knowledge we come with to a given situation greatly influences what we see in it. If a geologist, for example, and a mathematician were each given a stone to examine, the geologist would clearly see much more in the stone than would the mathematician. He would probably be able to tell us where the stone came from, what was its composition, what it was used for and so on. Most of us, however, like the mathematician, would merely be able to describe the stone and then probably only in the most general terms. Conversely, the mathematician would be able to see a great deal more in say, a theory of numbers, than we would, or in listening to a lecture on calculus, he would be able to see much more than would a non-mathematician. This difference in previous knowledge is perhaps most clearly seen if you've ever gone to an art museum with someone who knows a great deal about art. To the person without any previous background or knowledge of art, a given painting communicates relatively little, but to an art expert, it communicates a great deal. The art student may be quite content, for example, to view a painting for four or five hours, but most of us would become bored after perhaps just five or ten minutes and would want to move on to other exhibits. Our point of view and our interest place further restrictions on us. The particular point of view or interest we bring with us determine, in great part, what we observe in any given situation. Perhaps the best example of this is seen in the different, evaluations of the younger and older generations to such phenomena's drugs or college riots or even certain movies. Whereas many college students see the disturbances on campus as necessary to making education more relevant, many older persons see it as nothing more than unreasoned revolt. The most obvious factor restricting our ever learning all is the nature of our sense organs. Severe limitations on what we can know are imposed simply by the nature of our perceptual organs. We can't hear everything or see everything or taste everything or touch everything or smell everything, and even those things which we can sense, we don't sense in their entirety. We may, for example, be able to hear a train coming and we can tell if it's coming from the right or the left but we can't tell if it's coming from the front or the back. Similarly, many persons differ in what they can ^n^ A A \vinf r^n tell tell the ihe year veur thp orane*; were he. hard hard sense. wine ta^lpr taster can the grapes were harvMlftri harvested, hut but mrwi most nf of IK us wnulrl would be pressed to tell what kind of wine we had just tasted. Some people can lell how expensive a given

(7)2.

(8)3.

(9)4.

(10)

(11)5.

(12)6.

Appendix II, Section D5: Allncss

D5 page.3

D. Maas perfume is by simply smelling it, whereas, personally, I have difficully distinguishing expensive perfume from cheap shaving lotion. (13)7. Perhaps the one factor which counts most for the limitations in our ability to know all is the simple fact that everything is in a constant state of change. How can we know all when everything is changing from one second to the next?

(14) Knowing all or saying all or thinking all about anything is clearly an impossibility and one of the best examples of the realization that complete and total knowledge is an impossible attainment is recorded by Nathaniel Shaller, a student of the famous professor of zoology at Harvard, Louis Agassiz. Let me read you Shaller's report. (15) When I sat me down before my tin pan, Agassiz brought me a small fish, placing it before me with a rather stern requirement that I should study it but should on no account talk to anyone concerning it nor read anything relating to fishes until I had his permission to do so. To my inquiry, "What shall I do?" he said in effect, "Find out what you can without damaging the specimen. When I think you have done the work, I will question you." In the course of an hour I thought I had compassed the fish. It was rather an unsavory object, giving forth the stench of old alcohol, then loathsome to me, though in time I came to like. Many of the scales were loosened so that they fell off. It appeared to me to be a case of a summary report which I was anxious to make and get on to the next stage of the business. But Agassiz, though always within call, concerned himself no further with me that day nor the next, nor for a week. At first, this neglect was distressing, but I saw that it was a game. For he was, as I discerned rather than saw, covertly watching me. So, I set my wits to work upon the thing and in the course of a hundred hours or so thought I had done mucha hundred times as much as seemed possible at the start. I got interested in finding out how the scales went in series, their shape, the form and placement of the teeth, etc. Finally, I felt full of the subject and probably expressed it in my bearing. As for words about it then, there were none from my master except from his cheery, "Good morning!" At length on the seventh day came the question, "Well?" and the discourse of my learning :to him as he sat on the edge of my table puffing his cigar. At the end of the hour's telling, he swung off and away saying, "That is not right." Here I began to think that after all, perhaps the rules for scanning Latin verse were not the worst infliction in the world; moreover, it was clear that he was playing a game with me to find if I were capable of doing hard, continuous work without the support of a teacher, and this stimulated me to labor. I went at the task anew, discarded my first notes and in another week of ten hours a day labor, I had results which astonished myself and satisfied him. Still there was no trace of praise and words or manna. He signified that it would do by placing before me about half a peck of bones, telling me to see what I could make of with no further directions to guide me.

(16)

(17)

(18) The misevaluation of allness is closely related to the process of abstraction and perhaps reference to this abstraction process will make the notion of allness clear. Let's first list some characteristics of an individual, a person you or I might know. Let us say some of the characteristics of this person include: male, citizen, over twenty-one, movie fan, consumer, brother, church-goer, husband, father, tax payer, brother-in-laj|f voter, democrat, music lover, newspaper reader, teacher, redhead, son, uncle, nephew, artist, and so on. If I now say that he is a conscientious voter, for example, I am in effect, abstracting certain characteristics from this person, that, for example, he is a citizen, over twenty-one, voter, and perhaps certain other things as well, but at the same time 1 am omitting many other things about this person, that

D5 page.4 for example he is a movie fan, a father, a teacher, and so on. Any statement I make about this individual will be an abstraction of certain characteristics and will inevitably involve the omission of many others. Any statement I make will in effect call your attention to certain of the characteristics of this individual and not to others. (19) All language, whether speaking or writing, involves abstraction. If we are to talk or write, we must abstract certain characteristics and omit others. With abstraction there is no problem; it's necessary, it's essential, it's inevitable. A problem does arise when we forget that we are abstracting, when we assume that what we have said or thought or wrote or heard or read is all. It's equally important to realize not only that all language involves abstracting, but that each person abstracts differently. We are all unique individuals and consequently we each select for inclusion certain things and omit different things. This uniqueness of abstracting is seen everyday when two people may say basically the same thing. For example, they see a girl and say she's beautiful, but each of these persons have abstracted different things though they might both label what they've abstracted as "beautiful." (20) In the parable of the six blind men and the elephant by John Sachs, this point is very clearly and cleverly made. The first blind man touched the elephant's side and concluded that the elephant, whom they had, of course, never seen, was like a wall. The second felt the tusk and said the elephant must be like a spear. The third touched the trunk and concluded the elephant was mucli like a snake. The fourth felt the knee and knew the elephant elephant was much like a tree. The fifth touched/ear and said the elephant was wa like a fan and the sixth grabbed the tail and concluded the elephant to be like a rope. Each of these six men reached his own conclusion regarding the marvelous beast called the elephant. Each argued that his view of the elephant was correct and of course, each man was correct, but only in part. Equally, each man was wrong, only in part. (21) It is easy to see in the story of six blind men and an elephant, which we have all seen, that each man actually perceived or observed only part of the animal. Had they done more investigation and perhaps, had each touched where each of the others had touched, they would have come up with very similar descriptions of what an elephant was like. But aren't we all subject to the same type of limitations as these six blind men every day of our lives? Isn't there always more to be seen, more to be heard, more to be read than we've had time for? To a scientist with a powerful telescope, isn't the naked eye almost blind? To the radar engineer, aren't the unaided senses primitive? In a hundred years from now, the scientist with his telescope will no doubt view the scientist today and the telescopes of today as almost blind. (22) James Fisher and Lowell Holly, in their book A Few Buttons Missing, tell a story which illustrates at least some of the personal problems which people create for themselves by assuming an allness attitude. Basically, the incident went something like this: (23) A Newly-married couple stopped by a friend's house on their wedding trip one afternoon. The woman insisted that they stay for dinner and finally, after some mild protest, they stayed and had dinner. The next day they heard the news. It appeared that the couple was driving across a small bridge when a gasoline truck hit the car ahead of them. The couple's car plowed into the truck. The husband was killed instantly and the young wife was rushed to the hospital with severe burns but died on the way. The woman who had insisted they stay for dinner became horrified and blamed herself bitterly. "If only I hadn't insisted that they stay for dinner, the accident would never have happened." At the funeral some days later, the young man's father sat in absolute misery and confided that the couple were planning to take the train north. "All the arrangements were made but then I decided to let them take my car. If only I hadn't made them change their plans, the accident never would have happened." And the young man's sister, too, blamed herself. The couple hadn't planned to be married until much later, but through some trading of vacations between the sister's husband and her brother, the wedding plans were chan perl. If nnlv 3ns. the accident never would have happened. haooened. changed. only ihev they hadn't chaneed changed vacati vacations,

I I n

I 1

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section D5: Allness D. Maas

D5 page.5

(24) I guess if other people were interviewed or had spoken up, there would have been a great many additional confessions of blame and guilt. Many of us have probably had this kind of feeling at least once in our lives. Yet in these kinds of situations we're assuming a very unrealistic allness attitude, an altitude which holds that for any given effect there is but one cause and we are it. Actually there are many causes for any given effect, never only one. When the individual confessions of guilt are put together, as in this little example, it's easy to see that there were many influencing factors and not one cause. (25) In reality, however, this is always the case. There are inevitably many influencing factors for any specific happening, and when something goes wrong it is unrealistic for us to assume all the blame and all .the guilt. In addition, of course, it doesn't do any good. We don't change or improve the situation any by assuming all the guilt. (26) There are probably numerous types of problems which an allness assumption or attitude creates and I would like to mention at least four types of problems: (27)1. One is that we refuse to learn. When we assume we know all, there's little reason to attempt to learn or, equally important, to unlearn what is wrong or no longer valid or useful. Epictitus, the Greek philosopher, put it well. He said, "It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn what he thinks he already knows." Unfortunately so many people think they know the answers or the cause or the method of doing something that they literally refuse to learn, so sure are they that they know. How many students studying to be teachers know that they cannot learn anything from education courses? How many people feel they know how to listen and refuse to learn anything about this important skill? How many people know they are effective communicators and refuse to learn anything more about this form of human behavior? How many liberals feel that they have the answers and cannot learn anything emanating from a conservative viewpoint? Likewise, how many conservatives feel that they have the answers and cannot learn anything emanating from a liberal point of view? The list is endless. Often we think we know something so well that we don't even consider the possibility that perhaps we really don't know it. Let me suggest a simple but interesting and in many cases, humbling, exercise. Select a city block that you feel you know well, for example, a street that you pass everyday, perhaps on your way to school or on your way to work. Now draw a map of that block. Draw it in as much detail as you possibly can. Then, with your drawing in hand, go out and observe the block. Unless I severely miss my guess, you'll find that you've omitted a great deal and incorrectly positioned a great deal. Most people would make a number of errors on this kind of assignmentand this is with something we know very well, something we may have seen, fifty, a hundred, two hundred times. We think we know it but we don't really know it. Imagine how much more difficult it is to really know any given individual or subject or philosophy. They're just so much more complex than the simple layout of the city block. Another problem created by an attitude of allness is that we refuse to change. If we think we have the answers and know all there is to know, there seems little if any reason to change, but we really need to changeto change our attitudes and behaviorsif we are to keep pace with the constantly changing world. Allness also leads us to become intolerant of other people, of other attitudes, of other points of view. Students criticize professors for intolerance of other viewpoints whether it be over ihe interpretation of a novel or a poem or over a particular lifestyle. Professors are likewise critical of their students' intolerance, or at least as what they see as their students' intolerance. The truth of the matter seems, to me at least, to be that both students and teachers have much to learn about allness and non-allness, about intolerance and tolerance. In fact, we all have much to learn.

(28)2.

(29)3.

(30)4.

D5 page. 6 (31) If we assume we know it all, other positions, other interpretations, other attitudes are seen as wrong and we naturally become intolerant of wrong things. But if we take a non-atlness position and assume and believe that we really don't have all the answers, we won't label our position as right and other positions as wrong. We will rather see our position as one of many, and other positions as deserving of consideration, thought and discussion.

(32)5. Lastly, allness leads us eventually to become dogmatic. Here, we are not only intolerant of alternative attitudes, values and behaviors, but we see our own attitudes and behaviors as the only valid ones possible, and we assert these as dogma, as the one true way in which things should be viewed. Probably listening to a political candidate for just a few minutes would be enough to convince most people that this dogmatic allness stance is all around us. (33) Let me give you just a few examples from history of persons who were so sure of their position that they asserted it as absolute dogma. In 1825, Nicholas Wood and his book, Practical Treatise on Railroads, said, It is far from my wish to promulgate to the world that the ridiculous expectations, or rather professions, of the enthusiastic speculist will be realized and that we shall see them, the railroads that is, traveling at the rate of twelve, sixteen, eighteen or twenty miles an hour. Nothing could do more harm towards their adoption or general improvement than the promulgation of such nonsense."
(34)

In 1860, Anthony Trollop said, All mankind has heard much of Monsieur Lessups and his Suez Canal. I have a very strong opinion that such a canal will not and cannot be made, that all the strengths in the arguments adduced in the matter are hostile to it and that steam navigation by land will and ought to be the means of transit through Egypt.

(35)

One last example: In 1913, Lee de Forrest who invented the audion tube which made radio broadcasting possible was charged with fraudulently using the United States mails to sell stock in the radio telephone company. In the trial, the district attovrney had this to say, de Forrest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company.

(36)

All of these consequences of allness are actually very closely related. All stem from the simple assumptions that "I can know all about something, and that I have, in fact, learned all, thought all, said all."

(37) There are many devices which could be suggested to combat this allness attitude. Let me just suggest two things we should become aware of and, perhaps, if these sink down into our nervous systems, we'll be effectively insulated against allness. (38)1. First, we need to become aware of the fact that whatever we perceive is an abstraction of the reality. What we perceive is only part of what actually exists. There is much more that we have not seen or heard or touched. Naturally, our conclusions must be based on our observations, but because our observations are inevitably limited, our conclusions must necessarily be tentative. Korzybski used an interesting example to illustrate that we are all limited in what we perceive.

1 l

Appendix II, Section D5: Allness D. Maas (39)

D5 page.7

The incident takes place in a railroad compartment in which four people are seatedan American grandmother, her young granddaughter, a Romanian officer and a Nazi officer. The train passes through a dark tunnel and all the lights go out. All that is heard is a loud kiss and an even louder slap. As the train pulls out of the tunnel and the lights go on, the grandmother thinks what a fine granddaughter she has raised. She wouldn't allow some stranger to kiss her and get away with it. The granddaughter thinks, "how strange that one of these men would kiss grandmother and that she would slap him so hard." The Nazi officer thinks, "How clever these R(jAianians are. They kiss the girl and get the other fellow slapped." The Romanian officer, pleased with his efforts thinks, "What a clever move, kissing my own hand and getting a chance to slap the Nazi."

(40)2. Second, we need to become aware of the fact that all statements about the infinitely complex and everchanging world should end with an explicit or implicit etc. No statement is ever completely descriptive of an infinitely complex, everchanging world, yet so many people act as if their statements do describe all. (41) Here's a letter appearing in an "advice to the lovelorn" column of a local newspaper (the girl starts off with a quote): (42) My girlfriend's mother caused the whole thing [the whole thing]. She kept teasing my boyfriend in front of everybody, saying I thought I had him wrapped around my little finger and a lot of stuff about imaginary dates I had with other boys. He' couldn't stand it, finally and we had a big fight and broke up.

(43) Whether or not the advice was of any help, I don't know, but the fact of the matter is that this girl, by saying and believing and acting as if her girlfriend's mother caused the whole thing, is unwilling and, in fact, very probably unable to see other possible causes to her breakup. (44) Here are two letters to the editor. The first is headed "Crime and Punishment" and reads: "God bless assemblymen Francis McCluskey of Wantaw. His plan urging surgery for rapists is the best and only solution to our problem." Note the insistence on this plan as being the "only solution to our problem." Here is another letter to the editor on the same problem and equally insistent on the one and only alternative. It reads, "I was just sick when I read about what was done to those eight women. The electric chair isn't good enough for him. He should be beaten and tortured to death. This is the only proper treatment for him." Again, note the insistence that "this is the only proper treatment." (45) Allness is indeed all around us, but if we remember that whatever we perceive is an abstraction and never complete and that what we say about the infinitely complex and everchanging world should end with an etc., we'll be a long way toward eliminating or at least lessening our tendency for allness.

D5 page.8 Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Define and illustrate the misevaluation pattern called allness. [D5 para.02] Identify the two false assumptions upon which allness rests. [D5 para.03] Illustrate from history examples of the allness misevaluation patterns. [D5 para.04] Identify and describe seven factors which prevent people from knowing all about anything. [D5 para.06] Explain the context in which space is a limiting factor in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para.06] Explain the context in which time is a limiting factor in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para.07] Explain the context in which complexity is a limiting factor in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para.08] Explain the context in which previous knowledge is a limiting factor in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para.09] Explain the context in which point of view and interest are limiting factors in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para.ll] Explain the context in which the nature of our sense organs is a limiting factor in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para. 12] Explain the context in which the flux of change is a limiting factor in attaining total knowledge of anything. [D5 para. 13] Explain how the Agassiz example illustrates the misevaluation pattern of allness. [D5 para.15] Discuss the relationship of the abstraction process with allness. [D5 para.18] Explain the general semantics assertion that any statement we make about an individual will be an abstraction of certain characteristics. [D5 para.18] Demonstrate examples of the uniqueness of abstracting. [D5 para. 19] Explain the application of the "six blind men and the elephant" parable to the allness misevaluation. [D5 para.20] Differentiate between "influencing factors" and "the cause." [D5 para.24] Describe four types of problems the allness misevaluation pattern (or assumption) creates. [D5 para.27] Explain the relationship of allness to the refusal to change. [D5 para.29] Explain the connection between allness and intolerance. [D5 para.30] Explain the relationship of the allness assumption with dogmatism. [D5 para.32] Identify and describe two general semantics devices to combat allness. [D5 para.38] Demonstrate how the consciousness of abstraction combats allness. [D5 para.39] Demonstrate how the consciousness of the etc. combats allness. [D5 para.40]

Appandix II, Section D5: Allness D. Maas Index

D5 page.9

I I I 1 i I i I I I I I i I i I

Abstracting Abstraction "Agaifcz" example Allness/allness langi'age/allness orientation Allness: combatting Allness: consequenses of Bacon, Francis Change "City block" exercise Combatting allness Complexity Consequenses of allness Dogmatism Etc. "A few buttons missing" de Forrest, Lee "If only" example Influencing factors Interest Intolerance of other people Korzybski, Alfred Language Habits in Human Affairs Lee, Irving Letters to editors Limiting factors to knowing all "Lovelorn advice" example Misevaluations/misevalualion patterns "Nazi in railroad tunnel" example One cause fallacy Perception Point of view and interest Practical treatise on railroads Previous knowledge: limiting factor to knowing all "Radio telephone" example Refusal to change Refusal to learn Refusal to look again Sense limitations Sense organs: nature of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" Space: limiting factor to knowing all "Suez canal" example Time: limiting factor to knowing all Trollop, Anthony "Tunnel" example Wood, Nicholas

19
19,45 14, 15, 16 2,6 37 36 1

13 28 37 8 36 32 40 23 35 23 25 11 30 38 3 4 44 5 41 2 39 24 45 11 33 () 35 29 27 28 12 12 20 7 34 7 34 39 33

I I I

Appendix II, Section D6: Static Evaluation D. Maas

D6 page.l

Static Evaluation Joseph DeVito Key Terms

Change Second-order feelings Dating Second-order love Electrochemical activities Self-moving (S.T.) Environment Semantic transactor (or, S.T.) Feeling activities (S.T.) Static evaluation First-order feelings Thinking activities (S.T.) First-order love (Relative) Invariance under transformation Law of gravity Mathematics (1) I'd like to begin this discussion by borrowing a little story told by John Magee in his book, The General Semantics of Wall Street: (2) A woman was visiting a fortress in Spain. It was a large fort, complete with park and shaded walk and a number of benches along the walks. At the main gate to the grounds, and at each of the other gates, there stood a sentry, and there were also sentries at the administration building, the armory, and so on. The woman also noticed that there was a sentry pacing back and forth, a post along one of the walks, back and forth in front of one of the benches. While watching, she saw another soldier appear, salute and relieve the sentry, and continue to walk the very same post before the bench. The woman asked the lieutenant who was guiding her over the grounds why a soldier was pacing in front of this bench. It wasn't near any of the buildings and it wasn't near any of the gates. The lieutenant explained that this was just one of the regular posts and as far as he could remember, there was always a sentry here; however, he said he would try to check the orders at the main office. On checking these, it appeared that the order had been issued several years earlier, at the time a new commander had been appointed. It was merely a copy of a previous standing order which called for a sentry at bench number twenty-three. Further search of the records carried back five years more, when the previous order had been issued, and this order had been made out to replace the previous one, since the old commander had been taken suddenly ill and had been replaced by another. It was a day or two before his illness that the original order had been placed, an order calling for a sentry at bench number twenty-three, which has just been painted. Through the accident of the new commander coming in, all of the orders were reissued. Inadvertently, this particular temporary order was issued without qualification and became a permanent order. So for over ten years a sentry had marched back and forth in front of bench number twenty-three and there was no mechanism for cancelling it. The soldiers who marched didn't ask any questions. The superiors, too,follpwed their orders. The clerks simply carried out the standing instructions. The commander had other matters to think about.

(3} Unfortunately, there are many sentries guarding a past that no longer exists. There are sentries standing in front of your admission into graduate schools. Many, if not most graduate schools, f example use your grade point average for four years of college to determine your admissio

D6 page.2 school. The fact that you might have done poorly the first two years, as, in fact, so many college students do, and during the last two years did extremely well, seems to matter little to the sentry who is only programmed to accept four year averages. (4) To a sentry standing in front of those who have a criminal record, for example, any person with a criminal record might not hold a federal job and probably many private corporations hold similar policies. The fact that the criminal record might have been earned twenty or thirty years ago, is immaterial to the sentry who can only read, "criminal record or no criminal record, if criminal record, no job." Former drug addicts, unwed mothers and many others in our society must also confront the sentries standing in the way of what they are rightfully entitled toa fair chance, a chance to be judged on the basis of the way they are now and not on the basis of something that happened years ago. (5) In an experiment described by Korzybski, a large fish was put in an aquarium. On the other side of the aquarium, a lot of little minnows were put in. Now the natural food for the large fish is the minnows and so he'll go after them. But let's suppose that we put a glass partition separating the large fish from the minnows. Now every time the fish will try to go after the minnows, he will swim smack into this glass partition and he may do this a hundred, two hundred, three hundred times. At some point, however, he learns that he will get hurt if he goes after the minnows. Of course no one knows how a fish learns, but presumably, some connection between swimming towards minnows and getting hurt is established so he gives this idea up and no longer attempts to eat the minnows. Now this is all very logical, but let's remove the partition. When this is done, the minnows will swim all around the large fish, but he will not attempt to catch them. Although the conditions have changed, the circumstances are different and he could have grabbed them easily, he did not attempt it, and in fact, if this were the only food around, he would probably die of starvation. (6) The point here is that animals, many animals, and unfortunately many people, when they've learned something, will learn it for all times and for all conditions. They will not adapt or change to changing conditions. Another way of looking at this inability to deal with change is as a case of overgeneralization. At first, when the fish learned that he would gel hurt if he went after the minnows, and stopped trying to catch them, this was a perfectly good generalization. When the partition was removed, however, the generalization was no longer applicable. In a sense, the large fish had a map of the minnows and the consequences of going after them, and he retained this map even when the reality, the territory, changed. (7) This experiment is very similar to the one in which rats were trained to jump through one of two doors, one door marked "X" was open. If the rat jumped through it there was food there and he was permitted to eat. The other door, marked "0," was locked and each time the rat jumped to it, he hurt himself and fell to the floor and of course didn't get any food. The rats, of course, soon learned to jump to door "X." After this learning, the situation was changed. Now "X" was locked and door "0" was open with the food plainly in sight, but the rats persisted in jumping at door "X," and eventually became neurotic. This experiment is an example of the famous experimentally-induced neurosis type in which animals are frustrated beyond their tolerance levels and have what in humans would be termed a nervous breakdown. At any rate, the point here is that the rats, like the large fish, were not able to adapt to change. They had learned something and had learned it for all times and for all situations. Put another way, their over-generalization prevented them from solving the problem effectively and efficiently. (8) Irving Lee tells the story of a young boy, five years of age, who was frightened by the loud and sudden noise of an on-rushing locomotive. The fear experienced by the boy, from something he was unfamiliar with, was certainly justified, but this boy's reaction of fear to trains remained with him and now at sixty-five, he still has this fear of trains which prevents him from moving more than a mile or so from his home. Here a reaction, once appropriate and justified, persists into a time when it's no longer appropriate and no longer justified. As Lee puts it, the phrase, "fear of distance," remains to preserve the pattern of the response, even though the life-facts have been in process for sixty years. (9) Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher, once said that a man could not step into the same river twice. The logic of this statement was that the river is constantly changing. Heraclitus might also have mentioned, however, that a man could not step into the same river twice because the man, much like the river, is also constantly changing. Korzybski, in an effort to emphasize this point, I'm told, used to start

Appendix II, Section D6: Static Evaluation D. Maas

D6 page.3

his class session by placing an apple on a table and every session would point out that the apple had changed. I also tried this method and it worked rather well. The students, at least once per class had their attention called to change. One student, though, suggested that instead of using an apple, which by the end of the semester had become terribly rotten, and showed decay, I should have planted a flower which would emphasize both change and growth, which perhaps would be more suitable to a class situation (so next semester I am determined to plant a flower). (10) Everything is in a constant state of process, of change. The earth, seemingly static, is actually constantly in motion. Minute waves are continuously moving through the rocks over the entire surface of the earth, and, of course, the earth is forever revolving around the sun. Even your desk and pencil and pen are composed of infinitesimal particles whirling about. Although we can't see the changes going on in such seemingly static objects like desks and pens and pencils, we do know that, given enough time, they would rot and crumble. But most important for our purposes, is that people changetheir ways of behaving, their attitudeseverything about them changes. (11) William Haney, in his excellent Communication and Organizational Behavior, cites two very interesting examples illustrating change. The first is a 1925 mandate vigorously enforced in Illinois, regarding proper beach wear. It reads: For women, blouse and bloomer suits may be worn with or without skirts, with or without stockings, providing the blouse has one-quarter arm sleeve or close-fitting armholes and providing the bloomers are full and not shorter than four inches above the knee. Men's suits must have skirt effect or shirt worn outside of trunks, except when flannel knee pants with belt are worn. The trunks must not be shorter than four inches above the knee and the skirt must not be shorter than two inches above the bottom of the trunk. (12) The second is a list of rules given to each employee by one of Chicago's largest department stores in the 1830s. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Store must be swept and counters and base shelves and showcase dusted. Lamp trimmed, filled and chimney cleared. Pens made. Doors and windows opened. A pail of water and a scuttle of coal must be brought in by each clerk before breakfast. Store must not be opened on the Sabbath day unless absolutely necessary and then only for a few minutes. Any employee who is in the habit of smoking Spanish cigars, getting shaved at a barbershop, going to dances and other such places of amusement will most certainly give his employer reason to be suspicious of his integrity and all-around honesty. Each employee must pay not less than five dollars per year to the church and must attend Sunday school every Sunday. Men employees are given one evening a week for courting purposes and two, if they go to prayer meetings regularly. After fourteen hours of work in the store, leisure time must be spent in reading good literature.

(13) Things certainly have changed, but we need not go back to 1880, or even 1925, to find examples of change. Consider some of the forms of behavior which are commonplace today and yet which would have been shocking just ten or twenty or so years ago. Just from looking around my neighborhood, here are a few of the symbols I see: long hair on men; advertisements for birth control pills; a gay liberation poster; hot pants; cosmetics for men; abortion centers; women taxi cab drivers; "black is beautiful" posters; newspapers such as Screw, and Pleasure; black-and-white couples; books such as The Sensuous Woman, The

D6 page.4 Sensuous Man; movies such as / am Curious, Yellow, Censorship in Denmark, Fortune in Men's Eyes; plus the assorted sixteen millimeter productions playing throughout the city; husbands doing things once exclusively done by wives, such as shopping, housework, laundry, and so on; colleges shut down by students; Afro hairdos and tushegees; programmed textbooks and teaching machines. (14) Of course if you wanted to go back just a hundred years and search the things we have now but have been unheard of then, the list would have been practically endless and it would include some of our most important things: airplanes, television, automobiles, telephones, subways, air conditioning, so on. What we sometimes fail to realize is that, ten or twenty or thirty years from now, we will find behaviors accepted as commonplace which we now consider taboo or perhaps haven't even thought of. Everything changes, whether it be our method of transportation, our communications media, our manner of dress, our attitudes, our behaviors, all these and many more are in a constant state of change. I wouldn't even attempt to estimate how many problems are caused every day because people are unwilling or unable to recognize and adjust to change. How many parents have become emotionally upset because their sons wanted to wear long hair or live in a commune or drop out of college? How many people have refused to go to the movies because of the frequency of nudityor to the theatre, for that matter? How many marital problems and divorces have been caused because husbands could not or would not adjust to the changing role of women in general, and wives, in particular? (15) Change is perhaps the one and only constant in the world. Change is the one thing we can be surethe one thing we know will happen. This, of course, applies to all things, but especially to people. What we need to do, I think, is to keep our evaluations, our attitudes, our feelings, in pace with the changes in people, objects and events. When people change, our evaluations of them should also change, but with many people, their attitudes and evaluations remain static, frozen. Here one woman writes to the "Voice of the People" column in a newspaper. Notice how she is unable or unwilling to recognize change. "So Stalin's daughter came here to tell us that it's good to be free and that she will tell us all she knows. Since when do the Reds change their color?" I guess the answer to this woman would be that "Reds" change their colors just about as often as whites, blacks, yellows or what have you. (16) I'd like to emphasize that what we're saying about change applies to the event level. It is on this level that change takes place. The universality of change does not deny what we may regard as universal truths. These statements exist on a higher level of abstraction and are not subject to the same laws as things on the event level. In fact, these higher order abstractions called "invariants under transformation" by Korzybski, who borrowed the term from mathematics, do not change in their basic meanings or structural relationships regardless of the situation or the time. The laws of nature are invariants under transformation, for example, the law of gravity. Although this law may not give precise answers to any given question, for example, when a ball will hit the floor, it does give us a sort of formula which will tell us when the ideal ball, under ideal conditions, will hit the floor. The real ball and the real hitting of the floor will of course be influenced by numerous factors such as the wind, the temperature and so on. (17) The law of gravity, as a high-order abstraction, does not change. In fact, all high-order abstractions, like the law of gravity, are static. The law of gravity is called an invariant under transformation because the law does not vary depending on the thing to which it is appliedto a falling ball, to a bullet shot from a gun and so on. That is, regardless of the transformationsdifferent situations, different times, different objectsregardless of these transformations, the law of gravity equation . . . in the law of gravity equation, for example, the law does not vary. It is invariant. (18) This is the very same notion that Einstein was referring to when he said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.* Invariants under transformations are high order abstractions which do not change. They are static. When applied to the nonverbal level, they do vary but only relatively little. They have a wide range of predictability and a high degree of probability of being correct. What we need to do, it seems, is two things. (19)1. First, we must recognize that everything changes, and this is most important when talking about people. Bess SondeHfc in her Humanity of Words, puts it this way:

Appendix II, Section D6: Static Evaluation D. Maas (20)

D6 page.5

Change calls for a fresh look. It calls for the question, "What's different about this human being today, from yesterday?" Put differently, what we have to do is to substitute the conscious premise of change for the unconscious premise of non-change. This, of course, leads to the question, "Can the conscious levels control the unconscious feeling levels?" That is, if we feel something down deep, can that feeling be changed or controlled consciously?

(21) In Levels of Knowing and Existence, Harry Weinberg argues that it can. The theory goes something like this: Let's take the example of love. Now, we can love someone, and this love of someone is a first-order love. That is, it is a feeling about the object level. There is also, however, another kind of love, which might be called a second-order love, and this second-order love would be a love of love. Put differently, we can say, love a person (first-order love) and we can also love our love of this person (second-order love). First- and second-order loves are extremely common. We have all probably had the feeling of happiness about loving someone or something and we, in fact, came to love our love. That is, we were pleased with or happy over our loving this person or thing. (22) We can also, of course, hate our love. We might, for example, fall in love with someone which we consciously recognize as not good for us and so we come to hate our love. We become displeased with the fact that we love this person or thing. Likewise, we can hate our hate. Many of us, for example, have some kind of prejudice or irrational dislike of someone or some group, and we may hate this person or group and that's a first order hate. But, if we recognize that this hate is wrong and unproductive, we may come to hate our hate. (23) Now, according to Weinberg, our second-order feelings which we can consciously control, can influence greatly our first-order feelings. We can't directly control our first order feelings. We can't choose to love or hate something, but we can choose to love our love or hate our hate or hate our love, etc., and in effect, by doing this, we influence our first-order feelings and thus come to control them more rationally. (24) Weinberg goes still further and proposes a kind of mathematical formula. If you have two positive emotions, for example, you love your love, then the first order love will increase. Two positives multiplied gives you a positive. If you have two negative emotions, you hate your hate, for example, your hate will lessen, or put differently, the positive emotion will increase. Two negatives multiplied give you a positive. On the other hand, if you hate your love, a negative times a positive, your love will lessen. A negative * times a positive results in a negative. Similarly, if you love your hate, a positive times a negative, the result is a negative. Your hate will grow. A positive times a negative results in a negative. Weinberg didn*t have the opportunity to develop this idea as fully as he wanted to, but he did provide us, I think, with a seemingly very logical analysis of feelings and emotions. In any event, I think it's an extremely interesting type of notion to think about, but back to change. (25) If our conscious levels can control, at least partly, our subconscious levels, then by consciously accepting the notion of change, we may eventually be able to substitute our present static conceptions of people and things for process conception which sees people and things and events as in a never-ending fluid motion and in a never-ending change. (26)2. Second, we should date our statements. All statements referring to reality should be dated since the reality to which they refer is always changing. John Smith, 1968 is certainly not John Smith today. Our parents ten years ago are not the same as our parents today. They've changed and perhaps they may not have changed as much as we would want them to; they nevertheless have changed and our attitudes towards them should likewise change.

D6 page.6 (27) Let me conclude this part of the discussion with one really terrible example of change. This example is really so bad that I hope that, because of this, it will stick in your mind and with it, the notion of constant change. The example comes from the New York Post, dated April, 1965, and headed The Instant Traffic Ticket." (28) The city meter maids, those whips of steel who guard the sanctity of the dime-an-hour parking space may have met their match. A Bronx woman has challenged the maids and the traffic department over a fifteen dollar ticket planted on her car Wednesday night. "You see," said the woman, "there were no meters when I parked there and went to bed. When I woke up, there were meters and a ticket. During the night, the traffic department moved into the area and installed the meters on the stanchions in the street. Close on their heels were the meter maids leaving behind five tickets.

The moral: everything changes, even parking meters, (29) In Korzybski's structural differential, which we discussed earlier, we have a model of reality and language, and of the relationships between language and reality, and of course, the model depends on or operates only as man exists. If man did not exist, that is, if there were no symbol-using animal, there would be no such thing as a structural differential, not only because there would be no man to invent it, but also because there would be no levels of abstracting, no verbal levels, etc. Korzybski's diagram, or model, however, while emphasizing man, doesn't explain very explicitly his nature, that is, doesn't explain how man functions or why he functions in one way rather than another. So for this we need another model. Together, the two models will define much of general semantics and will clarify the theoretical foundations upon which general semantics rests. That is, it will explain not only the nature of language and reality, but more clearly, the nature of this symbol-using animal called man. (30) The model of man which I*d like to consider comes from J. S. Bois's The Art of Awareness (this book, by the way, I recommend most highly). Bois has modified some of his earlier formulations in a more recent book, entitled Breeds of Men, and you might wish to consult this work as well. This model illustrates the notion of reality in process and change so well that I wanted to include it in this discussion of static evaluation. By using it as a kind of conclusion to this discussion, I hope to leave you with a very vivid picture of man in a constant state of change, an image and a principle which is too important to forget. Logically, however, this model also provides an excellent orientation or introduction to general semantics, but I know of no better way to emphasize process and change than by presenting this model, called by Bois, "Man as a Semantic Reactor." (31) Our present model of man, I should mention, probably dates back to Aristotle. Man is a rational animal. According to this model, a way of looking at man, man is composed of two elements; one is the mind, the rational part; and one is the body, the animal part, or put differently, one is spirit and one is matter. One displays rationality and one displays animality. This model of these two distinct aspects of man still, of course, influences our way of looking at the world and at man and is evidenced in the many "common sense" dichotomies such as mind versus body, psychological versus physical and so on. (32) Bois, and I think most general semanticists would agree, preferred to define, not what man is, but rather what man does, and certainly he does not pretend to define all the things that man does but rather to consider only those activities which seem most significant in light of what science tells us about man. Now, let me first describe the general structure of the model so that you might draw it, and then we'll discuss each aspect in turn. You might want to listen to the entire description once because it's kind of a complicated drawing and then begin to draw while listening to it a second time. (33) In the center is an atomic figure. This symbol consists of four oval-shaped figures which intersect each other at one end. If we visualize a clock face, we might be better able to describe the figure. The four ovals overlap each other at the center of the watch, much like the minute and hour hands overlap at the center. One oval points to around eleven o'clock, one to around one o'clock, one to around five o'clock and one to around seven o'clock. This atomic-like figure is enclosed in a kind of cloud-like formation which is labelled "environment." Each of the ovals is also labelled. One is "electrochemical,"

Appendix II, Section D6: Static Evaluation D. Maas

D6 page. 7

one is "self moving," one is "feeling," and one is "thinking." Next, draw an arrow from the center of the atomic-like figure to the cloud-like enclosure labelled "environment." Arrowheads should be at both ends because we want to indicate reciprocal interaction between the center of the atomic-like figure and the cloud-like formation, that is, we want to show that each influences the other. (34) In the upper left-hand corner of the cloud-like formation, there is an identical figure, but smaller in size. This figure consists of an atomic-like figure enclosed in a cloud-like formation and is labelled "past." In the upper right-hand corner, there is an identical figure but this one is labelled "future." The cloud-like structures enclosing both the past and the future atomic symbols should be partially hidden by the large cloud-like structure enclosing the center figure which is the "present." Or, put differently, the center figure should be superimposed over part of the cloud-like structures of the past and future symbols. The entire figure is called "Man as a Semantic Reactor." First, let's explain each of the four center ovals. (35) These are the activities of man. The electrochemical activities start with the operation of DNA and RNA in the genes and includes such activities as the metabolism of the cells, the firing of the neurons, the reactions to various drugs and anesthetics, the effects of LSD, of energizers and tranquilizers, ups and downs, and so on. Such activities are revealed by laboratory analyses, by electroencephalograms, electrocardiograms, and various other techniques. (36) Self-moving activities. These activities include sensory perceptions and adjustments. The autonomic movements of the vital organs: the heart, lungs, stomach, intestines, etc. Also included here are the skilled movements of the typist, machine operator, the athlete, the artist. Various group activities are also included here: military drills, religious rituals, parades, sit-ins, sleep-ins, love-ins, and so on. (37) Feeling activities, these activities are more typically human and include such things as drives and needs and also purposes and ambitions, desires, reactions to values, and so on. This is the area of love and hate, indifference and commitment, of levels of aspiration, of trust and friends, of contempt for enemies, and so on. (38) Thinking activities. These include all those which involve symbolization, such as conceptualizing or talking to ourselves, talking to others by word of mouth, by writing, by sign language, by diagrams, by facial expression. They include listening, reading, speaking and writing, asking questions, solving problems, planning, reaching decisions, and so on. (39) These four activitieselectrochemical, self-moving, feeling, and thinkingare not separate and distinct activities but rather overlap and interact. They're all aspects of an organismic process. For example, when you're given an anesthetic, you stop moving, feeling, and thinking. When you're emotionally excited, your muscular tonus changes and your thoughts are stimulated or confused. Participating in a religious ritual, a parade, or sit-in all give purpose and more direction and heightened feeling. Man must be viewed as a whole, not as being composed simply of mind and body. That is, man is a single, complex, integrated organism whose activities may be described under at least these four different aspects. This complex reaction of the whole organism is called a semantic reaction, that is, a reaction that's determined by what the actual situation, the outside event, the words that are spoken, the thought that occurs, the hope that emerges, but what the actual situation means to the individual at the moment. (40) Man, however doesn't function in a vacuum but rather in an environment which he influences and which in turn influences him. The environment has, of course, many different aspects: physical, psychological, social, cultural, professional, racial, national, etc. The environment is also indefinite. At times it extends far and at times it does notthis is indicated by the cloud-like structure. Man influences and is influenced by his environment. The world into which we were born was a function of the natural environment or of nature and of the men who came before us. And the world we will leave to the next generation will be, in large part, a function of our making, of our influence. (41) Man also, however, functions in relation to lime. Man's reactions are in part a function of his past experiences, his past learning, and also a function of his futureas he anticipates it and as he plans for it. That is, man's reactions to his environment are dependent upon, in part, his past and his anticipated or envisioned future. According to this model then, man can be described as a thinking, feeling, self-moving, ejectro-chemical organism in constant transaction with the space-lime environment.

D6 page.8 (42) Now, let me state some corollaries with this model of man as a semantic reactor. There are of course, many implications of the model. Bois in his Art of Awareness discusses twelve. Here I will only mention a few, but 1 strongly urge you to consult Bois for a more complete account of this model and its implications. One implication is that the larger framethat of the present, is the center of gravity of the entire system. If the center is moved, say in terms of our emphasis to the past in being regrets or recollections, or to the future, say in wishful thinking, then the entire system goes out of balance. I think that part of the reason for the popularity of Zen and awareness-training rests on the emphasis they give to the present. Apparently we need help to learn to live in the present. But even though we must emphasize the present, the past and the future can't be ignored. The past has influenced us, and we are in part a product of the past, and the future, although unpredictable, cannot be ignored or left blank. (43) Another corollary is that no two persons can react to an event, word, or person in exactly the same way. This must be so since the seven dimensions of each person's semantic reactions can never coincide in all respects. The amazing thing is not that we disagree or that there are breakdowns in communication, but rather that we agree and see things in essentially the same way so often. The implication which I think is most important is that no reaction is exclusively intellectual or exclusively emotional or exclusively physiological. Man reacts as a whole, whether we are conscious of it or not. Solving a problem or making a decision, for example, is not merely a matter of logical analysis, although the textbooks generally make it out to bea matter of carefully weighing the pros and cons, of thinking clearly and logically. Rather it is a task of the entire organism and therefore may be greatly helped by such changes and aspects other than thinking, perhaps relaxation and freedom of movement which on the surface may appear to have little relation to the specific problem at hand. (44) Lastly we should jaojp that the model makes clear that communication between two people is therefore not a matter of/texchanging of objective information, but rather an exchange of semantic reactions, each of which contains a great deal more than objective information. There are, as I've said various other implications which might be derived from this model. But these few should give you some idea of its value as a description of man as a whole, in constant interaction with a space-time environment. Man and everything about him and around him are in a constant state of change.

I I I I I I I I

Appendix II, Section D6: Static Evaluation D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

D6 page. 9

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Discuss the relationship of static evaluation to generalization. [D6 para.05J Explain how the "fish-minnow" story of Korzybski illustrates static evaluation or failure to date. [D6 para.05] Using examples from novels or motion pictures, illustrate how cultural norms have changed [a.04] Illustrate some societal problems which have their origin in resistance to change. [D6 para. 14] Define and illustrate what Korzybski referred to as [relative] invariance under transformation. [D6 para. 16] Provide examples of what Korzybski referred to as [relative] invariance under transformation. [D6 para. 16] Differentiate between first and second order love. [D6 para.21] Differentiate between first and second order feelings. [D6 para.21] Explain how second order feelings can control or moderate first order feelings. [D6 para.23] Summarize the mathematical formula which Weinberg used to analyze the influence of first order feelings on second order feelings or vice versa. [D6 para.24] Provide examples of the general semantics extensional device known as dating. [D6 para.26] Summarize and describe the components of J.S. Bois' semantic transactor model. [D6 para.30] Explain the dichotomous model of man as developed by Aristotle. [D6 para.31] Reconstruct the semantic transactor model. [D6 para.32] Explain the functions of the cloud-like figures in the J. S. Bois semantic transactor. [D6 para. 34] Identify and describe those characteristics (on the semantic transactor) which depict electrochemical activities. [D6 para.35] Identify and describe those characteristics (on the semantic transactor) which depict self-moving activities. [D6 para. ] Identify and describe those characteristics (on the semantic transactor) which depict feeling activities. [D6 para.37] Identify and describe those characteristics (on the semantic transactor) which depict thinking activities. [D6 para.38] Explain how the semantic transactor illustrates the interdependency of man's activities. [D6 para.39J Describe what Bois referred to as a "transaction." [D6 para.40] Identify the three corollaries DeVito describes on the Bois semantic transactor model. [D6 para.42]

D6 page. 10 Index
-

"Apple" example Art of Awareness "Beach wear 1925" example Bois, J. S. Breeds of Men Change "Chicago department store" example Communication and Organizational Behavior Corrollaries of model (semantic transactor) Dating Einstein Electrochemical activities (semantic transactor) Environment Feeling activities (semantic transactor) First order feeling First order love "Fortress in Spain sentry" example Fish/minnow example The General Semantics of Wall Street Haney, William Heraclitus Humanity of Words Invariance under transformation Korzybski, Alfred Law of gravity Lee, Irving Levels of Knowing Levels of Knowing and Existence "List of Rules 1880" example "Locomotive11 example Magee Mathematics "Meter Maid" example Past/Future (semantic transactor) "Rat" example Second order feelings Second order love Self-moving activities (semantic transactor) Semantic transactor Sondet| Bess "Stalin*s Daughter" example Static evaluation Thinking activities (semantic transactor) Weinberg, Harry

9 30 11 30 30 14 12 11 42 26 18 35 40 37 21 21 5 1 11 19 16, 18 9 17 8 21 24 12 8 1 18 28 34 7 21, 25 21 36 30 19 15 1 38 24

Appendix II, Section D7: Indiscrimination D. Maas

D7 page.l

Indiscrimination Joseph DeVito Key Terms

Categorizing/classifying Failure to discriminate Failure to index Index Indexing Indiscrimination Non-identity principle Stereotypes Uniqueness, principle of (1) Some time ago, the following anecdote appeared in a national magazine. My wife had the practice of storing all of her kitchen items in canisters and though she never marked them, she knew exactly where everything went. While she was away on a visit with the children, I decided to wash out some of my shirts. She returned just in time to find me in a most unmanageable situation. The washing machine was spewing forth some horrible mess. "But I followed the directions to the letter," I said, while now the entire kitchen was filled with white, gooey foam. When my wife asked which soap flakes I had used, I pointed to the canister only to be told that that was not soap flakes but instant mashed potatoes. (2) Though most of us have probably and hopefully not had the experience of mistaking instant mashed potatoes for soap flakes, we have probably had similar experiences in which we mistook one thing for another, that is, where we overlooked the differences and, concentrating on similarities, mistook one thing for another. (3) This type of behavior has been called indiscrimination. More specifically, indiscrimination is a type of behavior which occurs when a person fails to recognize slight differences, variations, and nuanceswhen an individual is unable, or perhaps unwilling, to distinguish, to differentiate, to separate apparently similar things from one another. Indiscrimination is the neglect of differences, while similarities are overemphasized. Indiscrimination is a type of behavior which denies a very simple but very important fact about the real world and that is that uniquenessnon-identityis its characteristic. No two things in the real world are identical. Each is unique. (4) Walter Marvin, in his An Introduction to Systematic Philosophy, explains this idea of uniqueness, of non-identity so well that I'd like to quote a pertinent passage (one also used by Irving Lee) to illustrate this uniqueness in our world. (5) What could seem more nearly alike than the pebbles strewn along the seashore, but do we ever find two really the same? On the maple, the leaves all look sufficiently alike to be recognized at once as maple leaves, yet how easy it is to pick any two and notice a difference between them. In some families, the common type of feature is so marked that we can recognize even strangers as members, yet seen together we easily distinguish even the very closely resembling twins. From cases of this near similarity of feature we turn our attention to that of faces in a great crowd. All are distinctly human, but there seem to be never two alike, so we could go on recalling the wonderful variety throughout every

D7 page.2 type or sort of object in the world. It is true, we should have to stop when we came to objects too small for us to see or in some way directly to perceive. Thus it is true that you and I may not be able to find any difference between one set of items of hydrogen and the atoms of the same element elsewhere, but still there comes to one the belief that, could we only see them, as we see the leaves on the maple tree, the same wonderful variety would reveal itself here also. Is there any end to it, as far as we can judge, or as far as the facts of nature lead us to believe? We have to answer no and thus regard the world as composed of objects admitting of an indefinite variety. Not only do these objects themselves differ, but their motions seem likewise to differ wherever we are able to observe them carefully. Whoever threw a stone through absolutely the same path in the air, landing upon the identical spot of ground as did the stone before that? In short, who of us ever repeated an act with absolute accuracy? A careful measurement or observation would be sure to show parts of the act, a little different in the one case, from like parts in the other. We may try to play a piece of music twice over, but every time we do so, and are keenly observant, we are sensitive to differences, and what is true in some complicated activities, as our own, seems equally true for the best of reasons of the simple activities in the world about us. What day is the exact repetition of some previous day in the atmosphere and temperature? What river flows two successive days in exactly the same channel? We hear over and over of human nature being ever the same and of history repeating itself", but we do not mean this except in a rough way. No two instances of human conduct, no two stages in the world's history or in a nation's are mere repetitions. A new element and a very large new element is sure to be found if our observation and information be but fairly accurate and complete. Thus we find, no matter where we look (and we believe we could find even where our senses fail at present, to reveal it) an indefinite variety of objects and an indefinite variety of actions or changes taking place in or through these objects.

(6)

(7)

(8) Indiscrimination is most clearly seen in what is called stereotyping. Stereotype was originally a printing term and meant the plate which printed the same picture or drawing over and over again. The stereotype, then, meant something reproduced or repeated without variation, or as Webster's defines it, "something conforming to a fixed or general pattern and lacking individual, distinguishing marks or qualities." Thus a psychological, or say, a sociological stereotype is a fixed mental picture of some group of persons which represents the group in an oversimplified manner. (9) Most, if not all of us, entertain stereotypes of some groups. Although we may not like to admit it, we are probably not immune to oversimplifying the characteristics of any specific group. There have probably been hundreds, if not thousands, of studies done on stereotyping behavior, bul for our purposes, I'd like to go back to a study conducted in 1932. In this study, Princeton University students were asked to supply the traits they felt most accurately describe various national or racial groups. I'd like to read you to try to assign these groups of traits to one of the following groups. In this study, ten groups were investigated and these were: Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, and the English. I'll simply read the list of the six most frequently assigned traits and you try to fill in the group to which these traits were originally assigned by the subjects in this study. (10) 1. 2. The first list: scientifically minded, industrious, stolid, intelligent, methodical, extremely nationalistic. Did this list refer to the Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or the English? Let's take another list: artistic, impulsive, passionate, quick-tempered, musical, imaginativeIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English?

Appendix II, Section D7: Indiscrimination D. Maas

D7 page.3

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Third list: sportsmanlike, intelligent, conventional, tradition-loving, conservative, reservedIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? Fourth list: shrewd, mercenary, industrious, grasping, intelligent, ambitiousIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? Fifth list: industrious, intelligent, materialistic, ambitious, progressive, pleasurelovingIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? Sixth list: superstitious, lazy, happy-go-lucky, ignorant, musical, ostentatiousIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? Seventh list: pugnacious, quick-tempered, witty, honest, very religious, industriousIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? The eighth list: superstitious, sly, conservative, tradition-loving, loyal to family ties, industriousIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? Ninth list: intelligent, industrious, progressive, shrewd, sly, quietIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, Jews, or English? The tenth and last list: cruel, very religious, treacherous, sensual, ignorant, physically dirtyIrish, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Negroes, Germans, Italians, Americans, -Jews, or English?

(11) For our purposes, it's not important how the original subjects, the Princeton students, assigned these traits to these national and racial groups, but if you are interested, the study is called "Verbal stereotypes in Racial Prejudice" and was conducted by Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braley and it appears in a book called Readings in Social Psychology, the Third Edition, edited by Maccabee, Newcomb and Hartley. My purpose in going through these lists of traits and asking you to supply the group to which they applied, was to illustrate two points. (12) 1. First, I wanted to illustrate that we all recognize certain traits as "belonging" to certain groups. When we're questioned about how reasonable assigning these traits to these groups is, we may then say that it's not a very logical procedure. That is, intellectually, we may know that these traits are not within any group or not accurate descriptive labels, yet on a more visceral, emotional level we seem to feel that one list better describes one group than another, and so I wanted to illustrate that stereotypes are most peculiar things. We may know intellectually that they are false to facts, yet emotionally they seem quite comfortable. Second, I used a study conducted so many years ago, 1932, to illustrate the tremendously resistant nature of stereotypes. If comparable study were done today, I think we'd find very similar results. Stereotypes common forty years ago are very likely still with us.

(13)

2.

(14) In another study, a group of college students was shown a group of unidentified photographs of young ladies and were asked to rate each of these photographs in terms of general likability, beauty, and so on. Two months later, the very same photographs were shown, but this time fictitious names were attached. The names were Irish, Italian, Jewish, and American. When these names were attached, the ratings changed drasticallyfaces representing other national groups went down, while those of supposedly American girls went up. (15) Stereotypes probably begin very early in life. In one experiment, for example, children in an elementary school were studied. The experimenter secretly asked the most popular youngsters to make errors in their morning gym exercises. Then he asked the class if anyone had seen any errors. The

D7 page.4 interesting thing was that the class noticed the errors but remembered the unpopular students as having made them, rather than the popular ones who actually did make the errors. (16) The question which studies on stereotypes pose, I think, is simply, "why?" How do we account for stereotypes? How were they developed? Why is there so much agreement on stereotypes among people in different areas of the country and at different times? Stereotypes would be easy to account for if we could assume the different groups actually possessed the qualities which are attributed to them, but this clearly is false. There are such wide differences within any national or racial group that any similarities seem small and insignificant. Certainly not all Frenchmen are the same, not all Jews are the same, not all Italians are the same, and so on. Also, it's very likely that persons in these studies, say the Princeton students, had actually very little opportunity to know or observe many, if any, people from some of these groups. How many Turks, for example, have you met? And, of course, if our impressions were derived from actual contact or observation, our impressions would be extremely varied and different since we would each have had different experiences and hence we would have each drawn different conclusions. (17) It seems more likely that throughout our learning, from reading, viewing television and so on, we've absorbed certain mental pictures of these different groups. It's extremely difficult for anyone to treat each individual item with which he comes into contact differently, and so we group things as well as people into classes, into categories, and we say, "Well he's an X and she's a Y." We seem to follow the law of least effort. It's easier to categorize someone and then respond to that individual with our previously learned and ingrained behaviors rather than to act towards each individual as if he were an individual. (18) On hearing this tape, my guess is that you're saying that you don't do this, and perhaps not, but I think that at least in some cases we all do this to at least some degree. We may not entertain such rigid stereotypes as say, the Princeton students of forty years ago, but we probably have some stereotypes: perhaps of hippies, perhaps of businessmen, perhaps of teachers, perhaps of scientists, perhaps of prostitutes, perhaps of women's libbers, perhaps of actors, perhaps of homosexuals, perhaps of Black Panthers, and so on. Intellectually we know that each individual is an individual and yet we somehow group people together into classes and entertain these stereotypes. And it seems the less experience we have with members of any given group, the more we rely on our stereotypes. (19) Stereotypes certainly provide us with a convenient short cul in evaluation. Why analyze this one individual when you can simply look at the label, at the group of which he is a member? Why bother with details and differences when you can more reasonably look for the similarities? If a person is an exconvict, for example, then it's easier to apply the stereotype for ex-convicts than it is to look into this particular individual, the reasons and causes, for example, for his having committed the crime, and so on. (20) There is nothing wrong with classifying, with categorizing, with grouping. We have to do this in order to talk, in order to think. The problem arises when we concentrate solely on similarities and ignore the differences. The problem arises when we have the opportunity to observe an individual directly and we only see him through his label. The problem arises when we categorize first and observe second. Wendell Johnson put it this way: "To a mouse, cheese is cheese, and that's why mousetraps work." But cheese in a trap and cheese on a table are two entirely different things, and so are two people different whether they are both Frenchmen, both ex-convicts, both businessmen, both politicians, etc. (21) Each individual is an individual. It's a simple principle, but one which is extremely difficult to internalize. When I took my first course in generalsemantics and heard this principle, I was absolutely sure I understood it and had learned it, and when I started to teach, even when I started to teach generalsemantics, I thought I knew this simple principleeach individual is an individual. Yet here I was walking into a new classroom with the idea that these students would be the same as the students I had last semester. Here I was confronted with forty faces, none exactly alike, but all students. It look me quite a long time to learn that each of these forty students was an individual and I couldn't react to each one in the same way and I couldn't expect each student to react to me in the same way, and so on. Now I think I've learned the principle, but hopefully, I'll learn it even more next year and more the year after that, and that's at once, I think, the beauty and the difficulty of such common sense principles. We can know them on so many different levels.

Appendix II, Section D7: Indiscrimination

D. Maas

D7 page.5

(22) Here, for example is a letter from a young girl, written to "Advice in Matters of the Heart" column. This girl very probably knows that each boy is different, and yet, doesn't really know it. She writes: I've been going steady with Bill for six months now. He treats me kindly, takes me any place I want to go and buys me many presents. He tells all his friends and mine that he loves me and wants to marry me. I've met his entire family and right in front of his mother he told me he's going to give me an engagement ring soon. If someone told me this story, I'd say there isn't any problem, but alas there is. I'm as jealous as they come. I used to go out with a boy who cheated on me and since then I've been suspicious of all men. (23) Let me read that one line again. "I used to go out with a boy who cheated on me and since then I've been suspicious of all men." My boyfriend lives alone and if he tells me he's staying home one night, I call at least once to make sure. When he tells me he loves me, I ask him if he's saying it because he has a guilty mind. And the letter continues in much the same vein. The columnist advises this girl that her jealousy stems from feelings of inadequacy and lack of selfconfidence and that she has probably had "a latent problem with jealousy long before your exboyfriend brought it to the surface," and on and on. There is no mention of the very simple principle that Bill, an individual, is an individual and responses to a previous boyfriend are simply not appropriate to another boyfriend. (24) Here is another letter to the lovelorncolumn, but here it is the boy who fails to recognize differences. His girlfriend writes: I'm a girl of sixteen who's going with a soldier who is now in Viet Nam. He is afraid that I will leave him for someone else. I have never cheated on this boy since he left for overseas. I write to him all the time and have promised to wait for him. He has told me that he loves me and I love him too. The problem is that he doesn't believe me. You see, he had another girl before me who promised to wail for him and then didn't. Now he thinks I'm going to do the same thing to him. Please tell me how I can make him have trust in me. (25) Another area in which the failure to index creates problems and misunderstandings is when different cultures meet. The common thread underlying many of these misunderstandings seems to be the unconscious assumption of sameness, the failure to recognize that people from different cultures view the same behaviors in very different ways. Let me give you some examples. In most western cultures, spitting is a sign of disgust and displeasure; however, for the Masai of Africa, it's a sign of affection, and for the African it may be an act of kindness when, for example, the medicine man spits on the sick in order to cure them. Sticking out your tongue, to westerners, is an insult, to the Chinese of the Sung dynasty, however, it served as a symbol to mock terror or to make fun of the anger of another individual, and 10 the modern south Chinese, it serves to express embarrassment over some social mistake. (26) Arabs, for example, touch each other a great deal in communicating whereas Americans don't, and because of this, it's easy for Americans to interpret the Arab's touching behavior as evidence of their being forward or pushy and it's just as easy for the Arab to interpret the American's lack of touching as evidence of his being cold and distant. The Chinese, on the other hand, seem to strongly resent being touched and slapped on the back, say, as some Americans are apt to do and may interpret this as unnecessary aggressiveness. If you, for example, were at an airport or, say a train station, and offered to carry a visitor's luggage, you'd probably do this out of politeness, as a kind of gesture of friendship. But to people

D7 page.6 in some cultures this wouldn't be looked at as a gesture of friendship or of politeness, but would simply signify that you were a person of low status. (27) When Khrushchev visited the United States in 1959, a photograph of him smiling and shaking his clasped hands above his head, kind of like a prize fighter would do, was widely circulated and was interpreted by many as an aggressive, superiortype gesture, the kind of thing that said, "We'll beat you yet!" Actually, this particular gesture is the traditional Russian gesture of friendship. Similarly, when Khrushchev banged his shoe on the desk at the United Nations, it was interpreted by many as crude and gross, yet to the Russians, a person who is extremely angry isn't expected to conceal his emotions as say, the stereotyped British is expected to do. Americans, for example, will often establish casual friendships for various temporary and pragmatic reasons. We might, for example, find ourself waiting in a long line for a movie and begin talking with the person next to us, or in some kind of business situation, we might establish a casual friendship which we expect to end when the business is finished. To the Japanese, however, such casual friendships are almost unknown. To the Japanese, personal friendships require a lifetime attachment and involve all sorts of mutual obligations. (28) The point which these examples illustrate, I think, and there are literally hundreds of these examples, is that the very same gesture to culture, may mean one thing and to culture2, a very different and perhaps opposite thing. We have already mentioned the idea that meanings are not in words, but in people and the same, of course, is true of gestures or of any nonverbal form. The meaning is in the person and not in the handshake, the wink of the eye, the wave of the hand. These symbols mean what they mean because we've learned them, not because there's something natural about the connection between, say, a particular gesture and a given meaning. (29) When we're dealing with other cultures, the importance of recognizing the very arbitrary connection between symbols and meaning is great. Equally important is the recognition that each culture is different. Each perceives the world a bit differently. Each sees, in any given bit of behavior, something different from what members of another culture see. The problem, then arises not so much from our categorizing and noting similarities, as from our not being aware of our exclusive emphasis on similarities and our subsequent neglect of differences. We need to become sensitive to differences since many differences make a difference. There does come a time when another straw will break the camel's back. We need, more specifically, to accept the premise of uniqueness. No two things in the world are identical. This is a scientifically accepted premise and one which we must all internalize. Nature seems to abhor sameness even more than vacuums. (30) It might help if we visualized fingerprints. There are today, perhaps three billion people in the world, each having ten fingers. That's thirty billion fingerprints. It's been estimated that in the last 600,000 years, 74 billion people have been born and died; with ten fingers each, that comes to 740 billion fingers together with the 30 billion fingers of those living now, we have a total of some 770 billion fingers and not one of these 770 billion fingerprints would be identical with any other one. If you want to project a bit into the future, it's estimated that by the year 2000, the world's population will be six billion, possibly closer to seven billion. By the year 2600, there would be one person to each square yard of earth's space and by 3700, humanity would weigh more than the earth itself. That's a lot a people with ten times as many fingers and no two fingerprints identical. (31) If we become convinced of this premise of uniqueness and perhaps have it sink down to an emotional, visceral level, we would be more apt to look at each individual as an individual and not through the labels of his nationality, his race, his religion, his occupation, and so on. The useful procedure to follow to remember this idea of uniqueness is to index our statements and particularly our nouns and our verbs. Indexing, of course, isn't a new idea. Books are indexed in libraries and houses, for example, have index numbers called addresses, and so on. The habit of indexing people, things, situations, events and so on is probably even more useful. Union official is not union official2, woman driver, is not woman driver2, teacher, is not teacher2, and so on. Each is an individual. Each has a separate and distinct mental subscript to distinguish him from all others. (32) I'd like to add as a kind of epilogue, that although I've emphasized the value seeing differences, there is also great value of seeing similarities and there is a great need for categorizing, for classifying, and so on. These processes are essential in generalizing and organizing and these activities in turn are

Appendix II, Section D7: Indiscrimination D. Maas

D7 page.7

essential in learning and analyzing and problem solving and decision making and reasoning, and so on. The value in seeing similarities is generally agreed upon and something we often do. The value of seeing differences is generally overlooked and so I thought deserved to be singled out. (33) Let me leave you with a thought from Irving Lee on the value of seeing differences as applied to human behavior and human interaction: The more we discriminate among, the less we discriminate against."

D7 page.8 Instructional Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Characterize the type of behavior we caltindiscrimination. [D7 para.03] Define and describe the general-semantics formuiilation of non-identity. [D7 para.04] Explain the etymology of stereotyping. [D7 para.08] Illustrate how stereotypes appear to be resistant to change. [D7 para.13] Describe how stereotypes develop. [D7 para.16] Describe examples of failure to discriminate or failure to index. [D7 para.23] Illustrate how failure to index creates cultural impasses. [D7 para.25] Explain how Krusthev's shaking hands gesture could be misinterpreted. [D7 para.27] Illustrate how the same gesture may mean one thing to culture, and something else to culture! and something else to culture3. [D7 para.28] Explain the premise that nature seems to abhor sameness even more that vacuums. [D7 para.29] Explain how the general-semantics premise of uniqueness combats stereotyping.[D7 para.31]

Appendix II, Section D7: Indiscrimination D. Maas

Index

D7 page.9

"Advice to lovelorn" example Categorizing/classifying "Cheese is cheese" example Classifying/categorizing "Classroom" example Failure to discriminate Failure to index "Gym exercise" example Human nature Index Indexing Indexing and culture Indiscrimination Katz, Daniel "Krushchev" example Lee, Irving "Nineteen thirty-two (1932) Princeton Reserve" example Non-identity principle "Photograph" example Racial stereotypes Readings in Social Psychology "Spitting" example Stereotypes "Sticking out tongue" example "Touching" example Uniqueness: principle of

22 20 20 20 21 23 25 15 7 28 28 28 3 11 27 5 9 4 14 10 11 27 10 25 26 31

D8 page.2 paper for publication in a professional journal. The paper was rejected and I gel this frantic phone call for information about the people who rejected the paper. Actually, I didn't know who was responsible for rejecting the paper, but that wasn't really important. My colleague had already concluded that whoever the reviewers were, they weren't competent to review his paper. Not only did he conclude that the blame for rejection rested with others, but he was determined at that point, at least, never to submit another paper to that journal again. (9) Many people used to wonder why Thomas Edison never became discouraged when he sometimes had hundreds of failures in trying to solve a particular problem. To Edison, however, these weren't failures, but simply wrong attempts. Each of these wrong attempts he viewed as bringing him just another step closer to solving the problem. (10) Those who have never made mistakes have probably never really tried to answer any meaningful question, to solve any significant problem. The assumption of success in everything and forever incorporates the obvious "allness" misevaluation, and at the same time denies the notion of constant change. Success always and forever is not for human beings. Frequently coupled with any given failure is the idea that it is all bad. We may have failed a test or lost a job or had an argument, and we view such an event as being totally negative. Granted, it may be unpleasant even extremely unpleasant but nothing is all bad. If, when presented with such failures, we attempted to list all the possible benefits that might be derived, I think we'd quickly see that the situation isn't as terrible as it originally appeared. (11)2. No one is completely controlled by his past. We are in part but only in part a product of our past experiences, our past histories. Each of our experiences leaves us somewhat different from before. Yet, our past doesn't completely control our present or our future. Many of us, however, believe that because something turned out the way it did in the past, it will always be so.

(12) The young writer who receives a rejection slip for his first manuscript may give up writing because he labels himself a failure and honestly believes that because he foiled once, he will fail again and again. A student who receives a poor mark or even a failure in a course may decide never to take another in that field or with that teacher because of the hidden assumption that he'll fail again. The young boy who fails miserably on his first date may hesitate to date again because of the belief that he will fail again. (13) Even when this assumption is not so strong that it prevents us from trying again, it may operate to increase our anxiety or to lead us to anticipate and expect another failure. When we anticipate or expect failure, it usually comes. Here is kind of the self-fulfilling prophecy: we expect to fail, act as if we will fail, and because of this, fail. (14) I have a friend who exemplifies this behavior in practically every situation I can think of. He wants, for example, to meet a girl and settle down. So, he goes to the appropriate places, but always with the attitude and the expectation that he won't meet anyone who will like him. Of course, with that attitude and with that expectation he doesn't meet anyone who likes him. Right now he is teaching. Even here, the same attitude and expectation prevails. "He knows" (and that should be put in quotes) that he is not a good teacher, and that he will never he. a orwi tpaHf ai*hrnth T *,-,,> ~-

Appendix II, Section D8: General Semantics and the Self D. Maas

D8 page.3

is something that will always prevail. To say, on the other hand, "I received six D's and two Fs on my themes from Professor Stevens," puts the failures where they really arein Professor Steven's evaluation of eight compositions. This latter statement leaves room for change and possibility that others might have evaluated the themes differently. (16) Not so long ago, a student, a young freshman girl, came to my office to tell me that she was going to leave school. When I asked her why she wanted to leave college, she said that she just wasn't smart enough to make it through. She was, in her own words, a failure. She saw no purpose to continuing college. Now, I knew from my experience with her in class that she wasn't stupid as she claimed. In fact, she seemed quite bright but extremely undisciplined. She seldom followed the assignments, seldom listened to what was expected, and so on. So I asked her what she expected to do when she left school and she said she'd get a job as a secretary. She had worked during the previous summer in a law office and they had indicated a desire to hire her back on a kind of full-time basis. So I asked, "You weren't a failure as a secretary?" She became almost insulted, "I'm a f ing good secretary," she said. "Then you are not a complete failure, just a failure in all of your college activities." She latched unto the "all" and then again protested: "Not all college activities." "Well," I asked, "which ones?" Well, it came down to English and French. (17) We then talked a little about her high school training in these subjects. In high school, she admitted, she never did any work. In fact, she just managed to get by. She had a particular dislike for these subjects and was failing both of them now. "How are you doing in your other subjects?" She said, "B's and C's." "Then you are just a failure in English and French," I said. And this she readily admitted. When I asked her what she thought her being a failure in these subjects stemmed from, she listed some four or five factors: upper-English high school preparation, her dislikes for the subjects, her particularly difficult teachers, her not studying for exams and so on. Then perhaps instead of saying you are a failure," I said, "maybe you should say that you failed." "Is there a difference?" she started to say, and then before she could finish the sentence, she realized there was a difference, and she said, "Yes, I guess I've just failed." (18) Now we talked some more that day and a number of other occasions, and she agreed that perhaps it was tonfearly to tell whether she could or couldn't make it through college. She stayed in school that semester and much as I would like to say that she passed both English and French, in actuality, she failed both courses. But by the end of the semester, she didn't view herself as a failure, but only as having failed two courses which she'd have to repeat. She did repeat them and passed them the following semester. Through this experience I think she learned quite clearly that past failures need not repeat themselves and that we can, even with a line of failures the proverbial mile long behind us, we can still succeed. (19) What we label ourselves, whether failures, poor athletes, or whatever, often influences greatly the way in which we perceive ourselves and consequently the way in which we behave. Wend|Bl Johnson, in his People in Quandaries, reports the case of a young girl who was referred to him because of her extreme awkwardness. She lacked dexterity with her hands, her writing was poor, she frequently dropped things, couldn't dance, and she walked, as Johnson put it, "with a shuffling and tottering gait that it was a wonder that she remained, for all practical purposes, upright." So poor was her coordination that it appeared to be a condition of partial paralysis. After some time Johnson discovered an interesting bit of information. Two years previous, while this young student was attending prep school, she was awarded recognition as the outstanding horseback rider of the school. How could a girl so awkward in all her behavior, ride a horse with the grace and skill necessary to be considered the outstanding rider in her school? A more complete investigation showed that when the girl was about four years old, she was regarded and labelled by her family as awkward. Repeatedly she was told how awkward she was by all her relatives. Eventually she came to believe it. She was awkward. Fortunately she had a weakness for horses, and this clearly illustrated that awkwardness was not a necessary condition with her. (20) Let me quote Johnson's brief description of how he approached this particular case. The problem was attacked then as one in which devaluative labelling had been the

D8 page.4 determining factor. A few of the relevant principles of general-semantics were explained simply to her. An extensional attack on her self-evaluations was carried out. As her evaluations changed, specific alterations in behavior became possible. Within approximately two months she was dancing very well and playing a respectable game of tennis. The uncanny shuffle and totter had gone out of her walk. She was no longer awkward in any basic physical senseshe never had been. But, for nearly 20 years she had been literally a semantogenic cripple. (21) Wendell Johnson has done a lot of work in describing and explaining semantogenic problemsthat is, problems whose genesis, or origin, lies in the semantic label attached. Stuttering, Johnson explained, is semamo-genic. The process, according to Johnson, goes something like this: All children, in the normal process of learning language have natural and normal hesitations in their speech. In fact, if you were to carefully analyze adult speech, you'd also find many hesitations, extra long pauses and the like here as well. But with children the hesitations are more extreme and pronounced. (22) The important point, as Johnson sees it, is that these hesitations are perfectly normal and natural to the child learning language. With some children, however, the children may be over-anxious, or perhaps perfectionistic in their attitudes regarding speech. Some parents criticize the child for his hesitations and make the child excessively self-conscious about these hesitations. The child sees these as somehow bad or wrong, and attempts to eliminate them from his speech. But because of the simple fact that the child is not physiologically capable of the fluent speech that the parents are asking for, he simply hesitates all the more. Frequently the parents will label the child "a stutterer," and will tell him to stop stuttering, ask him why he stutters, and so on. (23) When the label is applied, the child is, according to Johnson, well on his way to becoming a permanent stutterer. Labels have an extremely powerful influence. If we label ourselves, "awkward," "stupid," "a failure," we are on the road to becoming just that. Winston Churchill was denied admission to both Oxford and Cambridge Universities. But few of us would say Churchill was therefore a failure. Rather, we'd say simply that he failed to get into Oxford and Cambridge. When we, ourselves, meet similar failures, I think we should be at least as charitable. (24)3. No one is loved by all. Human beings are by nature social creatures and want the love, respect, admiration and praise of others. (25) Teachers want to be praised by their students, and students by their teachers. Doctors want to be respected by their patients. Women want to be admired by men, and men by women, and so on. But we are all very different persons. What is appealing and deserving of praise to one person may be considered quite ordinary by.another and perhaps detestable by still another. To expect to be loved by all denies the principle of "non-identity." It denies that persons are different and invariably will react to us differently; even the greatest leaders whether political, religious, literary, or social were not loved by all. Yet, many of us operate on the assumption that we have to be loved by all. If we are not, and it's inevitable that we won't be, we begin to question and doubt ourselves. Instead, we would do better to recognize that each person is unique and that we are reacted to in as many different ways as there are people.
(26)4. No one is the complete and only cause of any effect. Any given effect is produced by many

different causes. Effects are multi-caused, never uni-caused, yet many persons operate under the assumption that when something happens one personperhaps ourselves, perhaps someone elseis the cause. (27) This assumption denies the infinite complexity of people and events, and creates problems for our own self-evaluation and for our evaluation of others. Many persons, for example, live their entire lives feeling guilty about some happening, blaming themselves completely. The fact that such guilt feelings do no good and much harm means little.

Appendix II, Section D8: General Semantics and the Self D. Maas

D8 page.5

(28) Similarly, we often direct the blame for some accident or failure at one individual. Failing to recognize the multi-causality of any effect. We may, for example, fail a course or lose a job and fix the blame on our teacher or boss. Clearly, they are part of the causes, but not the only ones. Those who demand that the teacher fail ten-percent of the class or that ten-percent of the work force be let go are also part of the cause. Our own performance is a part. Those who might have influenced our performance (former teachers, parents, friends, etc.) are also part of the cause. It is certainly a lot easier to fix the blame on one person, but it is not very realistic, (29) If we want to find out why something happened, we have to look for causes and recognize that each statement of causes must be followed by an "etc." (30)5. No one can achieve goal which are vague and ill-defined. One of the greatest obstacles to achieving success is the nature of the goal itself.

(31) Often, as already mentioned, to always be a success, or to be loved, for example, are very unrealistic goals. Many times, however, they are vague and ill-defined. We say we want to be famous, or successful, or happy, or popular, but we don't define what we mean by "famous," "successful," "rich," or "popular." When we leave our goals so ill-defined, we are very often unaware of how to go about reaching them and might not even know when we've achieved them. It is one thing for a writer, for example, to say, "I want to be famous," and quite another to say, "I want to have a book published." The latter is a concrete and tangible goal to which he can direct his energies. But how does he work to become famous? Getting his book published is part of what he means by becoming famous, but of what else does it consist? Put differently, will he be happy when his book is published if his goal is the elusive fame? When two books are published? When his books wins the national award? Of course, we don't know. The problem arises when the writer himself doesn't know either. (32) Another problem which arises when we define our goals in vague abstractions is that the goal is too remote. Fame is certainly further off and much more difficult to achieve for the young writer than getting a book published. Human beings are very peculiar creatures when it come/to goal-seeking behavior. They need goals which are immediate. They have great difficulty relating to goals which are too remote. There is nothing wrong with wanting fame, or success, or love. Each person has a right to choose his own goals. What is damaging is to leave these goals undefined and to fail to specify the steps necessary to thetLachievement. If fame is defined by the writer as publishing a book which becomes a best-seller, ht$ goals vat least achievable/He knows what his goal is and how to achieve it. He has to complete a manuscript, have it accepted by a publisher, have the book accepted and bought by several million people, and so on. Whether or not he achieves this goal is dependent upon many other factorshis talent, the competition, the publisher's willingness to do the book, and so on. The important thing, however, is that he will know how to achieve his goal and will know when he achieves it. This doesn't mean, of course, that once we attain our goal we should stop and rest on our laurels. (33) Maxwell Maltz in his Psycho-cybernetics tells the story of an advertising executive who had been motivated to achieve a particular goal. This was a promotion to a position of considerable prestige and importance. He had worked extremely hard to achieve it. But once he got it, he became afraid, defensive about his position. He became extremely sensitive about his appearance and went to Dr. Maltz seeking plastic surgery. He thought that his weak chin might be the cause of his discomfort. Maltz' analysis was in the form of what I think is a very useful analogy. Functionally a man is somewhat like a bicycle. A bicycle maintains its poise and equilibrium only so long as it is going toward something. You have a good bicycle. The trouble is you are trying to maintain your balance sitting still with no place to go, it's no wonder you feel shaky. Neither does defining one's goals clearly and with subordinate goals which are more immediate mean to say we should not have high goals or that we should only seek to achieve what can be achieved immediately. Rather, such an approach enables us to see more clearly what our goals are and what are the ways in which we can achieve them. (34) There are many other hidden assumptions which can cause difficulties. These, however, along with

D8 page.6 their realistic counterparts, can be derived with relative ease, I think, from the basic principles of general semantics and from the discussions of the various misevaluations. Likewise, I think we can derive from the principles of general-semantics, a set of characteristics which can help us define, at least in part, the effective individual. Abraham Maslow, for example, in his Motivation and Personality, developed a concept ofyself-actualizing person-a person who had excellent psychological health. Such a person, according to Maslow, had a more efficient perception of reality and was comfortable with it. He accepted himself and others as he and they were. He was spontaneous and natural. He was problem-centered as he possessed an ever-present freshness of appreciation. (35) Maxwell Maltz, in his Psycho-cybernetics, has a chapter entitled, "Ingredients of the Success-type Personality and How To Acquire Them." According to Maltz, the success-type personality possesses a sense of direction, understanding, courage, charity, self-esteem, self-confidence, and self-acceptance. (36) In fact, in almost any self-help book(Maslow's Motivation of Personality isn't one of these, of course)but in almost any self-help book, you will find a list of characteristics or behaviors which make for a successful personality, for happier living, for effective interpersonal relations, and so on. Despite the bad publicity which these books have received and the academic dismissal they engender, they have, I think, something to offer. Many of them, of course, are written without any real understanding of man or his world, yet the attempt to describe what it is that makes effective living, or successful personality ,is, I think, an attempt in the right direction. (37) For too long, it seems, psychology has been concerned with developing a science of psychologically maladjusted individuals, or as Maslow calls it, a crippled psychology. Some attention to the psychology of adjustment^ effectivenessiseems badly needed. So here I'd like to present what I think are at least some of the characteristics of "the effective individual." (38) The six characteristics which I will mention are actually summary statements of the six misevaluations we have already covered. So, these six characteristics will serve two purposes: to characterize the effective individual, and also to summarize some of the previous discussions. (39) In these previous discussions of misevaluations, we took a kind of negative approach that has analyzed ineffective behaviors. Here I'd like to take a more positive approach. I've merely attempted here to apply these characteristics, these misevaluations, to the effective individual and in that way attempt to characterize just specifically what it is which makes him effective. (40)1. The effective individual sees the world composed as it is of continua, not of discrete, polarized categories. Things to him are not black or white, good or bad, happy or sad, right or wrong, but rest somewhere in between these extremes. He doesn't feel the need to align himself on one side or the other in political, social, or economic issues. But these merits and faults put both extremes, yet he is not a fence straddler. In his evaluations, he takes a multi-valued approach and attempts to see as many sides of the problem as possible. Yet, when it comes lime for action, he make a decision and acts. Although he may realize, for example, that none of the candidates for political office is completely good or completely bad, he nevertheless makrfthe best decision he is capable of and votes accordingly. (41)2. He responds to the world as it actually is and not as it is talked about.

He responds to a painting as he sees it, and not as according to the artist's name attached. He votes for the man and not for the label of the candidate's political party. He uses words as guides, not as things. (42)3. He distinguishes clearly between statements of observation and statements of inference, between fact and opinion. He recognizes when he is making an inference and acts on the inference as if it were an inference

Appendix II, Section D8: General Semantics and the Self D. Maas

D8 page.7

and not as if it were a fact. He describes first, and only after such description does he evaluate or judgeand then always with the knowledge that such evaluations and such judgments may be wrong and are therefore subject to change. He is therefore not dogmatic. Recognizing that his opinions and beliefs are inferences, he is willing to approach different opinions and beliefs with an open mind. (43)4. He recognizes that he will never have all the information about anything.

He recognizes the limitations in his abilities to perceive. His powers of observation are limited and he is aware of this in his thoughts and in his behaviors. He realizes that decisions to act must inevitably be based on incomplete information. Although he will try to get as much information as possible before making a decision, he does not postpone decisions, as some attempt to do, until all the information is in. All the information will never be in. He realizes that decisions to act are not the same as the solutions to problems. Solutions may never be found, but decisions must be made and he makes them. Aware of the fact that they've been made on the basis of incomplete evidence. Bertrand Russell in Unpopular Essays, put it this way: "It is not enough to recognize that all our knowledge is, in a greater or less degree, uncertain and vague." It is necessary at the same time to learn to act upon the best hypothesis without dogmatically believing it. He is slow to judge peopletheir motives, their altitudes, their actionsfully aware that he doesn't know all the reasons for these motives, attitudes, actions.
#:

(44)5.

He recognizes that everything changes.

The world and its people are constantly changing, and of course, he, himself, is changing. He is not afraid of change. Fully aware that people change, he doesn't hold grudges against people for things they may have done years ago, but recognizes that now they are different people and that therefore, a different evaluation is needed. Nor does he hold grudges against himself for past failures. He recognizes these as failures but doesn't let them prevent him from trying again. He is a different person now. The world is different, and hence a new try might be appropriate and might meet with success. He is not disturbed with changing attitudes and styles but tries to understand them before attempting to evaluate or judge them. While he recognizes change as inevitable, he seeks to direct such changes to what he feels is beneficial. (45)6. He sees people and events as unique and individual.

He is not blinded by labels, but rather sees people as individuals, not as Republicans, or Chinese, or Catholics, or Jews, or rich, or ... simply as distinct, unique individuals. He responds to these individuals as individuals. He sees himself as an individual with his own set of opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and characteristics. He doesn't take on the characteristics of the group he is with but obtains his own identity regardless of where he is or with whom he is. The five assumptions and the six characteristics of the "effective individual" seem easily derivable from the principles and theories of general-semantics, yet they are actually only a very small part of what I think can be derived. What is derived, I guess, will depend upon what you, as an individual, sees in general-semantics.

D8 page.8 Instructional Objectives

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Identify five realistic counterparts of unrealistic assumptions. [D8 para.03] Relate the misevaluation pattern known as allness to unrealistic assumptions. [D8 para.04] Relate the static evaluation pattern (or failure to date) to unrealistic assumptions about success. [D8 para.ll] Explain how expectations create a self-fulfilling prophecy. [D8 para.13] Differentiate the terms "failing" and "failure." [D8 para.i5] Explain the crucial difference between the statements "you are a failure" and "you failed." [D8 para.17] Defend the assertion that the label we place upon ourselves influences the way we perceive ourselves and the way we behave. [D8 para.20] Explain the phenomenon of the semanto-genic cripple. [D8 para.20] Explain the context in which stuttering could have a semanto-genic origin. [D8 para.21] Explain the context in which labels determine or influence behavior. [D8 para.20] Illustrate the assertion that most effects have multiple causes. [D8 para.20] Define and illustrate the principle of mulii-causality. [D8 para.28] Illustrate how ill-defined goals lead to frustration. [D8 para.30] Differentiate ill-defined from concrete tangible goals. [D8 para.31] Summarize Maxwell Maltz's analogy of maintaining equilibrium on a bicycle, relating it to goal seeking. [D8 para.33] Explain how the principles of general semantics can define a set of characteristics of an effective individual. [D8 para.34] Differentiate a crippled psychology from the psychology of adjustment. [D8 para.37] Explain how knowledge of multi-valued rather than two-valued orientation leads to better adjustment. [D8 para.40] Explain how extensional orientation rather than intentional orientation leads to better adjustment. [D8 para.41] Explain how displacing the allness orientation by the etc. leads to better adjustment. [D8 para.43] Explain how displacing the static evaluation by dating leads to better adjustment. [D8 para.44] Explain how the general semantics non-identity principle can lead to better adjustment. [D8 para.44] Construct six characteristics of a well-adjusted individual based upon g.s. extensional devices. [D8 para.44]

Appendix II, Section D8: General Semantics and the Self D. Maas Index Allness/AIlness Language/All ness Orientation Churchill Crippled Psychology Dating Edison Equilibrium Etc. Expectation Extensional Devices Extensional Orientation Fact/Inference Distinction Failing/Failure Distinction Failure Goals; Concrete tangible Goals; 111 defined Indexing Johnson, Wendell Labels: Influence on Behavior Maltz, Maxwell Maslow, Abraham Motivation and Personality Multi-causality Multi-valued orientation Non-allness; orientation Non-allness; principle Non-identity People in Quandaries Perfectionism Psychocybemetics Psychology of Adjustment Semanto-genic Semanto-genic cripple "Student Failure" example Stuttering: Semanto-genic Success Uniqueness: Principle of Unrealistic assumptions

D8 page. 9

43
23 37 44 9 33 43 13 44 41 42 15 15 3] 30 45 19 23 33,35 34 34 28 40 43 43 4,44 19 8 33 37 21 20 16 21 7,35 45 4

Appendix II, Section D9: Theory and Research D. Maas

D9 page. 1

Theory and Research Joseph DeVito Key Terms

Annotated bibliographies Clinical appplications of g-s Conference on research designs in g-s, 1969 Descriptive g-s DeVito's six general questions for g-s research Effects of training in g-s Formulation analysis General semantics Hypotheses, testable Interdisciplinary purposes of g-s "'Is' of identity" test Lee's nine areas of research Metalanguage Metalinguistic competencies Metalinguistic devices Metalinguistic performance Prescriptive g-s Problem-situation studies Programmed learning in g-s Psycholinguistics, developmental Self-reflexiveness Semantic transactor Semanto-genic illness Sideview studies Synthesis of g-s Teaching machines Techniques of teaching Uncritical inference test

(1) In our first discussions I presented some definitions of general-semantics, and I'd like to review these now as kind of a preface to what I want to consider afterwards. (2) Korzybski said, "General Semantics is a general theory of evaluation, which in application turned out to be an empirical science, giving methods to general human adjustment in our private, public and professional lives." Irving Lee said, The body of data and method leading to habits of adequate language-fact relationships Korzybski called general-semantics." Wendell Johnson: "General-semantics may be regarded as a systematic attempt to formulate the general method of science in such a way that it might be applied generally to daily life." Nicholas Rhevsk "As I see it, general-semantics is a movement, the purpose of which is to make every rank and file intelligent individual appreciate and use in daily life the rigorous methods of scientific thinking." Harry Weinberg said, "General-semantics is a very broad methodology containing much more than directions for controlling worry, hate, feelings of inferiority, etc. It covers the whole range of human evaluation and the prescriptions offered for control of such unwanted feelings or emotions: a derivable front but not inherent end, its basic assumptions in general theoretical foundations." S. I. Hayakawa defined general-semantics as "the study of the relations between language, thought, and behaviorbetween now/walk, therefore how we think, and therefore how we act." Elsewhere I mentioned Hayakawa had defined generalsemantics as the study of how not to make a damn fool of yourself. (3) Now these definitions, I think, are good ones to illustrate some of the central issues in generalsemantics and to focus our attention on the particular approach and orientation which general-semantics takes to language and language behavior. For these purposes the definitions cited, I think, are very useful. However, when it comes to designing research and to conceptualizing questions and hypotheses relevant to General Semantics, these definitions fail. And so a definition more in line with these purposes seems necessary. In addition, I think another definition or redefinition of general-semantics is needed, because there are currently so many studies of disciplines concerned with language and language behavior that each could profit greatly from the insights of the others, but when boundaries are vague, this is extremely difficult. But differently, I think general-semantics needs a definition which will place it securely within the family of language studies [,and] can clearly mark off its province. (4) In this last discussion then, I would like first to present what I think might be a useful definition of general-semantics. This discussion, I should add, is based on a paper presented at the Conference on Research Designs in General Semantics which was held at Pennsylvania State University in 1969. Proceedings of this conference have been edited by Kenneth G. Johnson and will be published by Gordon and Breach. This volume will contain a number of papers addressed to theory and research in general-semantics, and I strongly urge you to take a look at it. Secondly, I'd like to present here some ideas, some areas for research outlined for Irving Lee some years ago. I think that what We said then is still very applicable today.

D9 page.2 (5) First, then, let me define general-semantics. I would define general-semantics as the study of the psychological processes involved in the acquisition, encoding (that is, speaking or writing), and decoding (that is, the reception or understanding as in listening or readinga meta-language). Metalanguage, meaning language used to talk about language as opposed to language which is used to talk about the world and things, people and events. Involving both descriptive and prescriptive concerns. Let me repeat the definition now witrTbut the explanatory note. General-semantics may be defined as the study of the psychological processes involved in the acquisition, encoding, and decoding of metalanguage involving both descriptive and prescriptive concerns. (6) Whether or not you agree with this definition isn't important right now. The only advantage I would want to claim at this point at least is that it clearly specifies an area which can be researched and an area in which attempts at theory building and theory construction can be undertaken with at least some direction. The two major areas of general-semantics are descriptive and prescriptive general-semantics. Descriptive general-semantics, naturally the logically prior area of investigation, has been neglected by most generalsemanticists. In fact, with the exception of Korzybski himself, few have provided truly signifcant insight into this area. Descriptive general-semantics is viewed here as a science of discovery concerned with isolating and describing the relevfant facts concerning the psychological processes involved in the acquisition,encoding, and decoding of metalanguage. (7) Prescriptive general-semantics, the second area, can only be built upon a firm descriptive foundation. Applications can only be derived from sound descriptive dataa logical necessity, but one which seems to have been ignored by too many "researchers*. Although probably the more interesting area, and the one to which most writers have addressed themselves, investigations here have many times been premature. Therapies have been suggested without any understanding of the disorder. Prescriptive general-semantics is viewed here as an applied science concerned with how metalanguage can be taught and how it can be most effectivly utilized in the processes of encoding and decoding. (8) Before attempting to consider the research question suggested by this point of view, I should state explicitly some of the underlying assumptions about metalanguage. These assumptions, I think, are all testablethat is, capable of being testedthough perhaps as yet they have not been tested. First, all natural languages have a metalanguage. All natural human languages possess the design feature of self-reflexiveness. They can all be used to talk about language, but differently all natural languages are inherently tools of language analysis. (9) Second, all native speakers acquire certain metalinguistic competencies in the normal course of language acquisition. No special or direct tutoring is necessary, or even possible, since adult speakers can't verbalize the principles of metalanguage, so they can't very well teach the child. (10) Other aspects of metalanguage, however, seem only acquired by direct instruction. For example, most speakers not specially trained would probably say that the statement "Never say never" is self-contradictory. Here I think they would be evidencing an untaught metalinguistic knowledge. They would fail to see that the first "never" is a metalanguage term, whereas the second is an object-language term. The statement would, in expanded form, read something like "We should never use the term "never" when talking about the real world." Then it's quite logical. This illustrates, 1 think, that certain aspects of metalanguage are not acquired without special training. This seems similar to the child's acquisition of vocabulary. Certain words are learned by the child without any special instruction. Function words, that is, words serving the grammatical rather than the semantic functions, such as prepostions and articles. These are probably the most obvious class of words learned without any special instruction. Other words, howeverfor example, the highly abstract terms such as "concept," "system,11 and "abstraction"are learned only through direct and specific instruction. (11) Third, natural languages differ in the specific ways in which they employ metalanguage. In Navajo, to take one instance, its obligatory for a speaker to make discriminations which are only optional for English speakers. Clyde CluckoSrand Dorothea LJkUw put it this way: the Navajo uses one verb form if he himself is aware of the actual inception of the rainstorm, another if he has reason to believe rain has been falling for some time in his locality before the occurance struck his attention. One form must be employed if rain is generally round about within the range of vision, another if, though it is raining round about, the storm is plainly on the move. Naturally there are many other assumptions which can be made about metalanguage. These few, I think, will suffice to suggest the general approach proposed here. I will provide the necessary

Appendix II, Section D9: Theory and Research D. Maas

D9 page.3

preface for considering the research questions to which general-semantics might profitably direct itself. (12) Perhaps more in the province of metalinguistics, the general-semanticists must be very concerned with the nature of metalanguage. Much as the psycholinguist must be concerned with the nature of language in general. The questions which research might direct itself to are many and for the most part represent virgin territory. For example, what types of metalinguistic devices can be identified? What aspects of metalanguage are obligatory? What aspects of metalanguage are optional? How do differnt languages treat metalanguage? What aspects of metalanguage are overt? What aspects of metalanguage are covert? What are the universal of jneta languagethat is, what metalinguistic features are found in all human languages? Korjybski's safety working devices and metalinguistic devices, but these I think represent only a beginning in the area. What is needed now is a full-scale analysis of metalanguage comparable to the analysis of directive or persuasive language by rhetoric, referential language by semantics, a mode of language by psychology and so on. (13) Now let me consider the first of the two major areas of general-semantics: descriptive generalsemantics, defined even if only partially and tentatively. General-semantisists might direct themselves to those questions generated by our basic definition of general-semantics as "the study of the psychological processes involved in the acquisition, encoding and decoding of mental language". Questions concerning description should be given top priority. (14) First, how does the child acquire metalinguistic competence? Although the specific ways in which metalanguage is acquired will probably have to wait for considerable advances in developmental psycholinguistics, which is the study of language acquisition and development, some tentative directions to thinking can be suggested. It seems probable that the child comes into the world equipped with certain abilities for dealing with language and for language analysis. The child during his first few years is essentially a language-analyzingthat is, metalinguisticorganism. This innate capacity enables the child to induce the basic structure of object- as well as meta-language from the corpus or language samples with which he comes into contact. In other words, on the basis of the examples in his linguistic environment, and his innate language-acquisition device, the child develops metalinguistic competence. Part of his metalinguistic abilities, however, are probably taught expliciry by the adult communityby his older siblings, parents and teachers. Although currently not in favor among psychologists of language, one might consider that part of this metalinguistic ability, or at least metalinguistic performance, is developed by a process of conditioning. If the child is positively reinforcedfor example, is given candy or some verbal complimentor is negatively reinforcedfor example, some unpleasant stimulus is terminatedhis metalanguage efforts will be lined and strengthened. If, on the other hand, his efforts are punished, his metalanguage will be unlined or inhibited, (15) The role of a listening audience in providing such reinforcement or punishment needs to be investigated, as do differences among cultures, social classes, and even age groups. One need not, of course, assume that all aspects of metalanguage are attributable to operant conditioning procedures. Rather, it's possible that conditioning only accounts for the frequency of metalanguage statements, for example. One might argue, it seems that metalanguage is acquired by some process other than conditioning, but that it is maintained, strengthened, or weakened on the basis of its contingencies, whether these be positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, or punishment. Of course, it's possible that operant conditioning has nothing to do with metalanguage in any sense. (16) Second, what are the psychological correlates of metalinguistic encoding? Here we would be concerned with the psychological states of organisms encoding given metalinguistic statements. Equally important, of course, are the psychological states of organisms not encoding metalinguistic statements. Normative data on language encoding is particularly valuable here, since it will provide some measuring instrument for determining the distance any given individual is from the mean. The range of such psychological variables is extremely broad, and would include for example the individual's degree of dogmatism, level of anxiety, need for social approval, degree of impulsivity, need for order, need for achievement, degree of exhibitionism, degree of ego involvement. These are just a few of the many possible psychological variables which might be correlated to the presence or absence of given metalinguistic devices or statements. (17) Third, what are the psychological correlates of metalinguistic decoding? Here the concern is with psychological effects of metalanguage both on oneself, as a receiver of one's own message, and on others. Again, equally important are the effects of an absence of metalanguage. Much activity in general-semantics

D9 page.4 has addressed this question. Do persons who fail to differentiate between factual and inferential statements, for example, behave differently, and if so, in what way? Do those who fail to use the implicit "etc." behave as if these statements say all there is to be said? What we need to do is to establish lawful relations between the use of metalanguage and behavior. It is to the establishment of such laws or principles that future research should be directed. (18) The other half of the coin is prescriptive or applied general-semantics. Although every generalsemanticist is a teacher, whether by profession or only by disposition, not enough research has been done on the application of general-semantics principles. Some studies have investigated the effects of general-semantics training on the attitudes and the cognitive abilities of students, for example, by Elton Goldberg, Luther Size, and Rachel LaUer. Others have been conducted on the effects of general-semantics principles on teachers treating certain speech problems, most notably by Wendfll Johnson and Laura Lee. This research is in the right direction, but represents only a very small part of what needs to be done. (19) Prescriptive general-semantics spans all three major areas of research outlined in the discussion of descriptive general-semantics. First, how and when can the child be most effectively taught metalanguage? Here we are concerned with the methods and procedures>for effectively teaching metalanguage. The books Words and What They Do To Youjtf Understanding In A World of Words, by Catherine Minteer, and the papers of Rachel LaUer particularly her article "General Semantics Are the Future of Education," which appeared in Et cetera in 1967, provide excellent guidelines for the researcher interested in methods of teaching general-semantics. (20) Second, how can speakers be trained to effectiveltutilize metalanguage, and what are the psychological correlates of such training? Wendell Johnson, in People 40* Quantifies: The Semantics of Personal Adjustment, has remarked that, "If you destroy the terminology of maladjustment, you destroy the maladjustment." Let me repeat that statement, "If you destroy the terminology of maladjustment, you destroy the maladjustment/ And Harry Weinberg, in Levels of Knowing anKxistence argues that theoretically, if we could learn to introduce these devices (and here Weinberg's talking about the index, the date, and the etc.), if we could learn to introduce these devices into allJur evaluations and have the habit sink down to the feeling level, we could never become neurotic or psychotic; we would never Indulge in the wrong kind of worry. Now, these are particularly powerful statements, but while both authors provide compelling arguments for these assumptions, neither offers the kind of evidence we could and should obtain. Yet clearly, these are testable hypotheses, and are representative of the type of questions to which general-semantics researchers might address themselves. (21) Third, how can receivers be taught to deal with metalanguage, and what are the effects of such training? Here we're concerned with the problems of effective communication, the problems of efficient utilization of information, with the problems of audience reactions to metalanguage. The concern here then encompasses all those activities in which metalanguage is or can be one of the variables in message reception. (22) Another way of putting this whole argument is to say that general-semantics is concerned with those psychological processes involved in becoming, acting, and reacting as a general-semanticist. Thai is, generalsemantics is the study of how one becomes a general-semanticist. As a scientific discipline, it includes descriptions of the psychological processes involved in the acquisition, encoding, and decoding of metalanguage, and the prescriptions for effective inculcation and utilization of metalanguage. (23) In this brief discussion, I have started out with a re-definition of general-semantics which at first may have seemed quite different from the popular and prevailing conceptions of the field. In actual fact, however, this re-definition neither adds to nor lakes away any of the province normally considered general-semantics. The only claims made to this approach are that JtBrftXi!jes sorae guidelines for research, focuses attention on what I think are answerable questions, and jfgfgjggff somt of the basic assumptions and hypotheses only hinted at in the literature of general-semantics. This, of course, is but one approach to research in generalsemantics. Irving Lee, for example, in 1950 outlined nine areas of research which he felt should be pursued in general-semantics. Although his article was written over twenty years ago, the areas in which Lee called for research are still fruitful, and I strive to briefly review these areas originally suggested by Lee. His article "On the Varieties of Research in General Semantics" appears in the General Semantics Bulletin numbers one and two, 1949-1950. Lee's nine areas of research complement rather neatly the type of research outline I just presented. Whereas I presented six general questions for research, Lee considers nine specific types of studies.

Appendix II, Section D9: Theory and Research D. Maas

D9 page.5

Taken together, I think they should give you at least some idea of the kinds of research in general-semantics which might be pursued. One type suggested by Lee is bibliographies. Personally, I think that the construction of a comprehensive bibliography is just about the most useful piece of research anyone can do. There is constantly so much research being done which is pertinent to general-semantics, to language and language behavior, that it's impossible for anyone to find out what's been done without some assistance from bibliographies. This research is even more important in a field like general-semantics, since so much that's of interest in general-semantics often appears in fields where general-semanticists would not normally wander. There are many masters theses and doctoral dissertations which bear on general-semantics, but which few of us ever learn about. And of course, we also need bibliographies for the beginner; annotated bibliographies probably, to guide his initial reading. (24) Another variety of research is studies into the techniques of teaching. Specifically, how is generalsemantics thus taught? What devices or illustrations, or readings are the most productive or effective in efficient learning? I find it particularly interesting, though, that in this article Lee mentions the possible usefulness of a workbook-approach to general-semantics. To my knowledge, however, the workbook which may be used with these tapes is the first and only one written, but in terms of research on teaching techniques, we would want to know if this is, in fact, a useful teaching technique. From my own experience it's proven quite effective, but of course, we would want more than my own personal experience as proof for any given teaching technique. But we would also want to know about the relative effectiveness of, say, lecture versus discussion in teaching, or the relative effectiveness of teaching machines or programmed learning, in generalsemantics. (25) Third, what about the effects of training in general-semantics? This general area we have already considered, but Lee, however, suggests that research in this area should also consider the writing of personal documents, something I didn't mention. Descriptions of what to study in general-semantics did for someone. Let me quote a bit from Lee: "Thus there is a musician who suffered untold distress fighting her fears before each concert until she learned how to look at her evaluations. There are the parents who tried to raise Johnny by the book until they discovered that their Johnny was not the Johnny in the book. There is the newspaper man who, after years of perfunctory writing and after study of the natural order of evaluation, suddenly came to understand how to go out after a story instead of refurbishing his inferences so that they would sound factual. A few semesters ago, I had a student, for example, who wrote her final paper on her reactions to the death of her father in light of Bois* model of man as a semantic reactor, and she told me that interpreting her feelings and thoughts in terms of this model helped her to adjust to a loss she had first thought she wouldn't be able to live with. (26) Fourth, problem-situation studies: what happens to the evaluation studies of those who are "accident prone", those who are dishonest, those who are indifferent, those who are predjudiced, those who are superstitious? What happens in gossip and stagefright, in riots, and panics and temper tantrums, in fads and crazes, and so on? Each of these, and many more, could possibly be analyzed I think from the viewpoint of general-semantics. (27) Five, Clinical applications. The most obvious case of clinical applications I guess would be in cases of what are called psychosomatic illnesses, where we actually convince ourselves of our illness; or, what Wendfll Johnson calls "semantogenic illnesses," where a particular label might create a problem. A number of dentists, doctors, and psychologists are currently employing the techniques of general-semantics in dealing with their patients, but few of them have actually taken the time to write down their experiences so that others might profit from them. This kind of thing needs to be done if we are to build on the successes and failures of others. (28) Sixth, studies in formulation analysis. Take concepts such as freedom and authority, competition and cooperation, selfishness and altruism, optimism and pessimism, or the codes of morality or the patterns of punishment, or the forms of government. Now, if we looked at these behaviors or actions, we would probably view them from the assumptions and premises which our culture's given us. But Lee asks, how would we analyze them if we looked at them through a more efficient, exiensional view? What would we come up with? (29) Seven, studies in control and measurement. What we need here according to Lee, and 1 couldn't agree more, are devices and instruments to enable us to measure the outcomes of the orientations fostered by

D9 page.6 general-semantics. Now, since Lee wrote this article, some work in this area has been done. For example, Thomas M. Weiss has developed what is called the "'Is' of Identity Test," which he says is a device for measuring social adjustment. It consists of a series of a hundred simple statements which have to be answered true, false, or undecided. William V. Haney has developed what he calls the "Uncritical Inference Test". This test consists of a series of stories followed by statements which have to be answered true, false, or questionmark. The little test used in the discussion of "Fact/Inference Confusion" was based on this type of instrument. According to Haney, this type of test was designed to determine onejs a^i&JJ2uU)JAk aclira]filiaJlii carefully, mese two tests, y^mWfWWmtem^lSE& flpi''"''^ IBHrPVo. could write to them at JIlBBHIBMHlHBaABiiMlMMpMillfMf. Wendell Johnson has also contributed a great deal in the area of research. He suggested, for example, a number of language measures which may be used to measure the degree to which one's language accurately reflects reality, or put differently, the degree of extensionality/intensionality of our language. Of course, there are other instruments developed by persons outside the field of general-semantics which could be useful for various questions. (30) Eight, sideview studies. What Lee means by "sideview studies" are those of men who are not per se general-semanticists, but who have developed theories and ideas which are applicable, or can be made applicable to general-semantics. ^hteanicteQl^c mentions &cn<B^Ple as William James, John Dewey, Elton Mayo, Eric Bellf, George HMpilptf, BHBBH JHttttft, Franz Boat To Lee's list, however, many names could and should be added. Some of these might be, for example, Noam Chomsky and the study of generative grammar; Eric Lenenberg and the study of the biological foundations of language; B.F. Skinner and operant conditioning; Charles Osgood and the measurement of meaning; George MjUfiLand UV-psychology of language; Roger Brown and the study oflanguage acquisition; Jergen Reusch and MfS&f in the study of disturbed language. The point which Lee is trying to make, 1 think, is a good one, and that is simply that studies in any field, especially in a field like language and behavior, should utilize the insights and discoveries of as many people as possible, regardless of the particular discipline from which they come. (31) Nine, and lastly, Lee asks the studies in synthesis. Here Lee is calling for the finding of unifying threads across disciplines. The effort to make intelligible the ideas of the specialists from other areas, Lee says, This question focuses my interest. Is it possible to find any common ground by which workers in utterly different areas can define their procedures as well as pool their data?" I think it certainly is possible and more importantly, necessary. These nine areas are by no means exhaustive, but they do give you some idea, I think, of the varieties of research to which you might direct yourself. (32) To me, general-semantics is one of the most exciting and relevant studies of language and behavior you could possibly find. The point I would want to make, however, is that any discipline, if it's to be learned in a meaningful way, must be learned not only by applying its principles and understanding its theories, but also by active research. By active research I mean the asking of new and different questions, and the attempt to provide answers to these questions. General-semantics is a living study; it has asked some questions and has provided some answers. But it, like any other discipline, needs to ask more questions, and needs to find more answers.

Appendix II, Section D9: Theory and Research D. Maas

Instructional Objectives

D9 page.7

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 89. 10. 11. 1Z 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Identify the common denominator in the most popular definitions of general semantics. [D9 para.Ol] Explain DeVito's contention that most definitions of general-semantics fail when applied to designing research. [D9 para.Ol] Paraphrase DeViio's definition of general semantics, [D9 para.05] Define and illustrate meta-language. [D9 para.05] Differentiate between prescriptive and descriptive general-semantics. [D9 para.06] Identify the essential design feature of all meta-language. [D9 para.08] Explain how self-reflexiveness contributes to meta-language. [D9 para.09] Illustrate how the expression "Never say never" reveals an untaught meta-linguistic knowledge. [D9 para. 10] Provide examples of acquisition of meta-language. [D9 para. 10] Summarize the three assumptions DeVito makes about meta-language. [D9 para. 10] Identify six aspects of meta-language to which general semantics might direct itself. [ D 9 para. 12] Explain how general semantics research could reveal acquisition of meta-linguistic competence. [D9 para. 14] Explain the role of conditioning in the acquisition of meta-linguistic ability. [D9 para. 14] Identify possible psychological variables which might be correlated to the presence or absence of given meta-linguistic devices or statements. [D9 para. 16] Summarize DeVito's six general questions for general semantics research. [D9 para.23] Identify and describe nine areas of general semantics research as outlined by Irving Lee. [D9 para.23] Explain what Wendell Johnson described as semanto-genic illness. [D9 para.27]

D9 page.8 Index Achievement: Need for Annotated bibliography(ies) Anxiety: Level of Bibliographies of general semantics BoaS, Franz Bois, J.S. Brown, Roger Chomsky, Noam Clinical applications of general semantics Comprehensive bibliography(ies) Conference on research designs in general semantics 1969 Date Dating Degree of ego involvement Descriptive general semantics DeVito DeVito's six general questions for general semantics research Effects of training in general semantics Etc. Et cetera Exhibitionism: degree of Formulation analysis (studies in) General semantics "General Semantics and the Future of Education" General Semantics Bulletin General semantics (redefinition) Generative grammar Goldberg, Alvin Haney, William Hayakawa, S.I. Hypotheses: testable Impulsivity: degree of Index Interdisciplinary purposes of general semantics International Society for General Semantics "Is of identity" test James, William Johnson, Kenneth Johnson, Wendell Korzybski, Alfred Latter, Rachel Lee, Irving Lee, Laura Lee's nine areas of research Levels of Knowing and Existence (The) Measurement of Meaning Metalanguage Metalanguage: covert aspects Metalanguage: obligatory aspects 16 23 16 23 30 25 30 30 27 23 4 20 20 16 6 3,23 23 25 17, 20 19 16 28 1, 2, 3, 22 19 23 22 30 18 29 2 20 16 20 30 30 29 30 4 2, 18, 20, 27 2, 6 18, 19 2, 23, 25, 28, 30 19 23 20 30 5, 8, 10, 12 12 12

Appendix II, Section D9: Theory and Research D. Maas Metalanguage: optional aspects Metalanguage: teaching Metalinguistic competencies Metalinguistic decoding Metalinguistic devices Metalinguistic encoding: psychological correlates Metalinguistic organism Metalinguistic performance Minteer, Catherine Navajo language Need for order Need for social approval Neurotic/psychotic behavior "Never say never" example "On the Varieties of Research in General Semantics" Operant conditioning Osgood, Charles Pennsylvania State University People in Quandaries Prescriptive general semantics Problem situation studies Programmed learning in general semantics Psychotic/neurotic behavior Psycholinguistics (developmental) Research in general semantics: DeVito's six areas Research in general semantics: Lee's nine areas Rtfhevsk Nicholas Self-reflexiveness Semantic transactor Semanto-genic (illness) Sideview studies Skinner, B. F. Studies in Control and Management Synthesis of general semantics Teaching machines Techniques of teaching Testable hypotheses Uncritical inference test Understanding in a World of Words Weinberg, Harry Weiss, Thomas Words and What They Do to You

D9 page.9

12 19 9 17 12 15 14 14 19 11 16 16 20 10 23 30 30 4 20 6, 18 26 24 20 14 23 23 2 8 25 27 30 30 29 30 24 24 20 29 19 2,20 29 19

Appendix III, Section BX: Comprehensive Index of Sanford Berman Units D. Maas

BX page.l

Comprehensive Index of Sanford Berman Units

"Ball white/black" example Believer (complete) Believing is seeing Bergson, Henry Bishop Milton Wright Brand names Brand wagon "Broccoli" example grooks, Van Bypassing Byron Caine Mutiny Calculated risk Carroll, Alexis "Caruso" example Casual remark: listening responses Cat-egorists Certainty (demand for) Chain index Change Chase, Stuart "Cheese is cheese" example "Cheese sandwiches" example Chemistry-binding class of life Cherokee language Chesterfield, Lord "Chunking China" example Churchill, Winston "Cicero/Demosthenes" example "Cigar ashes" example Circle of allness Circularity of definitions Circularity of knowledge Circular response Class label Class names Closed mind "CMA" example "Coconuthrove nightclub" example Common sense and certainty Complete believer Complete skeptic Complexity Compliment club plan Conditioned response Conditional response

B5[12] B4[19] B5[45] B10[09J B5[49] B3[10J B3[10] B2[64] B7[60] B7[17,20] B10[8] Bll[53] B4[24] B36[15] B 10(36] B7[72J B1J61] B2[56] B4[17J B5[52] B1J89] B1J87] B10[3,5,55] B7[48] Bll[37] 62(12] B7[74]

Bl[4]
B12(4] B2[32] B6(37] B8J72] B12[22] B5[82]
B9[7] Bl[26] B2[35] Bl[49] B8[9] B8[9] B5[l] B7[65] B2[30] B5[61J B4[19j B4[19] B12[26] BI3[36] B2[53J B2J53]

BX page.2 Confucius Connotations (for names) Consciousness of abstracting Consciousness of dating/when Consciousness of the etc. Consciousness of projection Container myth Context and meaning Contradiction Contradictory Contradictory/contrary Contrary/contradictory Conversation and communication Cooley, Charles Horton "Copperhead" example Copying animals Counterbalance Crane, George W. "Crazy Greek" example Creat^f Evolution Cult of conformity Culture "Daisy Kenyon" example Dating Deafness (psychological causes) Death of a Salesman Decision-making Definition: circularity Degree(s) Degrees of ambiguity Degrees of generality Degrees of probability Degrees of success Delay (two second activity) Demand for certainty "Democrat/Republican" example Denny, George V. Descriptive statements Details/facts/figures: low order abstractions Determinism (philosophy) Dialect Dialectology example
Dichotomous view

B7[611 B36[ll] Bl[67] B5[73] B10[45] Bl[68] B5[75] B7[47] B6[28] B7[24] B7[6]
Bl[29] B12[13]

Bl[30,31] 612(13,14,44]
81(30,31] 612(13,14,44] B13[18]

B12[4lj
B2[44] Bl[ll] B2[50,78] B12[29] B 13(36] 65(59] 610(9] B11J39] B5[26] 611(47] Bl[74,78,89] B10[27,43] B12[44] 67(69] 611(53] B2[74] B9[7] Bl [33,87] B8[9] B9[15]

B12[15] 68(8] B8[8] B4[9] B9[15]

B2[62] 64(17] 610(14] B5[12] B4J27]

B8[29]
64(12]

B6[34] B5[33]
B12[31] 611(30,66] 89(46] B2[68] 612[21] 64(17,58] B5[82] 61(61] B2[56]

Differences: seeing Disraeli, Benjamin "Divorce: cooling off period" example Divorce court proceedings Dogmatism Dog-matists

Appendix III, Section BX: Comprehensive Index of Sanford Berman Units D. Maas "Dorothy Lamour" example Dostoevsky Dressier, David Echo: listening response Ecological thinking Ed man, Erwin Einstein Either/or thinking Elements: mining of arbitrary ", Emerson, Ralph Waldo Empathy (lack of) Empathy projection Empiricists and meaning Enthusiasm/action Etc. Examples/illustrations Excluded middle (law of) Expectancy Expectancy set Expectation Expectation/motivation Extensional devices Extensional orientation Extremes Fabfr, Axel Fact-inference confusion "Failure": failure to date Failure to date Failure to index Failure to project First-order abstraction "Fish/minnow" example Fission analogy "Fix" example Flesch, Rudolph Formula for happiness Fourth dimension "Frederic Barr: Baldness Fear" example Freud "Fright in Dentists Chair" example Frozen responses General Semantics/Semantics Difference Generic Name Generosity and Projection "George and I" example Gerbner, George "Girl in lobby" example Glazer, Donald A. Goethe, Wolfgang Goldsmith B7[76] Bll[60] B8[44] B7J72] Bl[46] B5[23] Bl[76] B4[10] B10[28] Bl[36] B12[44] Bl[7,8] B6[6] B10[38] B7[56] B7[57] B8[43] B9[47] Bl[68] B5[30,72] B12[44] B8[29] Bl[30] B [07] B8[44] B9[36] B9[39] B9[36] B9[16] B1[22J B1[18,20,94] B3[08] Bl[33] B12[19] B13[17] Bl[24] B4[2,25,35,64] B10[43J Bl[78] B5[47] B10[43] Bll[56] B7[56] B4[03] B2[37] B6[23] B8[30] B9[ 19,34] Bl[76] B10[28] B5[68] B6[33] Bll[61] B 11(36] B2(14,15] Bll[55] B7[60] B10[2] B36[2] B5[24] B13[17] B9[26] B13[30]

BX page.3

BX page.4 Graded variations "Grand Canyon" example Groucho Marx "Gullibility" example Bl[33] B12[15] B7[56] B6[22] B8[45] B9[34] B9[19,36] Bll[29] B13[16] B12[29] B9[19] B9J11]
B9[7]

H-'/H
H=M/E Habit focus tWesir Walter Haney, William Happiness: formula for Happiness: variables of Happiness: verbal definition Happy/happier Hardening of the attitudes Hate at First Sight Hatred; located Hatred two Hatred; undated Hatred; un located Hayakawa, S.I. Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty Heraclitus High/Low Order Abstraction High Order Abstraction High Order Abstraction: necessity for "Homely" example Hook, Sidney "Hoot Owl Disaster" example "Hopeless": failure to date Horizontal identification How to make sense Human Engineering Human environment Human evaluation phase "Hydrochloric acid" example Identification Identification one Identity (law of) Idiomatic Usage LED. Disease Ignorance (& Certainty) Illustrations/examples Imagination "I'm not dead" example "The Importance of Being Earnest" Index Indexing Individualism Reconsidered Inference

B9J29] B5[34] Bll[40] B12[27] B12[31] B11J37] Bll[63] Bll[63] B10[33] Bll[57] Bll[57] B3a[9,10,22,23]

B6[3]

B8[271

B10[7] B8[23] B8[10f2835] B9[6] B8[35] B6[39J B9[26,29] B2[13] B10[43] Bll[35] B8[30] B1J27] B3a[6] B2[9] B8[12] Bl[79,80] B7[57) Bll[34,52] Bll[37] Bl [28,49] B6[38] B9[12J B5[52] B8[29] B9[42] B4[35] Bll[45] Bl [82,87] Bll[54] B [12,44] B12[44] B13[12] Bl [25,64] B4[7,35,38,59] B7[58]

Appendix III, Section BX: Comprehensive Index of Sanford Herman Units D. Maas Inference/Fact confusion Inferential level Inferiority complex Insane/Insanity Instincts of the Herd Intensional Orientation Interest Introduction to Linguistic Science Invariance under transformation Invariant relationships "Iroquois Theater Fire" example Is Anybody Listening? "Is" auxiliary verb "Is" of existence "Is" of identity "Is" of predication Isolation James, William Jefferson Jehovah complex Johnson, Samuel Johnson, Wendell Jump to conclusions Keller, Helen Kling, Samuel Klokhoht Knowledge & Certainty Koch, Robert Korzybski, Alfred Krutch, Joseph Wood "Lady Golfer" example "Lady Lion Tamer" example Language Language & Psychiatry ^. Language in Thought QTAction Lapps: 20 Names for Ice Lee, Irving Lehman, "Letting off Steam" example Levels of abstraction Levels of Knowing and Existence Levels of Specificity & Inclusiveness Likeness: and Science "Line" example Linguistics LippmantfjWalter Listening (effective) 81(24,64] B4[2] B4[33] B5[63] B4[56] 61118,20,54,63,75,79] B3afl2] B5J17] B5[22] B10[5] B10[21] B2[31] B5[28] Bl[45] Bl[46] Bl[48] B7[48]B9[7] Bll[50] Bl[51] B7J50] B13[3] B9[44] B4[54] B5[56] Bl[93] B5[70] B5[32,33,36] B4[51J B12[6] B9[29J B5[61] B6[41]

BX page. 5

B7[41]

B1[3J B2[ 11,52,56] B3a[13,14] B5[19,31,86] B6[42] B9[ 17,29,34,38] B11[52]B12[34]

B12J27]

B5[18] B6[25] B5J21] B6[3] B6[19] B8[27] B6[28] Bll[12,33] B2[25] B8[4] B9[34] B8[3] B 11(28] B6[21] B6(14] B5[17] 67(68,72]

BX page.6 Listening exercise Litcralist fallacy "Living PhinSphers" example Located hatred Locke, John Logic Logical existence Love against Hate Lowering expectations Low/High order abstractions Low order abstractions Low order abstraction: details Low order abstraction: example Low order abstraction: facts Low order abstraction: figures Low order abstraction: illustrations Lust for the absolute Macroscopic level Majority of One Malinowski, Mann, Thomas Man the Unknown Manhood of Humanity Map/Territory analogy Marriage: Agreement by definition Mathematics Mayo Clinic Meaning & Experience Meaningless statements Meanings are in people "Meet the Press" example "Men on First" example Menninger, Karl "Military" example Mirror Technique: Listening Response Misevaluations/Misevaluation Patterns Moderation: Difficulty of Monolinguistic fallacy Monousage Morrow, Dwight Motivation/Expectation Matrix Motivation/Expectation Matrix: Profile 1 Motivation/Expectation Matrix: Profile 2 Motivation/Expectation Matrix: Profile 3 Motivation/Expectation Matrix: Profile 4 Multi-ordinality Multiple meaning Multi-valued orientation Naming of elements: arbitrary Navajo language
B7[l] B6[30] B8[16] BU[57] BUJ60] B6[17] B8J40] B13[10] B9[32,53] B8[23] B8[29,30] B8[30J B8[29] B8[30] B8[30] B8[29] B5[15] B4[3] B10[7]

B136]
B13[4] B36[15] Bl[3] Bl[36] B10[16] B6[42] Bll[49] Bl[33,86] B6[18] B12[16] B6[35] B8[36] B7[30] B8[19] B7J20] B1[82J B13[18] B5[65] B7[72] B1J17] B 12(40] B6[29] B[29] B12[4] B9[21] B9[22] B9J23] B9[24] B9[25] Bl[72] B9[36] B6J21] B7[7] B1[88J B12[44] B6[6]

Appendix III, Section BX: Comprehensive Index of Sanford Herman Units D. Maas Nazi regime Neglect of fact of process "Negro doctor" example Neuro-semantic environment New doubt Newton, Sir Isaac "Nick Christopheles" example Nod; listening response Noise Abatement Society Non-allness orientation Non-aristotelian orientation Non-euclidian geometry Non-evaluative listening Non-identity Non-Newtonian Physics Non-verbal level Northwestern University Guidance Department Nouns: Not Change/Process Observation: Seeing differences One-way communication One-valued orientation Operational Definition of Man Order Orders of Abstraction Orson Wells, "Men From Mars" example Panic/panic reaction Past experience & Language Pause/delay/analyze Pause listening response Pavlov's dogs Peale, Norman Vincent Pearl Chief "Pencil" example Pendulum Effect [Haney] People in Quandaries People Mean/Words Don't "Permanence" in language habits Phatic Communion Philosopher's Questt Philosophy & High Order Abstraction Philosophy of Determinism Philosophy of Language Phonetics Physical factors Pierce, Gerhardt "Pink Elephant" example "Plunging Necklines Petition" example Poincare' "Point of View" example Polar terms B11(61J B 10(17] B5[42J Bl[56] B36[13,15] B4[16] B13[18] B5[59] B7[74] B13[16] Bl[40,86,89] 85(71,84] Bl[35] Bl[35] B7[73] 81(49,50,87] Bl 1(2,4] Bl[35] B4[4] B5[69] B 10(39] 611(30] B5[64] Bl[85] B12[37] Bl[4] 61(40] Bl(27] 62(27] B2[27,35] 86(35] Bl[61] 62(46,75] 67(72] 82(6] 69(40] B8[44] B5[61 B12[29] 65(70] B7(41] 66(31] B10[12] 613(5] 65(23] B8[15] 64(12] 66(16] B6[13] B5[20] 69(31] B7[43] 68(44] B8J40] B4[63] B12[17]

BX page.7

BX page.8 Polarity Pood Positive expectancy Prejudice "Pretty Good Girl" example Probability Process Process Level (of reality) Procrastination Projecting Projecting into Art Projection Projection of Inadequacy Pseudo-argument Psittacism "Psychoanalyst" example Psychological Equilibrium Psychological Identification Psychological meaning in person Psychological purposes of small talk Psychology and Life Psychology for the Millions Psychology of Momentum Psychology of Persuasion Pusey, Nathan Qualifying gradations Query Rationalists (and Meaning) (The) Realm of Matter "Red/Green Light" example Reel Life/Real Life Reflex action Refusal to learn Refusal to look again Regional variations Relations Relative invariance under Transformation Res pond (ing) with meaning "Retroactive" example Reuther, Waller Rfesman, David Risk (calculated) "Room for Rent" example "Rote] example R^Uto, Floyd "Rush Week" example Russell, Bert rand "Saluting" example Sane asylum Santayana, George Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis Bl[331 B12[17] B12[31] B9[37] Bll[59] B12[30] B4[9,13] B10[3,5] B2[59] B7[43] B8[48] B7[36] B7[ 13,17,19,20,33] B8[48] B7[53] B8[18] B4[46] B6[30] B7[54]

Bll[52]
B6[33] B13[9,391 B5[191 Bll[35] B2[26] B6[15] B4[16] B12[18] B7[64] B8[43] B2[53] B36[10J B2[5,50]

B5J42]
B5J44]

B6[34] B1J41] B10[5] B7[25] B8[13] B7[14] B11[39]B12[12] B13[12] B4[24] B2(20] B2[74] B5[19] B10[46] B4[17] B2[22J B13[16] B2[56] B9[26] B5[21]

Appendix III, Section BX: Comprehensive Index of Sanford Berman Units D. Maas ScmJuch, Margaret Schonberg, Harold Science/Scientific Approach/Method Science and the Modern World Science and Sanity Second order abstraction (The) Second World War Se>org Seeing differences Seeing similarities Self-reflexiveness Semantic environment Semantic-reaction Semantic wisdom Semantics Sense limitations Sex Shaw, George Bertrand Sidelights on Relativity Sign/Symbol Signal reaction Silence: and tension Silence: need for Silence, (thinking/evaluating) Meditation Silencej (conspiracy of silence) Silence-, (hostility) Silent treatment Similarities: seeing Skeptic (complete) Skepticism Skepticism and Animal Faith Small Talk Small Talk: psychological purpose Small Talk: social function Small Talk: therapeutic value Social purpose of language Socratic method Solitude "Sorority" example Space-binding (class of life) Specificity Speech for all occasions Speed Neurosis Sperling, A.D. "Square Circle" example "St. Elizabeth's Hospital" example Statement of fact Static Stereotypes "Stradivarius" example

BX page.9

B7[79] B6J26] 81(1142,93] Bll[28] B7J49] B10[7] Bl[3] B2[ll,53,55] B36[14] B9[38] B2[35] B6[37]

B6[6] B 11 [30,67]
Bll[31,66] Bl[40] Bl[56] B3a[3,16] B6[10] Bl[4] B8[20J Bl[14,18,70] B6[70] Bll[55] . B5[25] 85(23] B13[30] B4[10] B8(38] B2[6,8, 17,67,78] B4(42] B13[7] B13[17] B13[14J B13[26] B13[26] B13[3] 811(31,66] B4[19] B4[ 17,58]

B13[3] B13[9,37] B13[6] B13[4] B13[7]

B9[8] B13[14]

B7[2] Bl[4]
B8[3] B8[24] B2[71] Bll[35] B8[41] B12[34] Bl[24] B4(6] B10[31]

B3b[12] B5[17] BH[64] B12[24] B13[30]

BX page. 10 Strings (on Structural Differential) Struther, Jan Sturtevant, E.L. Sub-microscopic level Success: degrees of Success: symbols of Symbol cluster Symbols of success Symbol-reaction Symbol/Sign Tautology Television as Semantic environment Television Neurosis Tension: and silence Three headed orphan" example Time-binding (class of life) Time: Fourth dimension Tories" example Toynbee, Arnold Trotter, W. To Me Transactional Psychology Trumpet Player" example Tunnel" example Twain, Mark Two-valued orientation Uncertainty principle Uncommon sense Unconscious assumption Undated hatred Undefined terms "Union" example United Nations Unlocated hatred Unsane Unsane Semantic Reaction Vagueness & High Order Abstraction Van Doren, Mark Variables of Happiness Vebien, Thorstftff/ Verbal definition of Happiness Verbal environment Verbal circle Vertical identification Vicious circle "Walk Around Block" example Weinberg, Harry Werner's principle Wh)fte( William H. Whitehead, Afred North Wilde, Oscar "Will to Believe"

Bl[6]
B12[21] B5[22) Bl[21,23] B9[15] B9[13] B3b[12] B9[13] B1J60] B2[46] B8[38] B3a[16] B3a[20] B13[7] B8[44] B10[28] B10J14J B 11(29] B4[56] Bl[53] B7[47] B7[36] B5[50J B5J20] B13[3] Bl[30,86] B12[23,39] B4J11] B5[62] B6[46] B7[23J B10[33] B6[43] B12[29] B6[36] Bll[57] B2[65] B8J10] Bll[23] Bl[84] B9[7] B3a[2] B8[27] Bll[44,46] B5[68] B2[70] B9J35] B5[28] B7[49] B10[7] Bll[45] B8[44] B10[4]

Appendix III, Section BX: Comprehensive Index of Sanford Berman Units D. Maas "Woods, Roswal" example "Wrestler" example "Yogi" example "YMCA" example B4[62] Bll[46] B13J15] B4[7]

BX page. 11

Appendix III, Section DX: Comprehensive Index of Joseph DeVito Units D. Maas

DX page.l

Comprehensive Index of Joseph DeVito

Abstracting Abstraction Abstraction: levels of Achievement: need for "Advice to lovelorn" example "AgzrMiz" example AIlness/AIIness language/Allness orientation Allness: combatting Allness: consequences of Animal communication Annotated bibliography(ies) Anxiety: level of "Apple example" Arbitrariness of standards Aristotle Aristotle's laws of thought Art of Awareness Auberchenko Bacon, Francis "Beach Wear 1925" example "Beard" example "Beaver/Dam Bird/Nest" example Bell-shaped curve "Black/white shades" example Boa*; Franz "Boiling frog" example Bois, J.S. Breeds of Men Brown, Roger "Buschman, Francis" example "Cardboard box in road" example Carroll, Lewis Categorizing/classifying Change Characteristics: circle Chase, Stuart "Cheese is cheese" example Chemistry binder Chemistry binding class of life "Chicago department store" example Chomsky, Noam Churchill, Winston Circle (structural differential) "City block" exercise Classifying/categorizing

Dl[42] D5[19] D5J19.45] Dl[421 D9[16] D7[22] D5[14,15,16] D5[2,6J D8[43] D5J37] D5[36] D1J19] D9[23] D9[16J D6[9J D2[38] D3J19] D2[22] D6[30] D4[39]
D5[1J

D2[33] Dl[5] D2[43] D2(34] 09(30] D2[28] Dl [39,70] D6[30J D9[25] D6[30J D9[30] D4[31J D4[38]
D3[9]

D7[20J D5[13] D6fl4]

Dl[46]

D7[20J
Dl[7] Dl[7]

D6[12] D9[30] D8[23] Dl[32] D5[28J D7[20]

DX page.2 "Classroom" example Clinical applications of gs "Color spectrum" example Combatting Allness Communication and Organizational Behavior Complexity Comprehensive bibliography(ies) Conference on research designs in gs 1969 Consequences of Allness Continuum nature Contradictory (ies) Contrary(ies) Contradictory/Contrary Contrary/Contradictory Corollaries of model (Bois* Semantic Transactor) Courses in general semantics Crippled psychology The Crocodile" Date Dating Degree(s) Degree of ego involvement Descriptive general semantics DeVito, Joseph DeVito's six general questions for research Dogmatism Donne, John "Dove-hawk-chicken" example "Drunk" example Edis6n Effects of training in gs Einstein Either/Or thinking Electrochemical activities (Hois' Semantic Transactor) "Elegy for pink and blue" Environment Equilibrium Etc. Etcetera Event level Exhibitionism: degree of Excluded Middle (law of) Expectation Extensional devices Extensional orientation Fact/Inference confusion Fact/Inference distinction Factual statements (characteristics) D7[21] D9[27] D2[34] D5J37] D3[18] D6[ll] D5J8] D9J23] D9[4] D5[36] D2[43] D2[ 10] D2[16] D2[10] D2[10] D6[42] Dl[17] D8J37] D3[2] D9[20] Dl[75] D6[26] D8[44] D9[20] D2[40J D9[16] D9[6] Dl[59] D9[3,23] D9[23J D5[32] D3J4] D2J26] D4[45] D8[9] D9J25] D6[18] D2[3] D6[35] D3[6] D6[401 D8J33] Dl[761 D5(40] D8[43] D9J17.20J D9[19] D1J40J D9[16] D2J22J D8[13] D1[10J D8[44] Dl[72J D3[14,15,16] D8[41] D4[12,26] D4J44] D8[42] D4[16]

Appendix III, Section DX: Comprehensive Index of Joseph DeVito Units D. Maas Failing/Failure distinction Failure Failure to discriminate Failure to index Feeling activities (Bois* Semantic Transactor) "A Few Buttons Missing" First order feeling First order love First verbal level Fish/minnow example "Flat chested" example Formulation analysis (studies in) Forrest, Lee de "Fortress in Spain Sentry" example "Friend Not a Woman" example General Semantics "General Semantics and the Future of Education" General Semantics Bulletin General Semantics: Guide and workbook (The) General Semantics of Wall Street General Semantics (Redefinition) Generative Grammar Goals: Concrete tangible Goals: 111 fined, OfJ Goldberg,; Goldsmith, Oliver Graded variations "Grading" example "Gym exercise" example Hamlet Handling Barriers in Communication Haney, William Hayakawa Heraclitus Hitler: polar opposites "Holy sonnets" Homo-loquons "Hot dog stand" example Human nature Humanity of Words Hyphen Hypothesis: testable "If only" example Impulsivity: degree of Index Indexing Indexing and culture Indiscrimination Inference D8[15] D8[15] D7[23]

DX page.3

D7J25J
D6[37] D5f23] D6[2I] D6[21J D1J49J D6[5] D4[I2J D9[28J D5[35] D6[2J
D4[2]

Dl(21] D9(l,2,3,22j D9[19] D9[23J D1J59J

D6[1J
D9[22J D9[301 D8[31J D8[30] D9[18J
D3[6J

D2[36] D2[36J D7[15] D4J33] D4[20] D3[18]D6[11] D9[29] D 1(26,27,59] D2[29]

D9[2]

D6[9] D2[5] D3[4] Dl[2] D3[18]

D7f7]

D6J19| Dl[78] D9[20J D5[23] D9[16] Dlf74] D7[28] D9[20] D7[28J D8J45] D7[28]
D7[3J

Dl[52] D4[8,17]

DX page.4 Inference/Fact confusion Inferential Statement (characteristics) Infinite complexity Influencing factors Insane/Insanity Intensional orientation Interdisciplinary purposes of gs IHMIHMMliMMfiHMB General Semantics Intolerance of other people Invariance under transformation "Is" of Identity Test James, William "Joe Zoe" example Johnson, Kenneth G. Johnson, Wendell Katz, Daniel Keller, Helen Korzybski, Alfred "Krushchev" example Labels: Influence on behavior Lamb, Charles Language Language Habits in Human Affairs Language in Action Language in Thought and Action Lauer, Rachel Law of gravity Lee, Irving Lee, Laura Lee's nine areas of research "Legs on the fly" example Letters to editors Levels of knowing Levels of Knowing and Existence Limiting factors to knowing all "List of Rules1880" example "Little bit pregnant" example "Locomotive" example "Lovelorn advice" example Magee, John Malinowski, Bronislaw Maltz, Maxwell Man/animal distinction Manhood of humanity Map/territory analogy "Marlborough Jewel Case" example D4[8,12,26,44] D4[17] Dl J66.721 D5[25] D2[42J Dl[73] 03114,15,17,191 D9[30] D930] D5[30] D6J16.18] D9[291 D9[30J D4[21] D9[4] Dl[23,591 D8[19] D9[2,18,20,27]
D2[4] Dl[ 13,2 1,38,45] D5[38] D6[9] D9[2,6] D7[27] D8[23] D2[4] Dl[3] Dl[17,59) D3[23J D5[3]

Dl[17,59] D2[29] D9[18,19J D6[17J D1[22J D3[231 D4[201 D5[41 D6[8] D7[51 D9[2,23,25,28,301 D9[19] D9[23] D3[19) D5[44] D6[21] D1[59J D6[241 D9[20]
D5[5]

D6[121 D2[28J D6[8J D5[41] D6[l] D3[21] D8[33,35] D1[16J Dl [45,67] D4J25]

Appendix III, Section DX: Comprehensive Index of Joseph DeVito Units D. Maas Maslow, Abraham Mathematics Maupassant, Guy de Meanings are in people Meaning; not in words but in people The Measurement of Meaning Meta-language Meta-language; covert aspects Meta-Ianguage; obligatory aspects Meta-language; optional aspects Meta-language; overt aspects Meta-Ianguage; teaching Meta-linguistic competencies Meta-Iinguistic decoding Meta-linguistic devices Meta-linguistic encoding: psychological correlates Meta-linguistic organism "Meter maid" example "Mink Coat" example Minteer, Catherine Misevaluations/mtsevaluation patterns Moliere Morrisj Desmond Motivation and Personality Multi-causality Multi-valued orientation "Museum Piece" example Naked Ape Navajo language "Nazi in railroad tunnel" example Necklace Need for order Need for social approval Neurotic/Psychotic behavior "Never Say Never" example 1984 "1932 Princeton Reserve" example Ninety year old pistol" example Non-allness Non-identity Object level "On the varieties of research in gs" One Cause fallacy Operant conditioning Orwell, George Osgood, Charles Paddle analogy "Pails of Water" example Parabolic Curve "Passing/Failing" example D8[34] D6[1SJ D4[34] D3[12J D3[12J D9J30J D1[20J D9[5,8,10,12] D9[12] D9[12] D9[12] D9[12] D9[19] D9[9] D9[17] D9[12] D9[15] D9[14J D6[28J D4[13] D9[19] D1[79J D3[7] D5[2] D4[36]

DX page,5

Dill]
D8[34] D8[28] D2[30] D8(40] D4f8] D5[39] D4[34] D9[16] D9[16] D9J20] D9[10] D4[35] D7[9J D4[8J Dl[66] D8[43] Dl[64] D8[4,44] Dl[48] D9[23J D5[24j D9J30J D4[35J D9[30] D2J33J D2[2IJ Dl[29] D2[35]

DX page.6 Past/Future (Hois' Semantic Transactor) Patterns of misevaluation Pennsylvania State University People in Quandaries Perception Perfectionism "Photograph" example Poem evaluation "Point of view - Auberchenko" example Point of view and interest Polarity Polarization Polar terms Practical Treatise on Railroads Predictable answers Prescriptive General Semantics Previous Knowledge: Limiting factors to knowing all "Primitive Hunter" example Problem Situation Studies Programmed learning in gs "Progress under Protest" Psychocybemetics Psychology of Adjustment The Psychology of Speech&Language: An Intro, to Psycholinguistics Psychotic/Neurotic behavior Psycholinguistics (Developmental) "Pulp-Mixer" example Quotes Racial stereotypes "Radio telephone" example Rapf&port, Anatol "Rat" example Reader's Digest Readings in Social Psychology 3rd ed. Refusal to change Refusal to learn Refusal to look again Research in gs: DeVito's six areas Research in gs: Lee's nine areas RKhevsty Nicjlolas Romeo and Juliet Rousseau SaneAnsane Science & The Goals of Man Science and Sanity Science/Scientific approach/method (The) Science of Culture Science of Man Second order feelings Second order love Second verbal level: class terms

D4[39] D5[U] D2[3] D2[9,391 D2[3,7] D5[33] D2[8] D9[6,18] D5[9J D3J17) D9[26] D9[24J D3[23] D8[33] D8[37] D1J59] D9(20J D9[14] D4J38] Dl[77] D7flO] D5[35] D2J23] D6J7] D3[231 D7[ll] D5J29J D5J27] D5[28] D9[23] D9[23] Dl[24] D9[2] D4[33J D2[4] D2[42] D2J23] D1J17] D1[1J D1J4] Dljlj D6[21,25] D6[21] Dl[51]

Appendix III, Section DX: Comprehensive Index of Joseph DeVito Units D. Maas Self-moving activities (Bois* Semantic Transactor) Self-reflexive Semantic Transactor Semanto-genic cripple Semanto-genic (illness) Sense limitations Sense organs: nature of "Sherlock Holmes" example Sideview studies "Six blind men & the elephant" Skinner, B.F. Sondelfc Bess Sources for structural differential Space: limiting factor to knowing all Space-binder Space-binding (class of life) "Spitting" example "Stalin's daughter" example Standards: arbitrariness of Static evaluation Steering wheel analogy Stereotypes "Sticking out tongue" example Strings (on structural differential) "Student Failure" example Studies in Control and Measurement "Stupid/Bright" example Stuttering: semanto-genic Success "Suez canal" example Swift, Jonathan Synthesis gs
Tag

DX page. 7 D6[36] Dl[69,70] D9[8] D6[30J D9[25] D8[20] D8[21] D9[27] D5[12] D5[12] D4[28] D9[30] D5[20] D9[30] D6[19] Dl[59]
D5[6]
Dl[7]

Dip] D7J25) D6[15) D2[37]

D6[l]

D2[32J D7[10J D7J25] Dl [28,59] D8[16] D9[29J D2[27] DS[21] D8[7,35] D5[34]
D2[4]

Tartuffe Teaching machines Techniques of teaching Testable hypotheses Thinking Activities (Bois' Semantic Transactor) Third verbal level: inferences Time: Limiting factor to knowing all "Toll booth" example "Touching" example Trollop, Anthony "Tunnel [Nazi officer]" example "Twins/Quadruplets" example Two-valued orientation (The) Tyranny of Words Uncritical Inference Test Understanding in a World of Words Uniqueness: Principle of

D9[30J Dl [33,36] D4[36] D9[24] D9J24] D9[20] D6[38] D1J52]

D5[7]

D4[14] D7[26] D5[34] D5J39] D4[5] D2[22J D9[29] D9J19J D7[3I] D8(45]

DX page.8 Unrealistic assumptions Unsane Verbal level Weinberg, Harry Weiss, Thomas White, James White, Leslie W.I.G.O. Wood, Nicholas Word Association Test Words and What They Do To You "Yam Incantation" example D8[4] D2[42J D1(49J Dl[25] D6[24] D9[2,201 D9J29J D3J2] Dl[4] Dl[39] D5[33] D2[7] D9[19] D3[22]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Dr. Sanford I. Herman Ph.D. Educational Cassettes & Publishing Co. P. O. Box 98022 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8022 Dr. David Maas P. O. Box 961 Hawkins, TX 75765 Institute of General Semantics 2260 College Avenue Fort Worth, TX 76110

BIBLIOGRAPHY English 1. S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action. 2. Thomas dark Pollock and John Gordon, A Theory of Meaning Analyzed. General Education 1. Catherine Minteer, Words and What They Do To you. 2. Catherine Minteer, Understanding in a World of Words. 3. Mary Morain (Ed.), Teaching General Semantics. 4. Mary Morain (Ed.), Classroom Exercises in General Semantics. 5. Thomas M. Weiss and others, Psychological Foundations of Education. Philosophy and Science 1. Sanfbrd I. Berman, Logic and General Semantics. 2. Antony M. Economises, A Non-Aristotelian Study of Philosophy. 3. Ross Evans Paulson, Language, Science and Action, 4. Anatol Rapoport, Science and the Goals of Man. 5. Anatol Rapoport, Operational Philosophy. 6. Marjorie A. Swanson, Scientific Epistemologic Backgrounds of General Semantics. Psychology and Psychiatry 1. Albert A. Ellis and Robert A. Harper, A New Guide to Rational Living. 2. Wendell Johnson, People in Quandaries. Religion 1. Margaret Gorman, General Semantics and Contemporary Thomism.

Investments, Stocks and Bonds 1. John Magee, The General Semantics of Wall Street. Business and Industry 1. Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid III 2. J. Samuel Bois, Explorations in Awareness. 3. Alfred Fleishman, Common Sense Management. 4. William V. Haney, Communication and Organizational Behavior. General Semantics 1. J. Samuel Bois, The Art of Awareness. 2. D. David Bourland, Jr., and Paul Dennithorne Johnston (Eds.), To Be Or Not: An E-Prime Anthology. 3. Francis P. Chisholm, Introductory Lectures on General Semantics. 4. Paul Dennithorne Johnston, D. David Bourland, Jr., and Jeremy Klein (Eds.), More E-Prime: To Be or Not II. 5. Robert R. Potter, Making Sense: Exploring Semantics and Critical Thinking. 6. Harry Weinberg, Levels of Knowing and Existence. Background Readings 1. Irving J. Lee, The Language of Wisdom and Folly. 2. Mary Morain (Ed.)/ Bridging Worlds Through General Semantics. 3. Mary Morain (Ed.), Enriching Professional Skills Through General Semantics. Speech and Communication 1. William V. Haney, Communication and Organizational Behavior. 2. Wendell Johnson, Language and Speech Hygiene. 3. Irving J. Lee, Handling Barriers in Communication. 4. Irving J. Lee, How to Talk with People. 5. Wilbur E. Moore, Speech: Code, Meaning and Communication. 6. Elwood Murray, Raymond Barnard, and Jaspar Garland, Integrative Speech.

Appendix IV 3rd printing, 2010

Institute of General Semantics The Scientific Philosophy of General Semantics General Semantics (GS) qualifies as an unusual, tough- to-'pin down', interdisciplinary field. "Is it a science or a philosophy?" Perhaps GS may best be seen as neither 'science' nor 'philosophy' but rather as both/anda scientific philosophy applicable moreover to the life concerns of 'the man and woman in the street'. In the scientific realm, GS has elements which bring it within the larger field of the behavioral/social sciences. Here, the main accomplishment of Alfred Korzybski, the original formulator of GS, was theoretical: his integrattve theory of human evaluation based on knowledge from a variety of fields. Formulated as a foundation for a new interdisciplinary science of humanity, GS suggests methodological guidelines for all (yes, all} areas of inquiry and has substantive implications for ongoing research on neuro-cvaluativc, neuro-linguistic factors in human behavior. In addition to this, GS focuses on examining underlying assumptions in a way that many people would call "philosophical." Korzybski did not find that term entirely congenialchiefly because it had become associated with verbalistic speculations detached from scientific/mathematical knowledge and practical application. However, he did respect the work of some philosophers, especially some of those who worked in mathematical logic and the theory of knowledge or epistemology. Indeed, he viewed his own inquiry into "the structure of human knowledge"as "an upto-date epistemotogy" Korzybski pioneered in applying knowledge from mathematics, physics, biology, neuroscience, psychiatry, etc., to epistemologicai questions, and conversely, in applying an up-to-date, scientific epistemology to physics, biology, psychiatry, etc.and especially to everyday life. He contended that factors of sanity exist within the work of mathematicians and scientists. A great deal of wisdom was present in the culture when Korzybski formulated GS. Nonetheless, much of this wisdom did not get applied. To an appalling extent-despite the work of Korzybski and many othersit still doesn't. With its emphasis on daily life application, the scientific philosophy of GS has preeminent value in providing specific methods for practicing a scientific attitudean attitude of inquiryfor individuals, groups and organizations. - Bruce 3. Kodish

Dr. Sanford I. Berman

Dr. Irving J. Lee

THE IRVING J, LEE METHOD OF TEACHING GENERAL SEMANTICS

SANFORD I. BERMAN, PH.D.*

OMEONE once said, "The trouble with Adam and Eve was not a red apple but a green pair!" Today I want to talk about what some call "ignorance and stupidity," or what in general semantics is commonly called a "misevaluation." In teaching general semantics, we try to lessen stupidity or misevaluations and substitute appropriate or proper evaluations in our thinking, communicating, and behaving. In order to teach proper evaluations or "intelligence," we should have certain teaching techniques that will catch the students' interest and make them aware that their old ways of thinking are inadequate. We motivate students to learn more about general semantics, "this new way of thinking."

* Educator and writer Sanford I. Bennan, Ph.D., has authored and edited books on general semantics and written articles for ETC. This article is adapted from a paper given by Dr. Berman at the Eleventh International Interdisciplinary Conference on Genera! Semantics at Hotstra University in November 1995. This paper originally appeared in Developing Sanity for Human Affairs, published by Greenwood Press in 1998 (www.greenwood.com). Reprinted with permission of Greenwood Press.
203

204

ETC JULY 2004

The best lecturer that 1 have ever heard in teaching general semantics was the late Irving J. Lee, my professor at Northwestern University. Dr. Lee was a marvelous lecturer, teacher, and trainer. A Professor of Public Speaking and Communication, he was a master at using the techniques that he taught. I studied his teaching techniques closely in three different classes and was going to audit his introductory class "Language and Thought" again before he died suddenly at the too-young age of 45. I had told Dr. Lee that I wanted to audit his class to analyze his teaching techniques to see why he was so successful. As a student and teacher of public speaking, 1 saw that some of the other professors, even speech professors, were not effective lecturers. They failed to apply what they were teaching in their speech classes. Why was Irving Lee such an effective lecturer and teacher of general semantics? First of all, he was a tall and handsome man with a low, booming voice. His vocal projection was outstanding and you could hear him from all corners of a large auditorium. One of the major reasons why public speakers fail is because they do not speak loudly enough. Those of us who teach must be continually cognizant of vocal projection. Irving Lee had over three hundred students in his introductory class, I know, I graded the papers! He told me that if "Language and Thought," the introductory class in general semantics, had been held in the morning and in the main pan of the university campus, he would have had over one thousand students. By having the class at 2:30 in the afternoon and in the technological auditorium away from the main part of the campus, he was able to "keep the class down to 300." With this many students, Irving Lee knew that he needed to communicate to every student, and so he utilized bodily movement to the fullest. He would never stand in one place. He moved all over the front of the class playing games and quizzes, inviting the students to misevaluate, and many of the students could not believe that "they had thought that way before." He never made fun of students' misevaluations. They were enjoying this as much as he was, as he taught them proper evaluation and intelligent behavior. Those of you who have seen Irving Lee's videotapes on genera! semantics have not seen the Irving Lee in action. He was lecturing to a camera, and you do not see the dynamic interchange between teacher and student. I have always said that it is unfortunate that we do not have a videotape of Irving Lee in action. In fact, we almost did not have these films of Dr. Lee. In the early 1950s, Dr. Lee and I were driving in Chicago and he said, "You know, they want me to make a series of lectures on film for the University of Indiana. 1 don't know if I should do it." He was very busy with many projects, but I told him that it would be a very important time-binding function and many of us are happy that he did make those films.

THE IRVING J. LEE METHOD OF TEACHING GENERAL SEMANTICS Jokes and Illustrations

205

One of the teaching techniques that Irving Lee believed in was using many jokes and illustrations. He often said that humor is the most disarming means of persuasion and while most of us are not humorists, we can all read jokes and illustrations. But the jokes must illustrate the semantic principle. When you use illustrations, you are changing the speech from one of high order abstractions to one of low order abstractions. The student can visualize the principle involved. This same teaching technique appears in Lee's book Language Habits in Human Affairs, where there is an abundance of humorous illustrations. Again, Irving Lee was a professor of public speaking and persuasion. He knew what he was doing and he applied his knowledge to be the most effective teacher that he could be. Irving Lee always smiled and made the general semantics class nan. We were dealing with our own "ignorance" and "stupidity" and his teaching techniques made us more aware of our misevaluations. For example, he would use several different techniques in teaching the fact-inference principle, the difference between a statement of fact and one involving an inference he'd lead students to where they'd ask themselves, "Why do we jump to conclusions?" Dr. Lee would bring an apple to class and ask the students if there are seeds in the apple. After a lively disagreement among the students he would ask, "Can you make a statement of fact that this apple has seeds in it?" Before giving the students the answers to his question he would go to the light switch and say, "This light switch is 'up' and the lights are on. If I push the light switch down will the lights go out?" Again, the students will have a healthy disagreement. Then he would put his hand in his pocket and jiggle some "coins" and ask them, "Do 1 have money in my pocket?" Many students would say "yes" to all of these questions and only after some discussion and lecture would they realize that all of these were inferences rather than statements of fact. I am here suggesting that perhaps some of us need to use more of these teaching techniques to the beginning student. We don't tell them that they are jumping to conclusions, they tell themselves! Many of you have seen or used William Haney's Uncritical Inference Test. Bill Haney was also Dr. Lee's student and he constructed his tests for his Ph.D. dissertation. They are a great addition to the general semantics literature. Bill has called his test an EQ (evaluation quotient) test, not an IQ test. But 1 told Bill that he must index his EQ test, it is EQ I, only relating to the fact-inference principle. In the early 1950s I constructed a genera! semantics EQn test, a test for several different general semantics principles and I used them as a teaching technique. I would give my students the "Berman Quizzes" even before lectur-

206

ETC JULY 20Q4

ing on one principle. You would be amazed at how smart students get after one half hour of this kind of instruction! They catch on very quickly. Irving Lee presented the signal reaction-symbol reaction principle near the end of his course and I told him that I put the principle at the beginning. I have found that most of the misevaluations that general semantics uncovers stem from an automatic, trigger-like reaction, the signal reaction. If you can get students to pause and delay, to STOP to think, to manifest a symbol reaction, some of the other misevaluations may not follow. In other words, a signal reaction lends to produce jumping to conclusions, projection, and misunderstanding, an allness orientation (they usually go together), identification, etc. But before I lecture on this principle I give them the first "Herman Quiz":
EQ1.

Jim Jones was standing on the corner waiting for a bus. The comer was dark and lonely. Jim knew that many robbers were around that neighborhood because he was familiar with it. While he was waiting for the bus, a man sneaked up behind him and hit him on the back. Jim whirled around quickly and caught the man with a hard right squarely on the jaw. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TRUE OR FALSE OR DON'T KNOW 1. The bus Jim was waiting for was late. True [ ] False [ ] Don't Know [ ]

2. Jim was right in hitting the man before he robbed him. True [ ] False [ ] Don't Know [ ] 3. Such intelligent action will always result in capturing more robbers. True [ ] False [ ] Don't Know [ ] 4. The robber should have hit Jim Jones harder before he had a chance to turn around. True [ ] False [ ] Don't Know [ ] 5. The robber landed on the sidewalk and did not succeed in his attempt. True [ ] False [ ] Don't Know [ ] 6. Jim should not have struck the man. True [ False [ ] Don't Know [ ]

THE IRVING J. LEE METHOD OF TEACHING GENERAL SEMANTICS

207

As you can imagine, you will get all kinds of answers from all kinds of assumptions. However, the students will see for themselves where they were projecting, inferring, assuming, etc. There is no better way of getting general semantics into the nervous system of students than having them see the misevaluations in themselves. This part of the training session in general semantics is usually humorous and enjoyable. You would be amazed at some of the answers that some of the students come up with. In teaching the principles of projection and misunderstanding, 1 give them another "Herman Quiz" or EQ2. Without any instruction whatsoever on this principle, I give the students the following quiz: ANSWER THE FOLLOWING YES OR NO Do you know what or whom I mean when I say: (and I will go quite quickly as we do in ordinary conversation) 1. President Roosevelt 2. President Truman 3. Third Strike 4. Time 5. Harper's Magazine 6. Life 7. Star 8. Face 9. Glass 10. Ford 11. Lincoln 12. Washington 13. Elliott Roosevelt 14. Franklin Roosevelt 15. Jack Benny 16. Rochester 17. Lucky Strike 18. Cigarette 19. Camel 20. Desert [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Here too, we get all kinds of answers. Many students have "yes" for many of the names, especially for the first five or ten until they "catch on." Technically the answers would all be "no." I had one executive come up to me after a management class at the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chi-

208

ETC JULY 2004

cago and he said, "You know, for the first time I realize why I have so many misunderstandings. 1 had 'yes1 for all twenty!" I have ten different quizzes for ten different principles and they can be given before you lecture on each different principle. Or, as } did in some classes, 1 gave the entire quiz before giving any instruction whatsoever. Now, one professor asked, "How can we know how much our students have learned? How do we test how much a student has changed in his thinking and communicating?" Irving Lee felt that we must move in this direction of training students in general semantics, much as the golf professional teaches his students how to play golf. How can we get off of the verbal level down to the non-verba! level of training, and how can we test it? 1 have one way to answer the question about discovering how much a student has learned. In the management class where I gave all ten of the Berman Quizzes, there were a total of 78 questions. I gave this class the entire quiz before any instruction whatsoever, and later I gave the same quiz at the end of the course. The students had far fewer misevaluations after taking the course. One student was an extreme case. Out of the 78 questions, he had 40 or 50 wrong answers, according to the principles of general semantics. After the course he only had about 7 "wrong" answers. He came up after class and said, "I don't believe I was that damn dumb!" There was a tremendous change in his ways of evaluating and in many other students, too.

Hi Herein Types of Audiences 1 would like to share with you some information from Irving Lee's Advanced Persuasion class. Many teachers or public speakers don't know that they must use a different approach in dealing with different kinds of audiences. Dr. Lee presented a profile in persuasion that I have never seen in a book on public speaking, and I would like to share that information with you now because, I think you will agree, every audience that we face will not be a believing audience! In every audience you will find people who will reflect some of the characteristics of the five different kinds of audiences. There are individuals or audiences who are believing, critical, hostile, bored or apathetic, and sophisticated or aloof. Now, if you are a speaker, you must do your homework and try to find out as much about your audience as you can. What is the nature of the audience? The believing audience is on your side, they are with you. You can let them know right away what you want to persuade them to believe, although it is always good to build some rapport with your audience. But the important thing

THE IRVING J. LEE METHOD OF TEACHING GENERAL SEMANTICS

209

is that they are not hostile toward you or what you want to persuade them to believe, so you can let them know almost immediately. The critical audience \$ neither for nor against you. This is the judge or the jury. The most important thing in persuading a critical audience is that you must have evidence. Many speakers fail because they stop there. If an audience is very critical, you must have second generation evidence, or evidence of the genuineness of your evidence. And, if necessary, evidence of that evidence. One of the most important things that the speaker must remember is that a critical audience is not a hostile audience. If you assume that they are hostile it is easy to turn them into a hostile audience. The critical person is open minded; this audience is looking for evidence. The hostile audience is one of the most interesting and difficult to deal with. They are against you or what you stand for. They are afflicted with allness. Many speakers fail because they have the romantic conception of speech-making. They think that they can easily change a hostile audience to a believing audience by their own personal persuasion or personality. This is a myth. It is not easy to change a hostile audience into a believing audience in just one speech. You should not try to change the hostile audience into a believing audience! All that you want to do is get them to listen. You must allay or hold off their hostility by using what Harry Overstreet called "yes, yes" material. You present ideas that you and the audience can agree on. You present anything but what you want to persuade them to believe. You are trying to change them from a hostile audience to a critical audience, and if you appear in front of them again you can use the techniques for the critical audience, hoping to change them into a believing audience. This is what the salesman or the teacher must do, as they often meet the same person or audience several times. The bored or apathetic audience is tired or just not interested. Irving Lee used to say, "Do anything within good taste to keep them awake!" This is why it is important for the public speaker or teacher to use as many techniques as possible to keep students interested and motivated. Audience participation and humor are important. It is not easy to keep an audience interested and wanting to learn. As a teacher of public speaking, I cannot emphasize bodily movement enough. You move an audience only in so far as you move yourself! Irving Lee was very much against speakers who read their speeches with no audience contact, no vocal variety, no animation, no gestures, no humor, no examples or illustration, no involvement of the audience. The sophisticated or aloof audience is above it all or they "know it all." This audience, along with the hostile audience, has many characteristics of the allness orientation. The best way to get to this audience is to tell them off in a

210

ETC* JULY 2004

nice way! But you must do it in a nice way. They are not hostile so you must use a non-allness approach in dealing with their allness. 1 can vividly remember a hostile audience, or half hostile audience, that 1 had at the University of Chicago. I was lecturing to a communication club and half the audience were my students and the other half were students of a professor from the University of Chicago. 1 did not know this until after the lecture: the professor, who sat right up in the front, did not like Alfred Korzybski. He was against general semantics. He asked some hostile questions during the lecture and I soon learned what kind of a situation I was in. Instead of lecturing on my introductory material on effective communication, I lectured on the closed mind and the allness orientation, directing much of the lecture toward him. 1 talked about the stupidity of closing one's mind, of not listening to what others say, but only hearing what you are saying in your own mind as you listen, about listening with empathy, and I was able to change the hostility directed toward me back to the professor. Fortunately many of my students were there and one of my students, a former air force officer, said that 1 had turned the audience around, 1 only say this because I can speak from experience that this knowledge from the Psychology of Persuasion can help you if you should meet a critical, hostile, bored or apathetic, or sophisticated or aloof audience. We meet all kinds of audiences and you must employ a different technique for each. The "Ideal Teacher" Let me conclude by talking about the "ideal teacher" or public speaker in general semantics. We need teachers who are scholars in the field of general semantics. They must read and re-read Science and Sanity. Irving Lee used to say that you must re-read it every six months. He also said that it takes six months to read it! He often said that he would take one general semantics principle and work on his own behavior. You haven't learned general semantics until you behave that way. And so, we need teachers who are scholars in the field, who know the body of knowledge. But we also need teachers who are able to communicate that information. We need teachers and lecturers who can apply the principles of public speaking and persuasion. We need dynamic lecturers who can interest new and young students. 1 would like you to visualize the following graph, which would illustrate what the mythical "ideal" lecturer or teacher of general semantics would look like. A vertical scale on the left would indicate to what degree the teacher or speaker is proficient in public speaking on a scale from 1 to 10, Numbers I, 2,

THE IRVING J. LEE METHOD OF TEACHOMG GENERAL SEMANTICS

211

or 3 indicate that the speaker applies few of the principles of public speaking or persuasion. Numbers 8, 9, or 10 indicate that the speaker or teacher applies the principles such as bodily movement, vocal projection, audience contact, humor, outlines important points, etc. The horizontal scale would indicate a person's knowledge of the subject. Numbers 1, 2, or 3 indicate a speaker whose words are false-to-fact, fraudulent, dishonest or shallow, whereas numbers 8, 9, and 10 show a person is competent, factual, honest and has knowledge of the subject. With this kind of a profile we can all judge ourselves to what degree do we match this "ideal" or effective speaker. We need to get more new students and adults interested in general semantics, and through dynamic and effective presentations this can be done.

Speaker or Teacher Profile Applies the principles of public speaking and persuasion. lueai speaker or teacher.

10 9 8
7

6
5 4 3

Applies few or no principles of public speaking and persuasion.

2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Poor knowledge of subject.

Excellent knowledge of subject.

THE WORLD is NOT AS SIMPLE As IT SEEMS TO BE

ELISABETH BALASH*

The world is not as simple as it seems to be Our options are not as small as the bacteria around us Nobody is good or evil Planet Earth does not just consist of land and sea the in-betweens the pieces left out in the extraordinary puzzle of the universe Life is not as plain as black or white Space does not end On and on grow the possibilities The sky defies limits Fly as high as you please Soar with your vibrant, powerful wings of thought The world is not "either, or" It is neither

212

General Semantics Bulletin

Number 71, 2004

Contents
8 Editor's Essay: The Extensional Definition of Time-Binding by James D. French 10 On the Teaching of General Semantics (2003 Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture) by Sanford I. Herman 23 General Semantics and the Philosophy of Science: From Pre-Aristotelian to Post-Einsteinian by Sanford I. Herman 50 In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of General Semantics by Bruce L Kodish 64 Memorial Time-Binding: Christopher Barrows Sheldon Mitsuko Saito-Fukunaga Gregory Sawin "Fisherman's Net" by Gregory Sawin Robert R. Blake 69 In Memorium, Thomas E. Nelson 70 Thomas E. Nelson: A Biography by Molly Nelson-Haber 74 General Semantics and the Shaping of the Future by Thomas E, Nelson 79 Kenneth G. Johnson - Teacher, Mentor, Friend: About Ken Johnson by Gregg Hoffmann Reflections of Ken Johnson by Andrea J. Johnson 81 Remembering Ken Johnson by Irene Ross Mayper

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN

Editor-in-Chief: James D. French Senior Editors Bruce I. Kodish Susan Presby Kodish Irene Ross Mayper Cover Design Edward Dawson Production Editors Susan Presby Kodish Bruce I. Kodish Cover Front: Robert P. Pula Back: Kenneth G. Johnson

I I

The introduction of these linguistic and semantic innovations, in order to make our language and orientations 'similar in structure'., is up against older neurological canalization ('Bahnung', 'law of facilitation'), . Thus the difficulties are tremendous, and only consistent drilling can establish a new nervous canalization, which introduces new neuro-semantic orientations and new 'habits' (canalization). Alfred Korzybski in "Letter to Co-Workers," in Collected Writings

STYLE NOTES
Quotes In order to accommodate the use of quotes as a Korzybskian extensional device to standard quotation practices, the following procedure has been adopted by the General Semantics Bulletin: A. SINGLE QUOTES (extensional device): (1) To mark off terms and phrases which seem to varying degrees questionable for neuro-Iinguistic, neurophysiological, methodological or general epistemological reasons, e.g., 'mind', 'meaning', 'space' or 'time' used alone, etc. (2) To mark off terms used metaphorically, playfully, etc. B. SINGLE QUOTES (standard usage): (1) To indicate a quotation within a quotation. C. DOUBLE QUOTES (standard usage): (1) To indicate a term or phrase used by some referred to person but not necessarily indicating a direct quote. Example : What Korzybski referred to as the "semantic reaction" . (2) To indicate a direct quotation from a named source . D. TERMINAL QUOTES (General Semantics Bulletin usage):Commas, periods and other terminal punctuation go outside of single quotes. They go inside double quotes as per standard usage. "General Semantics" The term "general semantics" does not refer to some sort of'generalized linguistic or philosophical semantics'. Rather "general semantics" a unitary termnames our particular disciplinea general theory of evaluation which includes verbal and non-verbal aspects. Thus when writing about general semantics, use the term "general semantics." We abbreviate general semantics as "GS" with capital letters. When using the term as a modifier, as in the phrase "a general-semantic(s) approach," we use a hyphen, as in standard usage, to indicate its unitary nature. Extensional Devices We encourage authors to use extensional devices and techniques in their writing. These methods include indexing, dating, using etc., quotes, hyphens, English Minus Absolutism, using non-elementalistic terms, avoiding 'ises' of predication and identity, etc. For further details see "Using General Semantics" by Susan Presby Kodish on the IGS website, http://www.time-binding.org/leamingctr/sk-using.htm . See also Korzybski's "Letter to CoWorkers," in Korzybski's Collected Writings, quoted from above.

T 1 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

CONTENTS

82 General-Semantics Professional Activities of Kenneth G. Johnson by Susan Presby Kodish 84 The General-Semantics Writings of Kenneth G. Johnson by Susan Presby Kodish 86 Relevant? by Kenneth G. Johnson 88 Remembering Bob Pula: Endearing Bob Pula by Susan Presby Kodish Bob Pula: Thank You, Sir by James D. French 91 From The Notebooks of Robert P. Pula 92 Writing and Teaching General Semantics: Robert P. Pula's Legacy by Bruce I. Kodish 95 The Annotated General-Semantics Bibliography of Robert P. Pula by Robert P. Pula 110 Science and Sanity: Preface to the Fifth Edition, 1993 by Robert P. Pula 120 Some Comments on the Twelfth International Conference on General Semantics by Steve Stockdale 122 News from the Institute (September 2003 - August 2004) 125 IGS Books and Other Media: Annotated Catalog 131 Order Form for Books and Other Media 132 Read House Institute of General Semantics, Fort Worth 134 IGS Membership Application

Editor's Essay 2004-

THE EXTENSIONAL DEFINITION OF TIME-BINDING

By intension, we might define time-binding as "The actual and potential ability of a life form to transmit knowledge and information at an expanding rate from generation to generation." So far, the human race is the only known life form to have done this. Other species on earth have a limited ability to pass information to the young; but it is not a capacity with the ability to accelerate over time with the generations. But categories are fuzzy. Perhaps there exists some rudimentary potential acceleration there, particularly with apes and dolphins. And humans may be able to assist other species onto the timebinding path. If a species ever did develop such an ability to bind time, I would argue for classifying it not solely as 'animal', but as another time-binding life form. As we know, no definition of time-binding can include 'everything' of importance about it; but, as I see it, including "expanding rate" in the above definition serves to emphasize the Tact' that timebinding is not simply additive, but geometrical in its progression. It accelerates. Now the rate of acceleration at different times can be very slow, covering many generations before visible change, or extremely rapid. By extension, we could define "time-binding" by listing the actual results of the efforts of human generations over time, as in the random and partial list below: 1. space-flight 2. sports 3. language 4. sociology 5. agriculture 6. television 7. history 8. ethics 9. radio 10. physics 11. accounting 12. music 13. automobiles 14.cooking 15. telemetry 16. writing 17. pottery 18. theories 19. law 20. books
21. art 22. film 23. commerce 24. philosophy 25. comedy 26. metallurgy 27. ecology 28. measurement 29. money 30. clothing 31. electric lights 32. planetology 33. anthropology 34. experiments 35. democracy 36. mass production 37. cloth 38. telephones 39. astronomy 40. chemistry

41. robotics 42. tools 43. paper 44. cartography 45. medicine 46. automation 47. biology 48. psychiatry 49. politics 50. birth control 51. computers 52. holography 53. schools 54. mathematics 55. statistics 56. weapons 57. calendars 58. poetry 59. lasers 60. religion

_> Lw

THE EXTENSIONAL DEFINITION OF TIME-BINDING

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

This list, impressive in its large number of achievements, provides a way to sharply distinguish between animals and human beings. We can 'see' the difference. I call it the extensional definition of time-binding. The list came about many years ago (mid 1970s) as the result of a classroom exercise in which 1 had asked the students to list some of the things that human beings have developed over the centuries that animals, for the most part, have not. I just wanted a list, and was not concerned if an item already belonged to a previously listed item as a sub-category, e.g., "computers" under "tools." Through this exercise, the students actively participated in the extensional definition of time-binding (each creating a unique list), thus giving them a real 'feel' for this important GS principle. The exercise not only seemed to be valuable in helping the students to understand time-binding; it also helped them to grasp the difference between intension and extension. By intension, I had defined "time-binding" the way one might see it in a dictionary; but by extension, the class defined it with a list of examples. Such a list could prove of value in illustrating over/under defined terms; that is, the term "timebinding" is over-defined by intension, and under-defined by extension. Also, perhaps it could be used to illustrate reflexiveness. For example, we could have the following additional items on the list: the theory of time-binding, general semantics, and the extensional definition of time-binding. In other words, the list could include itself as a time-binding development. Bear in mind that in time-binding there may be cross developments that work against the general progressive momentum, just as in a river there may be crosscurrents that work against the general flow of the water. I use the term crossbinds to characterize them. Identity theft, for example, would be an example of a crossbind: of something that grew out of record keeping, but that works against it and time-binding in general. Criminal activity of any type could be considered as a crossbind, of course. Another example would be Adolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, and then there are certain dogmatic creeds, and so on. A given thing can also have both time-binding and crossbinding elements in play. For example, an automobile can get you across town faster; but the exhaust from cars in general may pollute your lungs. The interplay between time-binding and crossbinding could be said to determine the general rate of progress of the human race. James D. French

ET CETERA

2003 ALFRED KORZYBSKI MEMORIAL LECTURE

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS
BY SANFORD I. BERMAN

(Delivered at the Twelfth International Conference on General Semantics, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 1, 2003)
INTRODUCTION BY BRUCE I. KODISH

What a great honor to be here to introduce our speaker for this evening, Sanford I. Berman. Doctor Berman, known to his friends as Sandy, joins a line of distinguished presenters, in one of the most important, though perhaps least known, annual speakers' series on the planet: The Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture, also known as the AKML. Since 1952, when the first Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture happened, we've had such individuals as Ashley Montague, Buckminster Fuller, Abraham Maslow, Jacob Bronowski, L. L. White, George Steiner, Gregory Bateson, Kenneth G. Johnson, Neil Postman, Albert Ellis, Steve Allen, Robert P. Pula, and many others. I feel particularly delighted tonight that we will hear as AKML speaker, Sandy Berman, who has directly devoted a significant part of his life energies to the growth of general semantics. Sandy very accurately fits my criteria of a Renaissance man, which includes a fierce appetite for experience, broad ranging interests, and multiple talents in many different forms of creative expression. Now, I thought that I came up with this on my own, but I later found out that, a number of years ago, some newspaper writer wrote a column about Sandy entitled, "Renaissance Man." So, I consider that as independent corroboration of my evaluation. I'll just give you a short list of some of Sandy's many accomplishments, which might fill the CV's [curricula vitae's] of quite a few less talented individuals. Sandy started out in his native MinnesotaI'll just go over his academic background. He has a Bachelor's degree in Radio and Communications from the University of Minnesota; a Master's in Speech from Teacher's College, Columbia University; and he received his doctorate in Speech Communications from Northwestern University, where he then assisted Dr. Irving J. Lee in his famous general-semantics classes. And Sandy had also studied with S. I. Hayakawa, and at the Institute of General Semantics. And his doctorate work was directly related to general semantics, in the speech discipline. Since the 1950s, Sandy has had multiple, and sometime concurrent careers, as a university lecturer, nightclub entertainer, stage hypnotist... I'm constantly learning things about Sandy and his many lives. He's done work as a seminar presenter, a motivational speaker, and a success coach, a popular author, a newspaper columnist, a businessman, and a serious scholar in the history and philosophy of science, and scientific epistemology. And I want to just briefly mention his book, Logic and General Semantics, which has his editing with additional articles and his own commentary on the work of the long forgotten philosopher, Oliver L. Reisera very important philosopher in relation to general semantics. And I, and many of the top people in terms of general-semantics scholarship, consider this one of the most important works on philosophy and the relationship between philosophy and general semantics, that's been written in a very long time.

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS

11

Sandy has served as president of the International Society for General Semantics, and on the Board of Trustees of both the Society and the Institute of General Semantics. In recent years Sandy has also become prominent as a GS philanthropist, sharing some of the rewards of his successes to support a variety of GS-related projects. These include establishing three university Chairs in general semantics in the communications departments at San Diego State University, the University of California at San Diego, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, our host for this conference. The scope of Sandy's span of activities could leave a person breathless, but I feel glad to report that Sandy seems to breathe rather easily. Some of this may result from his internalizing of general semantics. But I also consider that it may have something to do with an important aspect of Sandy that I have abstracted from observing him in action over a number of years. His deep love of people, and his heartfelt desire to help in whatever way he can. Now tonight, Sandy's talk will not go as advertised. He will not speak primarily although I don't know what he is going to saybut he told me that he had changed the topic from "GS and the Philosophy of Science" to focus on teaching and training in general semantics. So I will now present to you Dr. Sanford I. Herman. SANFORD I. BERMAN: Thank you very much, Bruce. When I count to three, you'll wake up! [audience laughter]. That introduction was like a glass of perfume, smells pretty but it shouldn't be swallowed. I changed my speech because I don't believe in reading speechesI learned that from Irving Leebut I did write a 50-page paper, [See following article] and I hope the speech tonight will be more enjoyable, because I brought all my best jokes and illustrations to demonstrate how Irving J. Lee lectured at Northwestern Universityand how I did alsobut not nearly, nearly as well, believe me. First I want to mention, because we are video-taping this speech and making it available, people will ask, "What are some good books in general semantics?" And [addressing Bruce Kodish] I'm returning your kind words by mentioning that this is the best new book-length introduction on general semantics [Drive Yourself Sane, by Susan Presby Kodish and Bruce I. Kodish]. I teach on a sophomoric level, as you'll see tonight. And others of you teach on a more scientific, scholarly level. You'll see a more scholarly level perhaps in the paper that I wrote already, on the history of man's thinking, from pre-scientific thinkingthe projections and animisms, and other kinds of misevaluations, pre-scientific thinking of pre-scientific manto the aristotelian era, and Galileo, Newtonto Einsteinto post-einsteinian thinking, of quarks and string theory. In fact, I've added on to the structural differential, the electrons, protons, neutrons, sub-microscopic levelfurther up are the string theory and quarks. I've underlined 150 booksI don't just read books, I underline them, mark in the margin everything related to general semanticsand as far as I know not too many people have written books on the relationship between general semantics and the philosophy of science. And I do this, as I point out in the paper, because there are many people who have been critical of general semantics. In fact, I didn't bring it with me, but some of you might like to know, I did send to Jeff Mordkowitz and to Paul Johnston, a book I edited, of some really fine articles on general semantics written by Hayakawa, Rapoport (on what is the aristotelian structure of language), Stuart Chase, and many others. I edited that book. I hope it will come out next year.

12

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

I also edited another book on critics of general semantics. Irving Lee once said, "You know, we've got to deal with the critics of general semantics"like Bruce did [General Semantics Bulletin #64] with Max Black on his [Black's] book on logicand I've got another book on quite a few critics of general semantics, because many of these criticisms are based upon total misunderstanding. One critic said that if you want to learn general semantics, you don't go to Science and Sanity. And yet Korzybski 'invented' general semantics in Science and Sanity. So that paper will be coming out. This is a fine introductory book [Drive Yourself Sane]. And there is another bookas you well know, we publish this, still a classicPeople in Quandaries. When Jeff Mordkowitz taught at the seminar [2001, in Arcadia, CA], he asked rne something about how can we train in general semantics, and if I had any ideas. I replied that I had added onto Wendell Johnson's People in Quandariesif you look in the back of the book, you'll see "semantic exercises"and I did add at least five more things that teachers can do to help extensionalize your understanding of general semantics. Also, I brought an outline of a book that I wrote 40 years ago. I've got one chapter left to finish. I got involved in my nightclub career in San Diego, literally working day and night for 40 years. I apologize if I talk about myself, but as Sam Bois saidin the introduction to one of his books, either the Art of Awareness or the other one, Explorations in Awareness"Who else's nervous system can I talk about?" I'm going to talk tonight about drawing people to general semantics. Why don't we have more people in general semantics? One of the reasons I became a nightclub hypnotist is because everybody in the world wants to be entertained, they don't want to be educated. When I had my success motivation seminars I changed the title from "general semantics and effective communication" to "success motivation" because I found out that more people would rather learn how to become millionaires than learn how to lessen misunderstandings. And so while I started off with 300 students, the number went down to 200, and 100, through the years, and when we had the difficulties with gas availability in 1974, we'd have 50 students; and then it went up. But I taught it for 15 years, with two or three hundred people in the class sleeping [in trances] all over the place. You see my seminars were under hypnosis and self-hypnosis, and I became a nightclub hypnotist because I dislike ignorance and stupidity of all kinds. The best way to educate people that hypnosis is true is to show them on the factual level. Many years ago I took a course in parapsychology at the University of Minnesota, from Dr. William Heron, and he put on a demonstration of hypnosis, and I said to myself, "Why is this academic professor doing this carnival stuff?" People still have that kind of evaluation toward that taboo word, hypnosis. And so for my minor in anthropology and PhD, I wrote several papers on primitive mentality, as well as taboos. And I just happen to have made a lot more money as a nightclub hypnotist than I would as a teacher, I believe, in one-fifth the time. But the big money of course is buying real estate. The lady from Wisconsin said, "I hear you're in real estate." And I said "No, I only buy it." There's a big difference. And this is why I can give money for this conference.

I 1
_

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS

13

I'm also going to give money to train people to lecture, or have you train them to lecture rather, like Bob Eddy did the other day. As soon as Bob got out of the gate, I knew he was a professional lecturer. He did everything that a professional one does. So today I want to talk very quickly about a course that I developed. I've lectured on effective communication and general semantics to companies all over the country, especially when I was in Chicago. Tonight I'm going to talk about stupidity and ignorance and lack of knowledge, because people have still not been taught the important principles of general semantics. Those of us who have written books on general semantics still have not abstracted one-tenth of what Korzybski wrote about. Irving Lee said, "There's a gold mine of information here." And I try to present it on the easy-to-understand level of abstraction. Well, what do we mean by that? Many of you are familiar with Bill Haney's test on inferences. This was his PhD dissertation. Around that same time, I made a test for x-number of different principles: projection and misunderstanding, for example. When I open my class, I don't give the students a lecture on general semantics at all. I simply ask questions. "Which girl do you think is more beautiful, Diane Darling or Elsie Zadrovski? Betsy Hacraft or Louise Love? Lisa Hoy or Joy LaMar?" Which fellow do you think is more handsome: Tim Condon or Abe Schwartz? Allen Dale or Nick Nipopolous?" Well, I go up and down the rows, and would you believe it, they answer the questions before I start to lecture on anything in general semantics. In other words, they know what the person looks like by the name alone\w we did videotape my lectures at San Diego State once and the next day I came in and lectured in class and I read the same questions, and did they answer them? No, they were laughing like heck, because they had changed, they had realized that it was stupid to answer those kinds of questions. We don't know from the -words alone. So I have many different quizzes that I give my students that I want to share with Steve Stockdale and others. One quiz is on projection and misunderstanding, another on the two-valued orientation, and many, many others. Bill Haney called his quiz an "EQ test", an Evaluation Quotient. And I said no, you've got to index it. Your test is only for the fact-inference principleEQ,. 1 developed tests for many different principlesEQn. I hope that some of you will take me up on this to construct your own kind of a quiz before you give your students a lecture on general semanticsbecause many philosophy professors used to dismiss general semantics as "old stuff'yet they were the ones who violated the principles the most, some of the ones who had that kind of an allness orientation. So you've got to construct a quiz to invite the students to misunderstand, invite them to jump to conclusions, invite them to behave stupidly. And I only say this because I was teaching 50 top executives for about 13 years at the University of Chicago's Management-Development Seminar. And they loved this kind of training. These were all presidents and vice-presidents of large corporations.

14

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

I'd give them a quiz before the lectures, and I'd give them a quiz at the end. At the beginning, one guy got about 56 wrong out of about 70 or so. And at the end of the course, he came up with his testhe had only about four or five wrongand he came up, and he was almost mad at me. He said, "You mean to say I was this god-damned dumb?" I almost said, "Yes." [audience laughter] They also say, "Why didn't I get this stuff 30 years ago?" And all of you may be asking, "Why aren't my kids getting this today?" I'm talking about a certain way of teaching. I'm talking about getting it into their nervous systems. I'm talking about it becoming enjoyable. I don't stand in one place when lecturing. Unfortunately Irving Lee's lectures were filmed with him standing in one place. Dr. Lee and I were driving in downtown Chicago, and he said, "You know, they want me to make some films for Indiana University, and I don't know if I should [because he was very busy]." And I said, "Yes, you know this is very time-binding to make those films." And we're all very fortunate that he did. But while we have the films of Irving Lee lecturing to a camera, we don't have Irving Lee filmed with his students. This was when he was at his best. He'd have little games and quizzes and would invite them to participate, and this is how you teach general semantics, not one-way communication. And so Lee would, go to the blackboard, and he'd say, "Give me a directive that I cannot possibly misunderstand." One person would say, "Well, write your name on the blackboard." And then Lee would write on the board with his finger; or he would write "your name on the blackboard." It's the easiest thing in the world to misunderstand. My students only got me one time. I was teaching at the University of Chicago's Management-Development Seminar, and I'd lecture from 4:30 to 6:00, and we'd take a dinner break from 6:00 to 7:00, and come back at 7:00 and lecture until 8:30. And I said, "You've got one hour during dinner to see if you can think of a directive that I cannot misunderstand." After dinner we returned. One guy was sitting in the comer and he stood up, and I said, "OK, what is the directive?" He had an eraser in his hand; he threw it at my head and said "Duck." 1 did not misunderstand! [laughter] So to those of you who teachwe all have different personalities, but you've got to be more dynamic, and meaningful, and practical and pragmatic if you want to get to the introductory student. I'm not that bright. I like to teach on the introductory level, even for top executives in industry. We had many professors at the University of Chicago who couldn't teach these executivesthe professors were too theoretical. They were way up here [raises arm]. The students wanted to know how you lessen misunderstandings. How do you stop jumping to conclusions? How do you stop individuals from thinking that they know it all? I had one executive from the Omaha Gas Company, used to come in from Omaha to Chicago, took the seminar, and said "You know, we have trouble with some of our individuals. The psychological tests say they have 'poor judgment'. We don't know what that means."

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS

15

So I said, "Well, during the course I'll give you much more of an example in terms of poor judgment." So I explained a little bit, poor judgment is defined by, number one, having signal reactions. Number two, jumping to conclusions; number three, having an allness orientation', not looking for enough facts, etc. And the whole course, my entire course, Dr. Lee's entire introductory course, called "Language and Thought"contrasted the intensional orientation on one side, the extensional orientation on the other. The extensional orientation being the scientific method; the intensional method, of course, is the verbal orientation. I defined it a little differently in the speech that I wrote for the AKML. Irving Lee said, "How do you solve problems?" There are two different ways. The intensional way, through logic, through reasoning, through debate, through argumentation, goes back to Aristotle and Plato. This is the verbal method. The extensional way of solving problems is the scientific method of experimentation. This is the factual method. So two principles are the two main ones that I looked for in all the history of science, the extensional and the intensional orientation, and elementalism and non-elementalism. And where you have scientific progress, you have non-elementalism come into play. They used to assume that electricity and magnetism were separate. Now we have electro-magnetism. And there are many, many other examples that I abstracted. I also have heresome of you who took the seminarthe "speech for all occasions." You can give it anywhere. These are high-order abstractions that are not specific and concrete. What do we mean, "specific and concrete"? It is very simple to explain. Here we have Milton's [Dawes] chair. The word "chair" stands for this nonverbal object. But it also stands not only for this chair, but for all chairs. And then we have the word "furniture," which includes this chair and other kinds of furniture. Seehigher order abstractions. Then we have "business," "industry," "commerce"; you see, the different orders of abstraction. And the important thing is to teach people how to be specific and concrete, because, as I will point out very quickly, this is where you have misunderstandingsin the levels of higher-order abstractions. And it is ignorancewe're all ignorant in many areasbut stupidity is something else again. If you don't understand someone else, ask them, "What do you mean?" As we will see, the burden for effective communication is upon whom, the speaker or the listener? Both! Oh, the speakers assume, "I gave you, I handed you a handful of meaning"as you handed me water in the glass (I'm assuming it's water)not in Bob Pula's glass [audience laughter]. So I can hand you meaning, say something to you. You're afflicted with 'allness' if you don't ask me "What do you mean" and you misunderstand me. The most important thing about the allness orientation, is that it is extremely subtle. This principle was especially meaningful to top executives in business and industry. General semantics is especially important in effective communication, human relations and management generally. Those of you teaching general semantics, emphasize that word "subtle." The allness orientation does not necessarily manifest itself in the extreme form of dogmatic behavior, the know-it-all, the closed mind; it manifests itself in extremely subtle ways, the refusal to listen, the refusal to learn, the refusal to change or keep up to date, etc.

16

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Oh boy, I used to teach at Northwestern's Traffic Institute. I loved teaching those army officerspolice chiefs, Navy officers. When they came to class with their uniform on, they'd shove a shoulder at you as if to say, "OK boy, I dare you to teach me. Show me something I don't already know!" They'd come to class in a T-shirt, and their behavior would be different. I had one colonelthis was interestinghe sent me a letter. He said, "I want you to know that during the class I didn't believe one damn word you said." He said, "I now find myself practicing these principles. Would you please send me your quiz? I want to teach this way." So what I do, the first principle that I want to talk about, very quickly, is the signal reaction. Most misevaluations start from the signal reaction, automatic, impulsive behavior. Here we have somethingan event or happening which has a nervous impact followed by an evaluation, a way of thinking, then talk. After the word "talk," add the word act, because we are concerned with behavior, especially stupid behavior not based on facts. In fact, Irving Lee called his introductory class, "Language and Thought." And I said, "Why don't you call it Language, Thought and Behavior?" And he said, "The psychology boys think that behavior is within their province." The book that I'm going to finish [writing] is called, How to Think, Communicate and Behave Intelligently, Note behave intelligentlywe are concerned with behavior. George Santayana said, "The aim of education is the condition of suspended judgment on everything." I don't know, let's see. How can we train people in saying, "I don't know?" Where do you think that's fromgeneral semantics! It's the non-allness orientation. When I gave these chairs to the different universities, one of the universities didn't want to call it "general semantics." They wanted to call it "language," and I said "OK" just to get it into the university. But I made sure that general semantics was an important part. You see, Irving Lee used to say, "You've got to realize that general semantics did not come from within the university"Korzybski was not a PhD, Korzybski was not a professor." Although Hayakawa, and Lee, and Wendell Johnson and others did work from within universities. So the most important thing, the reason I gave this money, was to get it within the university. Now I'm looking for dynamic young teachersand Steve, I will finance public speaking contests, because when I was in ninth grade, I began entering oratorical conteststhe greatest training I've ever had. And in my show-business careerwho do you think I modeled myself afterit was a great showman, Irving J. Lee! Now we have neuro-linguistic programming. You see, I was the first teacher as far as I know, to use hypnosis and self-hypnosis in education. I won't talk about thatbut very important, hypnosis is a powerful tool to internalize the principles of general semantics. It's the easiest thing in the world to jump to conclusions. It takes no gray-matter at all. We must teach the difference between our inferences and statements of fact. For example: A well-filled bus was proceeding down a Boston thoroughfare, when a truck cut sharply into its path, and only the bus driver's quick wits and action prevented disaster. Pale and shaken, he voiced his estimate of the vanishing truck driver's character, origin, and mode of life, in words appallingly stark. Then remembering the audience at his back, he turned to face them. A little white-haired woman forestalled his apology. "My congratulations," she said, "upon an admirable presentation of what we may reasonably assume to be the facts."

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS

17

This one is kind of subtle, very subtle, and it afflicts all of us: A man, accompanied by a small boy, entered a barber shop, and he asked for a haircut. When the barber had finished with him, the man said, "I'm going next door for a beer while you cut the kid's hair." The barber gave the boy a haircut and waited for the man to return. Finally, he turned to the kid and asked, "Where in Pete's sake did your father go?" "Oh," said the boy, 'That ain't my father, he's a man who stopped me in the street and asked me if I'd like to get a free haircut." The third barrier to effective communication is the allness orientation. And the Kodishes, plus many people, give an excellent description of the process of abstracting, how our nervous system abstracts. And in my classes I ask the question, "Can we know all about anything?" And finally the students come to the conclusion, after awhile, that you cannot know all about anything. Then I ask them, "Have you ever met individuals who act as z/they know all about everything or something?" Oh yeah. It's always the other person. So that's the allness orientation. The other half of abstracting is that if you are not conscious of abstracting, you fall victim to the allness orientation. And the important thing is that it is so extremely subtle. It manifests itself in the refusal to listen; and usually I fall victim to some of the illustrations myself. All of you are listening to a different lecture right now. All of youi are sitting on your &wumptions! And I'm standing on mine. How do we know that the roof won't cave in? Life is a series of assumptions. But wisdom begins when we check our assumptions, when we don't pass off our inferences and assumptions as if they were factual. So the allness orientation manifests itself in the refusal to listen, the refusal to learn, the refusal to look or look again, the refusal to change or keep up-to-date, assuming knowledge that one does not have, the refusal to ask questions. Both the speaker and the listener must ask the other person, "Do you know what I mean,"or "Is this what you mean?" So we have many examples here. Here's one that I like, of abstracting: We were seated in the lobby of the hotel as she walked swiftly by us. She turned a corner sharply and was gone. "That's an uncommonly good-looking girl," I said to my wife, who was deep in a cross-word puzzle. "Do you mean the one in that imitation blue-taffeta dress with the green and red flower design?" "The girl that just walked by," I said. "Yes," said my wife, "with that dowdy rayon dress on. It's a copy of the one that I saw at Hattie Carnegie's, and a poor copy at that. You'd think though that she'd have better taste than to wear a chartreuse hat with it, especially with her bleached hair." "Bleached? I didn't notice her hair was bleached." "Good heavens, you could almost smell the peroxide. I don't mind a bit of make-up, provided it looks fairly natural, but you could scrape that rouge off with a knife. They ought to add a course in make-up to the curriculum at Smith." "Smith? Why Smith?" "From her class pin, of course. You must have noticed it from her charm bracelet." "I wasn't looking at her wrist." "I bet you weren't, nor at those fat legs of hers either. A woman with legs like that shouldn't wear high-heels, patent leather shoes."

18

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

"I thought she was a very pretty girl," I said, apologetically. "Well you may be right," said my wife. "I was busy with my crossword puzzle, and I didn't notice her, particularly." [audience laughter] And you know what an atheist is, don't you? An atheist is a person who goes to a Notre Dame, Southern Methodist football game, and doesn't care who wins. I watch a lot of sportsI happen to have four television sets that I watch every night at the same time, including my favorite, a 61-inch one, where I watch sports. Right now, I'm video-taping the fight. I hypnotized Ken Norton for two and a half yearsBob Eddy was at the fight where Norton was knocked out by Jose Garcia, 1970. I was having my success seminars at Ken Norton's manager's hotel at La Jolla, at the Holiday Inn. I saw this gray-haired guy back there being hypnotized. He came up to me and said, "You know, my boxer Ken Norton just got knocked out by Jose Garcia. I believe in what you are teachingsuccess motivationand would you hypnotize him?" I hypnotized Ken for two and a half years, right through the time when he broke Mohammed Ali'sjaw. Then I was supposed to be on Johnny Carson's show with Ken, but the manager went on Johnny Carson's show with Ken Norton himself. They froze me out completely, and I wouldn't hypnotize him after that. Now basically what I am saying is that what I teach in success motivation is that nobody cares about you except you yourself. You've got to learn to be inner directed, to quote David Reisman in his book, The Lonely Crowd. There are known 'laws'of success. Steve, tomorrow, if I could have five minutes, I've got many other cassettes that I've written and recorded. Charles Peirce's Philosophy of Science, A. J. Ayer's book, I've got my whole success seminar, 13 cassettes, where I brought together general semantics, communication, and the 'laws' of success. Now heretofore we didn't want to bring success motivation into general semantics. That's why we don't have so many people here at the conference. You've got to get to the average person. They're the ones who need it. And I can talk to you more about that. OK? Here's the one I like on abstracting. Some of you may recall this. [See "The Role of Language in the Perceptual Processes, in Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings, pp. 170-171.] "In a railroad compartment an American grandmother with her young and attractive granddaughter, a Romanian officer, and a Nazi officer, were the only occupants. The train was passing through a dark tunnel, and all that was heard was a loud kiss and a vigorous slap. After the train emerged from the tunnel, nobody spoke, but the grandmother was saying to herself, 'What a fine girl I have raised; she will take care of herself. I'm proud of her.' The granddaughter was saying to herself, 'Well, grandmother is old enough not to mind a little kiss; besides, the fellows are nice. I'm surprised what a hard wallop grandmother has.' The Nazi officer was meditating, 'How clever those Romanians arethey steal a kiss and have the other fellow slapped.' The Romanian officer was chuckling to himself, 'How smart I am! I kissed my own hand and slapped the Nazi!' [audience laughter] I like this next example because it's:so subtle, the allness orientation. Notice this. A friend of mine, who is a father of 12, volunteered to baby-sit one evening so that his wife could have an evening's relaxation at the movies. "Don't let a single one of them come downstairs," his wife instructed him as she went out.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

27

Primitive Magic As we journey through the history of man's thought we will have occasion to marvel at the lure of magic and magical thinking, the power of mysticism in all stages of human thought. "Primitivism" is not extirpated from our cultural heritage. Magical thinking is a lingering survival, a cultural relic, of the age of ignorance and superstition. Philosophers of science say that there is no question that the first real advances toward the formulation of a "scientific methodology" and corpus of scientific knowledge were made by the creators of Western culture, the ancient Greeks. They taught us that the origin of philosophy lies in "wonder," the sense of curiosity. Who made the universe? How did man himself come into being? All primitive peoples have their theories which, for them, provide the answers to these questions. Their speculations about the origins of man, the earth, and the heavens, were invariably anthropomorphic in nature, always in terms of some creative power in the universe similar to man. In all the mythologies of primitive peoples man himself occupies a central position. Anthropomorphism, ascribing human characteristics to non-human things, and anthropocentrism, regarding man as the central fact of the universe, seem to constitute necessary steps in the forward progress of human thinking. This appears natural because man's theories must be woven out of his experiences, and experience begins with the human individual, who is therefore the first center of early thought. It was because of man's innate tendency toward anthropocentrism that man thought of himself and the earth on which he lives as the center of the universe. This is what the geocentric theory of the universe presupposes. There were a number of factors which would lead man to regard himself and the earth itself as the central object and focal point of cosmic events. It was a slow process which gradually brought about the decline and death of the geocentric and anthropocentric theories which primitive peoples believed and which prescientific thought had universally adopted. Science, and physics in particular, is the application of non-elementalism in many areas. Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver, in their book The Story of Physics said, "But the physicist goes beyond the mere knowledge of facts because his ultimate concern is deducing from these facts basic laws that enable him to correlate what appear to be disparate phenomena and to predict future events." (p.vii) In the history of science disparate phenomena, elementalistic phenomena which had been assumed to be separate, were shown to have important relationships which lead to new and important phenomena. Motz and Weaver go on to show the vast difference between the ancient Greeks' intensionally-oriented speculations and the exensionally-oriented achievements of Nicolaus Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Johannes Kepler. Socrates and Plato One of the Greek philosophers was Socrates. He developed what has become known as the "Socratic Method." Like the modern day general semanticist, he went around uncovering assumptions and questioning certainties. If men discoursed too readily on justice, he asked them, quietly, to define it. What is it? What do you mean by these abstract words with which you so easily settle the problems of life and death? What do you mean by honor, virtue, morality, patriotism? Some who used this "Socratic Method," this demand for accurate definitions, clear thinking and exact analysis, left men's minds more confused than before. But Socrates pointed out what scholars have recognized for many centuries, the importance of unconscious assumptions in communication or debate and the ambiguity of language, as well as many other hidden factors in the use of language.

28

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Plato was a student of Socrates. He found a new joy in the "dialectic1 game of Socrates. To Plato, it was a delight to observe the master deflating dogmas and puncturing presumptions with the sharp point of his questions. But to Plato's credit he passed from mere debate to careful analysis and fruitful discussion. He became a very passionate lover of wisdom. He was known to have said, "I thank God that I was bom in the age of Socrates." To Plato, philosophy means to think clearly, which is metaphysics. For that purpose, said Plato, the young elite should study the doctrine of Ideas. The Idea of a thing might be the "general idea" of the class to which it belongs. Behind the surface phenomena and particulars which greet our senses, are generalizations, regularities, laws which are unperceived by sensation or our senses but conceived by reason and thought. These Ideas, laws and ideals, says Plato, are more permanent and therefore more real than the sense-perceived particular things through which we conceive and deduce them. Aristotle and Aristotefianism Aristotle was bom in 384 B.C. Some philosophers have said that he was prepared from the beginning to become the founder of science. He went to Athens to study philosophy under Plato and he has been described as the most synthetic thinker in the history of thought. He coordinated a wealth of knowledge as probably never before had passed through the mind of one man. And while Alfred Korzybski called his discipline of general semantics a non-aristotelian system, as we shall see, this was not in any way anti-Aristotle. Non-aristotelianism merely recognizes the tremendous limitations of knowledge circa 384 to 322 B.C. As Zeller, in his book Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics, says;
He was compelled to fix time without a watch, to compare degrees of heat without a thermometer, to observe the heavens without a telescope, and the weather without a barometer... Of all our mathematical, optical and physical instruments he possessed only the rule and compass, together with the most imperfect substitutes for some few others. Chemical analysis, correct measurements and weights, and a thorough application of mathematics to physics, were unknown. The attractive force of matter, the law of gravitation, electrical phenomena, the conditions of chemical combination, pressure of air and its effects, the nature of light, heat, combustion, etc., in short, all the facts on which the physical theories of modern science are based were wholly, or almost wholly, undiscovered,"

Although Aristotle was much more factually or extensionally oriented than Plato, he seldom appealed to experiment. The mechanisms of experimenting had not yet been made. The best he could do was to achieve an almost universal and continuous observation. Yet, the vast body of data gathered by him and his assistants became the groundwork of the progress of science, the textbook of knowledge for two thousand years. This is one of the wonders of the work of one man! Aristotle was much more extensional than Platoand the great battlefield centered around the question of "universals." The battle would continue until this day between the "realists" and the "nominalists." A universal, to Aristotle, is any common noun, any name capable of universal application to the members of a class. So, animal, man, book, tree, are universals. But these universals are subjective notions, not objective realities. They are names not things. All that exists outside us, said Aristotle, is a world of individual and specific objects, not of generic and universal things. Men exist, and trees, and animals, but man-in-general, or the universal man, does not exist, except in thought. Universals are a 'mental' abstraction, not an external presence.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

29

The difference between the extensional and the intensional is illustrated in the differences between Aristotle and Plato. Plato held that universals have objective existence and that the universal is incomparably more lasting, important and substantial than the individual. Men come and go, but Man goes on forever. Aristotle concerned himself with the objective present, while Plato is concerned with a subjective future. There is a general-semantic ring to this dialogue. There was, in the socratic-platonic demand for definitions, a tendency away from things and facts to theories and ideas, from particulars to generalities, from science to scholasticism. Plato became so devoted to generalities that they began to determine his particulars, so devoted to ideas that they began to define or select his facts. Intensional Orientation and the Birth of Science The first serious scientific questioning began in the civilization of ancient Greece. The Greeks thought of themselves as natural philosophers, seeking to penetrate the secrets of nature by means of reason and logic. Many notions that could have been proved wrong by the simplest experiments were accepted as true without question. Debate and logical dialogue were the accepted methods of investigation. Historians of science have said that philosophers would argue for months about some point of "natural philosophy" which a modern scholar could have resolved in one minute flat with a good slide rule. The intensional orientation was the rule of the day! Even so, ancient Greece and her philosophers built a critical groundwork for the organized body of scientific knowledge. It was upon their ideas, discoveries, and errors that the whole structure of modem scientific exploration first arose. The Greeks recognized philosophically that there was order in the universe. There was, the Greeks concluded, a definite cause-and-effect relationship between things that occurred in nature. But we see the intensional orientation among the early Greek philosophers. They believed that certain truths about nature could be accepted as obviously true without proof, and then be used as basic axioms from which other truths could be deduced by means of logic and reason. These so-called intuitive truths were very fundamental things, so clearly and self-evidently true that they were considered proofs unto themselvesthings that "any fool could plainly see." The conclusions of the early Greeks did not come from careful experiment or measurement but from somewhat casual common-sense observations. The ancient Greeks began to collect a volume of basic scientific data and then built upon those data by means of logic and deduction. For example, the basic axioms which form the basis of Euclid's system of geometry, a system regarded as the only possible system of geometry for almost two thousand years, were never considered subject to proof. They were accepted as self-evidently true. In the second century A. D., an Alexandrian Greek astronomer named Ptolemy created a misconception that took a thousand years to clear up. Ptolemy assumed as self-evident that the earth itself stood still in the heavens while the planets and the sun revolved around it. He also assumed that all the heavenly bodies moved in perfect circles, since the circle was obviously the most perfect form of motion for a heavenly body. Fitting his common sense observations of the planetary movements into these axioms, he developed a theory to explain the motion of the sun, the moon, and the other planets around the earth. Finally, fifteen centuries later, somebody proved that both of Ptolemy's "self-evident" axioms were wrong, but so great was the stature and authority of those early Greek philosophers that it took centuries to replace some of the false theories they propounded. But by proving that nature behaved in an orderly manner, and that the truths about nature could be

30

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

uncovered by human intellect, the Greeks opened the door to a two-thousand-year-long assault upon the riddles of nature. But they did not have a workable concept of a scientific method of investigation as we think of it today. They disdained experimentation, and considered their speculations and hypotheses "proven" if they were logically and philosophically pleasing. The intensional orientation reigned supreme. In the late 1400s some giants in science began to appear. The names of these men are well-known today: Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and others. Theirs was the world of classical physics. At long last they overthrew the ancient Greek, aristotelian tradition of investigation by debate and philosophy, and established a new tradition of investigation by experimentan extensional orientationa tradition that has persisted to this day. Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer born in 1473, was one of the first non-aristotelians. He made the first and probably most revolutionary break with the ancient Greek tradition. No one had dared to question Ptolemy's basic assumptionsthat one could use only the earth as the center of the universe and that heavenly bodies had to move in circles. Drawing from a lifetime of his own careful observations, Copernicus concluded that the sun had to be the center of our solar system, not the earth, and that the earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. It was such a revolutionary concept that Copernicus himself withheld its publication until the very end of his life. And then, a century later, other astronomers began finding some new discrepancies between theory and observation. The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe spent the decades between 1570 and 1600 in a patient study of planetary motions, using better instruments and more astute observations than Copernicus. But it remained for a young assistant of Tycho Brahe, a German astronomer named Johannes Kepler, to study Brahe's data and discover the truth: that the planets traveled in elliptical orbits. He also found a relationship between the speed with which a planet moved and the distance it lay from the sun. As a planet moved closer to the sun in its elliptical orbit, Kepler found, its velocity increased; when it swung away from the sun its velocity decreased. Kepler also noted that planets that lay close to the sun sped around it faster than those far distant, and these differences in the periods of revolution of the various planets could be described in a fixed mathematical ratio to their mean distances from the sun. A relatively new language was being used. And a new technique of investigation. Supplanting philosophy, reason and speculation about casual observations, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Johannes Kepler for the first time demonstrated that careful observation and measurement were the real keys to scientific discovery. They are the basis of the extensional orientation. Aristotelian and Non-Aristotelian Orientations In the introduction to the second edition of Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski presented a summary of some of the differences between the old aristotelian orientations and new general-semantic, non-aristotelian orientations. He said that the old aristotelian orientations are characterized by the subject-predicate methods, where the 'is' of identity and the 'is' of predication are paramount, whereas the non-aristotelian orientation is characterized by relational methods. As we will see, the whole history of science and scientific progress is characterized by relational methods, especially Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Korzybski said that aristotelian orientations are characterized by static, 'objective', 'permanent', 'substance', 'solid matter', etc., orientations while the non-aristotelian orientations are dynamic, ever-changing, etc., electronic process orientations. Electromagnetism and quantum mechanics are

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS

19

He promised to carry out her instructions to the letter, and had just settled down with a book when he heard steps up the stairway. "Get back upstairs and stay there," he commanded sternly. He read in peace for a few minutes and again heard soft footsteps. This time he added the threat of a spanking. Soon he again detected stealthy sounds, and dashed out in time to see a small lad disappear up the top steps. He had hardly returned to his book when a neighbor came in distractedly. "Oh Fred," she wailed, "I can't find my Willy anywhere. Have you seen him?" "Here I am, Ma," said a tearful voice from the top of the stairs. "He won't let me go home!" [audience laughter] So this allness orientation is so extremely subtle! And if we are trained in general semantics, we shouldn't behave like the "average" person. We will check our assumptions. We will look and see. Thomas Edison said, "Show me a thoroughly satisfied man, and I will show you a failure." Charles Kettering said, "Some minds are like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set." And again to show you the subtlety, here is another example: The young man said in a faint voice, "You don't want to buy any life-insurance do you?" "I certainly do not," the sales manager replied. "I thought you didn't," the embarrassed solicitor said, and he headed for the door. Then the sales manager called him back and addressed the confused and frightened young man, "My job is to hire and train salesmen, and you're about the worst salesman I've ever seen. You'll never sell by asking people if they don't want to buy. But because you're just starting out, I'm going to take out $ 10,000 worth of insurance with you right now. Get out an application blank." Fumblingly the salesman did so, and the deal was closed. Then the sales manager said, "Another word of advice young man. Learn a few standard organized sales talks!" "Oh, I've already done that," the salesman replied. "I've got a standard talk for every type of prospect. This is my organized approach to sales managers." [audience laughter] One final example deals with projection and misunderstanding. I ask my students, "Where do you find meaning?" And invariably they say, "Meanings are in words." When I was at Teacher's College, Columbia, I had a discussion with one of the English teachers, and she said, "What's the difference if you say, "Meanings are in words," or "Meanings are in people"? I didn't have the answer then. Well, I learned later on from Irving Lee: Here we have the speaker; here we have the listener. The speaker speaks with his meaning and the listener listens with her meaning. This is mode A [speaker], and this is mode B [listener]. And the question is, how can we get the speaker and the listener on the same channel of communication, mode C? So I asked them, "The burden for effective communication is upon whom, the speaker or the listener?" Some people say the speaker, some people say the listener. Obviously, it's upon both. If your concentration is on the speaker's words, if you start with the assumption that words contain meaning, then you fall victim to the problem of misunderstanding. Irving Lee called it, "the container myth," the mythical assumption that words contain meaning as that glass there contains water. As Charles Sanders Peirce saidand I pronounce it "Purse" in my recordings because this was the pronunciation when he was in England. Charles Sanders Peirce said, "You do not get meaning, you respond with meaning." And so there are two ways of evaluating.

20

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

One is, let's say, mode A. If you assume that meanings are in words, you'll stop or short-circuit the process of communication too quickly. The logic runs, "I know what the word means, therefore I know what you mean." You stop right here, and you misunderstand. But in mode B, if you are trained in general semantics to realize that meanings are not in words, they 're in people, your attention will be on the speaker. I don't want to know what the word means. I can look up 50 definitions in a dictionary, and it might very well be the wrong onecompared to how you are using it. I want to know what you mean.

And so the burden for effective communication is both upon the speaker (to be specific and concrete, and as extensional as possible) and the listener (to get on the speaker's channel of communication).
In business and industry, before an executive or a worker goes off and misunderstands the directive and costs the company hundreds or thousands of dollars, ask some simple questions: "What do you mean? How are you using the word? What do you want me to do?1' And this stuff is so simple, but so important in business and industry. In other words, words are ambiguous. We must be trained in the ambiguity of language. Other points, and I will cover these very quickly, we learn the 'meanings' of words from our past experience. Therefore, meanings are personal; all of you are listening to a different lecture. Also, meanings are arbitrary. There is no inherent relationship between the word and what it represents. And finally, words don't mean anything, people mean; Meanings are in people, they are not in words. Well, we talked about the tests that we can give. Here is one I used to give to my students at the Illinois Institute of Technology. We have an ambiguous picture, hard to see (of a worker coming into his boss's office), about a couple of guys. There's a girl looking disheveled. And the question, "What will they talk about, who are these people, how will it come out?" And on the bottom, "Write down the name, age, and sex." And so you send five or six people outside, but keep one person there, and you pick a picture and let him or her look at a picture for a couple of minutes; then you bring the next person in, and the first person describes the picture to that person, and you bring in another person, and he/she describes it to that person, and so on. And at the Illinois Institute of Technology, it turned out that the last person described the picture as showing a guy and a girl having sex in an alley. It was the funniest thing in the world as you saw the progression. So in communication, you see two things happening, you have lost information, and you also will have adding-in, what was not there in the first place. Here is another test that you can give your students, that I give to my students a lot. There's a card on which four sentences are written, headed by "Bet you a drink that you can't read this card aloud correctly." The students see, "Paris in the spring, Slow men at work, Once in a lifetime, Bird in the han^Yve gone all the way around the class, every one of them reading out loud the same thing. In reality, it says, "Paris in the the Spring, Bird in the the hand, Slow men at at work, Once in a a lifetime, Bird in the the hand." All the way around the room; people normally, naturally project their own meanings, or what they expect to see. And so in human communication, number one, as we have said, "You learn the 'meanings of words' not from a dictionary, but from your past experience." Here's a good example:

ON THE TEACHING OF GENERAL SEMANTICS

21

The Lord's Prayer has had to withstand considerable abuse, especially from children trying to learn it from poor enunciators or from mumbling congregations. One little boy was heard to pray, "Harold be Thy name." Another begged, "Give us this day our jelly bread." A New York child petitioned, "Lead us not into Penn Station." [audience laughter] You can never be certain what the response will be. The wife was talking with the maid. "You know, I suspect my husband is having an affair with his secretary." To which the maid replied, "I don't believe ityou're only saying it to make me jealous." I like this one here. Notice the subtlety of the allness orientation. It was lunchtime. The elderly clerk opened his sandwiches, looked at them, exclaimed bitterly, "Cheese sandwiches, always cheese sandwiches!" "Why don't you ask your wife to fix you another kind of sandwich," a colleague asked. "Who is married," said the man, indignantly. "I make these sandwiches myself." I get a lot of these emails, and I love this one. I break up laughing; I hope I won't be crying in front of all of you. But let me share this with you. A lawyer is questioning a doctor on the stand. "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check the pulse?" Answer: "No." Question: "Did you check for blood pressure?" Answer: "No."

Question: "Did you check for breathing?" Answer: "No."

Question: "So then, is it possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy." Answer: "No." Question: "How can you be so sure doctor?" Answer: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."

Question: "But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?" Answer: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere." [audience laughter] Here's another one. Question: "All your responses must be oral, OK?" Answer: "OK." Question: "What school did you go to?" Answer: "Oral."
You do not get meaning. Your respond with meaning. [Other stories]

Question: "Did you blow your horn or anything?" Answer: "After the accident?"
Question: "Before the accident?" Answer: "Sure, I played for ten years, I even went to school for it." Judge: "Well, sir, I've reviewed this case, and I've decided to give your wife $775 a week. Husband: "That's fair your honor. I'll try to send her a few bucks myself." Question: "What is your date of birth?" Answer: "July 15th." Question: "What year." Answer: "Every year." "It was announced today that Canada is now prepared to help the United States in its war against terrorism. They have promised to commit two of their largest battleships, six thousand armed troops, and 50 fighter jets. However, after the exchange rate, that comes down to a canoe, two Mounties, and a flying squirrel." Well, we have a lot of these kinds of examples and illustrations to illustrate the humorous aspects of why we have misunderstandings, the ambiguity of language; and if you use jokes and illustrations, and entertainment in your lectures you are likely to have a better result. As Irving Lee said, "Humor is the most disarming means of persuasion."

22

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

I once lectured at the Waldorf Astoria in New York for a management group. And I followed Elliot JanewayI don't know if any of you ever heard of himhe was a famous economist. The boringest, driest guy you ever met in your life. And he was standing, reading his speechguys were going to sleeptalked a long time... You see, I'm a speech teacher. I've heard some speech teachers at speech conventions speak in a monotone [Here Dr. Berman speaks very softly in a monotone with no audience contact to illustrate poor speech]: "Today I want to lecture on public speaking students who are very bad speakers. They have no audience contact, they have no vocal projection, they have no vocal variety..." These are speech teachers! So what I am saying hereuse examples and illustrations and jokes, and above all, bodily movement. You'll make a tough target. Well, one of the important things we general semanticists learnthat as we go through life, we know some of these principles, but it's still difficult to get them into our nervous systems. I've handed out some things in answer to Jeff's question, "How do you train people in general semantics?" I've written a couple of pages on that. Number one, Wendell Johnson talked about the semantic diary. I've had my students use that at the universities. I've written some other things of what you might do. Cut out a picture of some fruit from a page, cut out any kind of food, and give it to your studentsand tell them to eat it. That's pretty extensional (factual). The word is not the thing! You've got to get off of the verbal level in training your students. And so although we realize that we should change our ways of thinking, communicating, and behaving, it's still very difficult for many of us to do so, as indicated by this final example: There was once a man who went around saying, "You know I think I'm dead." His friends finally persuaded him to consult a psychiatrist. When the patient told the psychiatrist that he thought he was dead, the psychiatrist told him to clench his fists, stand before a mirror and say, "Dead men don't bleed." He told the man to repeat this motion six times a day for a month, each time saying, "Dead men don't bleed." He told the man to go home and carry out his instructions, and return at the end of the month. The patient carried out the psychiatrist's instructions and at the end of the month he returned. The psychiatrist told him once again to go through the motions. The reason he had him tighten his fists was so the veins would come to the surface of the man's wrists. The man tightened his fists and just as he said, "Dead men don't bleed," the psychiatrist jabbed a scalpel into the man's wrist. The blood gushed out, and the man hollered, "By God, dead men do bleed!" [audience laughter] Let me leave you with one bit of advice, and I mean this very, very sincerely: Don't believe one word I've said. Go out and try it. Thank you all very much.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: FROM PRE-ARISTOTELIAN TO POST-EINSTEINIAN BY SANFORD I. BERMAN Ever since Science and Sanity was first published in 1933, Alfred Korzybski has had his share of both critics and supporters in the academic community. The eminent logician, Alfred Tarski, for one, was highly critical.1 On the other hand, Cassius J. Keyser, the eminent mathematical philosopher, was highly complimentary.1

How could eminent scholars in many different fields perceive the "same" book in such diverse ways?
The Philosophies of Science For several years \e been studying the philosophies of science as related to general semantics. Notice that I say the philosophies of science, as there are as many philosophies of science as there are philosophers of science. What are the relationships between general semantics and the philosophy of science? Was Korzybski on the right track? Is there a relationship between general semantics and the history of science? What are some of the important similarities between genera! semantics and the history of man's thought from pre-scientific thinking to modern scientific thinking? In my research I have chosen two important, principles of general semantics that relate to the history of science. There are, of course, many other principles, which will be presented in a larger study. The two most important principles that I was looking for were 1) the extensional and intensional orientations, and 2) the principles of elementalism and non-elementalism. Irving J. Lee, in his book Language Habits in Human Affairs, differentiated between the intensional orientation and the extensional orientation in the following way: "Intensional orientations are based on verbal definitions, associations, etc., largely disregarding observations as if they would involve a 'principle' of 'talk first and never mind life facts.' Extensional orientations are based on ordering observations, investigations, etc., first, and the verbalization next in importance." (p. 123) Wendell Johnson in People In Quandaries said: In its more general sense, extensionalization refers to what we have otherwise described as the scientific method, and as the process of abstracting, carried on consciously and adequately. To behave in accordance with the principle of extensionalization is to behave scientifically, keeping the levels of abstraction distinct and coordinated, maintaining adequate word-fact relationships, abstracting in the proper order from lower to higher levels and back again to lower, maintaining effective relationship [s] between inferences and facts. .. In its more specific sense, extensionalization refers to orientation on the non-verbal levels of abstraction." (pp. 199-200) Robert Pula in A General-Semantics Glossary said: By intension Korzybski indicated a human over-commitment to or over-dependence on definitions, verbalizations ('If I can define it, I know it.'), while disdaining or simply being unaware of a need for observation, for generating and checking data, and for being willing to engage in self-challenging formulations, such as 'How do I know that? Why do I say that? What evidence might I discover which might disconfirm what I am claiming, what I have just said?' A person who consistently does not or refuses to ask such questions is said to operate on the basis of an intensional orientation." (p. 25)

24

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Perhaps the definitions of the intensional and extensional orientation that I followed more closely were the definitions given by Irving Lee in his introductory class in general semantics: Language and Thought. Dr. Lee said that there arc two general approaches to the solution of problems. There is the verbal or intensional approach and the non-verbal or extensional approach. In the face of a problem we can either theorize, verbalize, reason, argue, discuss and talk or we can stop talking and experiment or do. The extensional approach of solving a problem goes by the slogan, "I don't know. Let's see." You can talk until doomsday about a problem but you can never solve it until you stop talking and experiment or DO what you are talking about. He said that whenever you find progress you will find it when "theory talking" stopped and pilot studies or experiments were set up. And, as we will see, this is why the empirical method, experimentation and the non-verbal testing of hypotheses or theories was so important in the history of scientific progress. The other general-semantics principle that was so important in the history of science was nonelementalism. In writing about elementalism and non-elementalism in his Glossary, Robert Pula said: Korzybski formulated time-binding as the defining human act; the behavior by which humans demonstrate their humanity. Having identified language as the tool of time-binding, Korzybski exerted himself to tease out, via linguistic analysis, those aspects of language(s) that, from a structural point of view, constitute flaws and, therefore, impediments to time-binding. One deeply pervasive neurolinguistic flaw he spotted he called elementalism. By elementalism Korzybski meant the tendency to verbally split what can't be found (observed, abstracted) split in the non-verbal (silent) domain. With words, primarily nouns, we are able to refer to 'things' (presumed phenomena, activities) as if they exist in an encapsulated form, cut off from the surround of which they constitute an interactive ingredient. The second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) credits Korzybski with this coinage-formulation thusly: "The verbal separation into separate concepts or entities or things which cannot be separated empirically or physically, e.g., space and time, body and mind'. ..." Korzybski maintained (formulated) that these erroneous linguistic splits violate the structures of the non-verbal world as inferred by up-to-date science and that their use has profound extensionaloperational implications....The classical 'cure' for elementalism is found in Korzybski's prescription of the hyphen: not space and time, but space-time [some of the modern books write it as one word, "spacetime"SIB] not mind and body, but mind-body; not observer and observed, but observer-observed, the observer-observed continuum." (pp. 12-14) I will point out many examples of elementalism and non-elementalism where elementalistic assumptions, dichotomies or separations of phenomena, were replaced by inter-re latedness and relativity. In fact, non-elementalism is at the heart of Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. In the history of man we see the tendency to study man and "things" out of their context, away from the totality. The process of conveniently subdividing the world was a fruitful way of getting at particular things, but it subdivided us away from the larger, more important relational wholes. In psychology, more recently, we have come to talk about man as an organism-as-a-whole. But Korzybski says that we must talk about man-as-a-whole-in-an-environment (ecological thinking) at-a-date. But too often we tend to separate man from his environment, which empirically we cannot do. Man, as well as the world at large, is an inherent part of his or her outer, as well as inner (neuro-semantic), environment. "Things" in this world are related, so we must discard primitive elementalistic terms which imply structurally a non-existent isolation.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

25

Wendell Johnson, in his book, People in Quandaries, gives a very good summary of some of the differences between pre-scientific and scientific thinking. He says that in pre-scientific thinking or orientation there is the fundamental notion of the static character of reality. The main attention is given to similarities and identities which lead to generalized identification; identifying words with things; identifying what is inside of us with what is outside; the failure to see differences in people, situations, and things. A fundamental notion in scientific thinking or the scientific orientation is the process character of reality. He says that a process reality gives rise to a never-ending series of differences. More attention is paid to differences than similarities only, or identities, in people, situations and things. An important consequence is that we observe the world of reality in terms of uniqueness, differences as well as similarities, instead of acting as if "They are all the same." Another example of prescientific thinking or orientation is rigidity, the closed mind, the tendency to maintain established beliefs and habits regardless of changing conditions. Experimentation is discouraged, which perpetuates the intensional or verbal orientation. With the scientific orientation, adaptability, which is readiness to change as changing conditions require, is fostered by these basic notions of process differences. Thus there is a tendency to challenge authority systematically, to experiment, to test traditional beliefs against actual observation and experience. This is the extensional orientation. Language plays a very important role both in the prescientific and scientific orientation. In the language of a prescientific orientation, if the language is not clear, a properly appointed authority will interpret it, and his interpretation is to be believed. The validity of authoritarian pronouncements is not to be questioned. Statements of assumption and statements of fact tend to be regarded as the same. The language in a scientific orientation, however, is designed to be factually meaningful, directly or indirectly, and clear and valid. It is intended to satisfy two important tests: "What do you mean?" and "How do you know?" Moreover, assumptions are sharply differentiated from statements of fact. As we will see there are many examples of meaningless words or statements taken to be meaningful until exposed by an Einstein or others. Language has played an important role in the asking of questions. Prescientific language, said Johnson, tends to make for questions that are frequently vague and quite often meaningless factually. Attempts to answer such questions give rise to misunderstandings and disagreements, to misinformation and misleading theories, with the result that predictability is achieved slowly or not at all. Scientific language is oriented around factually clear, answerable questions. Vague or meaningless questions are abandoned because they misdirect human energy. Einstein was concerned with a different form of energy and he, along with Niels Bohr, was concerned with meaninglessness and the important role that language plays in science and the philosophy of science. In the prescientific orientation, the natural process of projection is carried out unconsciously, which Johnson calls a relative lack of "to-me-ness." It is realized only vaguely, or not at all, as every statement conveys information about the speaker as well as information about whatever the speaker may seem to be talking about; and, said Johnson, the degree of self-reference is largely ignored in evaluating the statement's factual significance. In the scientific orientation, on the other hand, the natural process of projection is carried out with a high degree of awareness, consciousness of projection or "to-me-ness." It is realized that every statement conveys information about the speaker as well as information about whatever the speaker may seem to be talking about.

26

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

In prescientific thinking accurate prediction is not a particularly well-recognized objective. In a prescientific orientation there are, rather, beliefs regarding the "supernatural." These tend not to be changed, because they are considered not as theories but as statements of fact. Faith in these beliefs, and obedience to the authority which represents themobedience expressed by participation in prescribed rituals, for exampleare prized as the means of control over natural and human events. This faith in beliefs (higher-order faith in faith) is accompanied by the failure to realize that the word "faith" is a multiordinal term whose meaning is determined by the context of the sentence, the order of abstraction, or how the person is using the term. Now, let us consider some examples of prescientific thought or prescientific orientations. Prescientific Thought Prescientific thought was characterized by unconscious projections and lack of consciousness of abstracting. In the beginning there was fear, and fear was in the heart of man. Fear controlled man. At every turn it overwhelmed him. With the wild wind it swept over him. With the crashing of the thunder and the growling of the beasts all of the days and nights were fraught with fear. He could not give himself the thought that much of the evil was accidental. He could not conceive of the accidental. To him all things that occurred were full of meaning, were intentional. His projections occurred all around him. To him, the boulder that fell and crushed his shoulder had wanted to fall and crush it. To the savage there was nothing absurd in the idea that everything around him bore him malice, for he had not yet discovered that some things were inanimate. In the world he saw about him, all objects were animate; sticks, stones, storms, and all else. Animism is common in its crudest form in certain savage superstitions, that every natural object possesses an inherent spiritual being or soul. And projection is the basis of animism. The boulder that fell and crushed his shoulder had wanted to fall and crush it. Projection was a common feature of primitive and prescientific thought. Not merely were all things animate to the savage, but they were seething with emotions too. Things could be angry, or they could be pleased. They could destroy him if they willed, or they could let him alone. And so, man was forced to resort to more subtle methods of attack. Since blows could not subdue the hostile rocks, streams, lightening or thunder, our ancestor tried to subdue them with magic. He thought words might avail: strange syllables uttered in groans, or meaningless shouts accompanied by beating tom-toms. Or he tried wild dances. Or luck charms. If these spells failed, then he invented others. If those, in turn, failed, he invented still others. He projected countless words, symbols, dances and thoughts into the world of reality. Of one thing he seemed most stubbornly convinced: that some spell would work. Somehow the hostile things around him could be appeased or controlled, he believed; somehow death could be averted. Man had to have faith in himself, or dieand he would not die. So he had faithand developed religion. Long before man thought of religion, he tried to control the "powers" of the universe with magic. If he speculated about the storms, lightening, swift wind, falling rocks and other hazards he probably decided the very objects he saw had an animus against him. Only later, much later, did he advance, sufficiently to be able to think of those "powers" not as the objects themselves, but as invisible spirits inhabiting them. Primitive man was unable to draw fine distinctions between soul and body, between spirit and matter. Historians nowadays call that stage in the development of magic the "animistic," from the Latin anima meaning "spirit." There are millions of people in the world today who still remain bogged in that animistic stage of magic, belief, and the intensional orientation.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

31

characterized by this non-aristotelian orientation. The old aristotelian orientations considered 'properties' of 'substance', 'attributes', 'qualities' of matter, whereas the new general-semantic, nonaristotelian orientation is concerned with non-static, dynamic structure of 'particles' and 'waves' rather than 'substances'. The old aristotelian orientation is characterized by a one and two-valued, 'either or', inflexible, dogmatic orientation (the 'allness' orientation) whereas the non-aristotelian orientation manifests infinite-valued flexibility and degree orientations (non-allness). The old aristotelian orientation is characterized by identity or by definition, "absolute sameness in 'all' respects," whereas the non-aristotelian orientation displays empirical non-identity, a natural law as universal as gravitation. The one and two-valued 'certainty' of the aristotelian orientation was replaced with the infinite-valued maximum probability of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics. The old aristotelian and newtonian absolutes were replaced by the einsteinian dynamic relativism. By definition 'absolute emptiness', and 'absolute space', were regarded as meaningless and were replaced by empirical fullness of electromagnetic, gravitational 'fields'. By definition 'absolute time' and 'absolute simultaneity' were replaced by empirical spacetime and relative simultaneity. The additive, linear relationships of the aristotelian orientation were replaced with the functional, mathematical, non-linear and non-additive relationships of the nonaristotelian orientations. These will be indicated to show the importance of non-additivity in the history of scientific discovery. The old aristotelian orientation was concerned with the euclidean system of flat space, whereas the non-aristotelian orientation is concerned with the non-euclidean systems of Reimann and einsteinian curved space. The aristotelian orientation was one of "common sense" or sense data, the macroscopic and microscopic levels, whereas in the non-aristotelian orientation, the sub-microscopic levels are predominant, such as in quantum mechanics. The old aristotelian orientations disregarded important environmental factors (elementalism) whereas the non-aristotelian orientation emphasized organism-as-a-whole-in-environments., introducing new and important unavoidable factors, such as the 'field' theories and ecological 'thinking*, that any phenomenon must be analyzed relative to its environment, which may be an important component of its behavior. The aristotelian orientation is characterized by one and two-valued causality, and so consequent 'final causation' and certainty, whereas the non-aristotelian orientation is characterized by infinite-valued causality, probability theories, statistics and statistical mechanics, where the 'final causation' hypothesis is not needed. Korzybski also emphasized the aristotelian orientation as adjusting empirical facts to verbal patterns, whereas the non-aristotelian orientation is adjusting verbal patterns to empirical facts, Korzybski also included in his new general-semantic, non-aristotelian orientation several other principles that were not considered in the old aristotelian orientations. They were, as he wrote, disregarded. But they are important considerations in the philosophy of science and general semantics. Korzybski said that we must consider undefined terms in our analysis of language and science. In other words, underlying all use of language, the participants have certain unconscious assumptions which cannot be avoided. Korzybski emphasized the importance of our presuppositions, unconscious assumptions in communication and in any scientific endeavor. The undefined terms and unconscious meanings in any communication process are always there and of paramount importance. Korzybski also said that the self-reflexiveness of language was disregarded in the old aristotelian orientations. He considered language as a kind of map, and he presented his famous map-territory relationship. He said that two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the

32

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

territory it represents. The word is not the thing, a map and a territory are on two different orders of abstraction. But maps and languages, to be useful, must have a similar structure to the territory. If a map could be ideally correct, it would include, in a reduced scale, the map of the map; the map of the map, of the map; and so on, endlessly, a fact first noticed by philosopher Josiah Royce. So language, said Korzybski, must be considered only as a map. A word is not the object it represents and language exhibits this peculiar self-reflexiveness. He recognized that self-reflexiveness of language introduces serious complexities, which can only be solved by the theory of multiordinality. He said that the disregard of these complexities is tragically disastrous in daily life and science. While multiordinal mechanisms and terms are recognized in the new non-aristotelian orientation, they are disregarded in the old aristotelian orientations. The main characteristic of multiordinal terms consists of the fact that on different levels or orders of abstraction they may have different meanings, with the result that they have no general meaning, for their meanings are determined solely by the given context, which establishes the different orders of abstraction. The recognition of the multiordinality of the most important terms leads to a conscious use of these terms in the multiordinal, extremely flexible, fully conditional sense. Terms like 'fact', 'reality', 'cause', 'effect', 'proposition', 'number', 'relation1, 'order', 'structure', are multiordinal terms with different meanings for different users. Psychologically, says Korzybski, in the realization of the multiordinality of the most important terms, we have paved the way for the specifically human, full conditionally of our semantic responses. The history of science has presented many examples of the problems created by the lack of awareness of the multiordinality of the most important terms. Another important principle that was disregarded by the aristotelian orientation was the over/ under-defined character of terms, over-defined by verbal definition and under-defined by facts or extensional orientation. One of the best examples of this is the consideration of the 'ether*. 'Ether' had been postulated and used for many years until Michelson and Morley, and then Einstein, realized that this intensional term could not be verified scientifically and it was finally rejected by Einstein as a superfluous and factually meaningless concept. It had no physical referent. As Korzybski would say, it was "noise" or as Hans Vaihinger in The Philosophy of 'As If would say, it was a verbal fiction. It was assumed for many centuries that "ether" was a "thing," something through which light was transmitted. "Ether" or "aether" was a verbal fiction, as Einstein showed. In physics it is defined as a hypothetical medium assumed to fill all space, and to form the means by which electrical and magnetic disturbances and waves, including those of light, are transmitted. Commenting upon this kind of fallacy of misplaced reification, John Stuart Mill said, The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something peculiarly abstruse and mysterious. In fact, the dispute between the "realists," who believe that behind a name there must be a "real" essence, and the "nominalists," who believe that names refer only to particular things, has had a long history in philosophy. Alfred Korzybski, in Science and Sanity', has called this misplaced reification obj edification: Let me recall the mechanism of obj edification. If we do not reject explicitly and implicitly the 'is1 of identity, we automatically identify different orders of abstractions and ascribe objective characteristics to terms. Thus the term 'time' which represents a label for a feeling inside our skin, is given

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

33

an objective evaluation. If 'objective' it must have a 'property' of 'simultaneity', a semantic process taken over from comparing two objective sticks when the two ends are made to coincide. On the objective external level, we never deal with 'time' but we simply compare processes. When we select an arbitrary unit process on the objective level, whatever we may say that it 'is*, well, it is not, and the difficulty is found exclusively in the use of the 'is' of identity. If we abandon entirely the 'is' of identity, we stop objectification, we do not ascribe existence and values outside our skin, to terms and semantic reactions inside our skin. But then of course we have to change the structure of our language; as otherwise the old s.r [semantic reactions] will continue to play tricks on us. An actional, operational, functional language of order is the structural solution of our semantic difficulty." (p. 675)

These are only a few of the differentiating characteristics of the old aristotelian orientations and the newer non-aristotelian orientations. Galileo and the Extensional Orientation It was Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who forced scientists from all over Europe to throw out the accepted conclusions of centuries, and the voices of authority. Galileo was the father of experiment, repeatable experiment, which anyone else could duplicate. He was the father of the orderly statement of principles or conclusions derived from experiments, which could then be subjected to further experiment either to support or disprove them. Galileo, along with Francis Bacon, were the two "fathers" of the extensional orientation. Galileo established once and for all that experiment, measurement, and observation were more valid ways of discovering the truth about nature than logic, reasoning, intuition and speculation. He also firmly established the notion that the workings of nature throughout the universe were uniform. When something happened in one situation it could be counted upon always to happen the same way in the same situation at another time or anywhere else in the universe. In other words, Galileo proposed that any valid laws of nature were indeed laws. With Galileo's extensional orientation he had stumbled upon a powerful tool for the investigation of natural occurrences, the tool of the scientific method. The scientific method involves four critical steps, each taken in turn and each equally important in reaching a solution. Those steps are observation, hypothesis, experiment, and finally, conclusion-drawing. Common Sense and "Reality" One night in northern Italy Galileo was intent upon measuring the speed of light with which a beam would travel from one point to another. He had observed that other kinds of signals traveled a given distance at a given, measurable speed. His goal was to measure this time interval and then, knowing the distance between hilltops, to calculate the velocity of the light beam. With his assistant watching from a distant hilltop, Galileo would unmask his lantern. The instant his assistant saw the light, he would unmask his lantern in turn. The difference in time between opening the first lantern and observing the answering light from the second should then be equivalent to the time required for a light beam to travel to the distant hilltop and back again. Galileo was the leading early exponent of experimentation and the scientific method. He was one of the most acute scientific observers in all history. Despite that, the experiment ended up as a spectacular failure. The answering light from the distant hill was seen to appear at the very same instant that Galileo opened his lantern. There was no time lag observed. No matter how many times the experiment was repeated the result was the same.

34

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

To Galileo his hilltop experiment that night could mean only one thing: that light had no measurable velocity, but rather, spread instantaneously to all parts of the universe at the same time. Today, of course, we know that that conclusion is wrong. Light does have a measurable velocity. It requires a definite interval of time to travel from one point to any other point in the universe. Galileo had no way to guess that the distance between the hilltops that he had chosen was so small compared to the enormously swift speed of light that the time lag he was trying to measure was simply not perceptible to the human eye. His instruments were too crude to measure the time lag. If anyone would have told him that light actually traveled 186,000 miles in a single second he would not have beiicved him. Common sense was the primary dictator of all thinking and common sense said that nothing could travel that fast! Four centuries later Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed another famous experiment designed to measure the velocity of light. They were also determined to find out to what degree a beam of light would be slowed down as it traveled head-on through that mysterious, weightless, invisible substance known as the "universal ether," which scientists of the day believed permeated all the space surrounding the earth and all the space between the stars. Physicists argued that light had to travel through some medium. Michelson and Morley were certain that they had devised a way to prove beyond question that an "ether wind" existed on earth. But to their disappointment, not the slightest evidence of any interference pattern appeared no matter what direction they rotated the mirrors. For centuries philosophers had been talking about a "universal," a verbal fiction which did not exist. "Common sense" and projection had created something that was never there. It took Albert Einstein to point out that the reason they had failed to detect an ether was because there never was an ether wind. It was Galileo, more than any other person in history, who single-handedly opened the door to the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusionin short, the extensional orientation. Slowly the men of science who followed after Galileo began to reject mere philosophical guesswork about what things were and why things happened, and began piecing together a group of rulesthe laws of physics or laws of naturethat seemed to describe how things worked in the universe. Solely depending on common sense was on its way out! Most of us still picture the universe in terms of what is revealed to us by our senses. When we try to understand the laws governing the behavior of the universethe laws of physicswe are trying to understand those laws solely in terms of the normal world of our senses. This was characteristic of the aristotelian world and this, unfortunately, cannot be done for the simple reason that the universe extends far beyond the limits of human sensory experience. We can speak about four different worlds of modern physics. The first is the macroscopic world, the universe that we see around us every day. This is the universe that our senses can explore directly. It is important to realize that throughout centuries, and until very recently, this was the only view of the universe that there was! It was with this world of physics that the classical physicists grappled. This world had fixed masses and behaved according to simple laws of mechanics. Objects moved with finite, measurable speeds along paths that could be predicted. Space was threedimensional in this universe, described to perfection by the geometry of Euclid. Gravity was a downward pull. Light was a phenomenon that could be observed, studied, measured and manipulated with lenses. In short, this was a universe in which the classical laws of mechanics, heat, light, sound, gravitation, electricity and magnetism all applied. Following Aristotle, a long succession of brilliant scientists had labored to discover those classical laws: Galileo,

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

35

Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and others presented the classical laws, and they worked as far as human senses could detect. Some physicists went so far as to say that the work of physics, toward the end of the nineteenth century, was almost done. It was soon discovered that this view of the universe was not the whole picture. It just did not cover enough ground. The aristotelian and newtonian world would soon be replaced by a microcosmic view, in which all matter in existence is regarded as being composed of incredibly small bits and pieces, elementary particles and waves too tiny to observe or even imagine. It was soon discovered that in this microcosmic universe, few if any of the classical laws of physics that apply to the "normal" universe seem to apply. In the microcosmic universe, other forces unheard of in the everyday world seem to prevail: the nuclear binding forces that hold atoms together and various interactions discovered to occur between elementary particles. The position and momentum of such particles cannot accurately be measuredat least, not at the same time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or principle of indeterminacy, replaced the certainties with degrees of probability. The general semanticists are very interested in abstractions and the microcosmic view, a view which once seemed to others more of an "intellectual abstraction" until the development of such things as atomic and hydrogen bombs, nuclear power and reactors, transistors, and laser beams made it more and more obvious that the microcosmic universe was "real" enough to change our lives profoundly. The third view of the universe, another strange and different view, also affects our lives. This is the macrocosmic view, in which our earth and our solar system are themselves mere 'tiny' particles in an incomprehensibly large universe. In this non-aristotelian and non-newtonian world, this macrocosmic universe, laws of nature have also been discovered which cannot be a part of our sensory experience nor understandable in terms of our "normal" universe. In this macrocosmic universe as well, the classical laws of physics and geometry do not seem to apply. The euclidean geometry scientists have used for centuries to describe our "normal" universe is unable to describe some basic aspects of the macrocosm, for example, the curvature of space. Finally, physicists have come to realize that there is still another view of the universe that must be taken into account, apparently unrelated to the normal, the microcosmic, or the macrocosmic, yet which applies to all three. This is the strange relativistic view of the universe that was outlined and then validated by Albert Einstein and other giants of twentieth-century physics. Here nonelementalism plays an important role, for in this view the universe is not merely a certain volume of space containing chunks of matter, but rather, a vast continuum of space-time. Again, nonelementalism plays an important role; matter and energy must be regarded as two different manifestations of the same thing, totally interchangeable from one into the other, rather than as separate entities. Korzybski called for a multi-valued approach to problems, a multi-valued orientation. And just as scientists realized, some hundred years ago, that the ordinary human senses presented an incomplete picture of the universe, so physicists today recognize that no single one of these differing views of the universe is sufficient. AH four viewsthe "normal" or macroscopic, the microcosmic, the macrocosmic, and the relativistic all must be taken into account if we hope to understand how our universe works.

36

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Isaac Newton: Non-Aristotelian, Newtonian Physics Many of us have been brought up with the legend that the law of gravitation was discovered by Isaac Newton when an apple fell from a tree and hit him on the head. Modern scientists do not believe that this actually happened. Not only thatNewton did not "discover" gravitation. It had been obvious for centuries that some orderly principle lay behind the behavior of moving objects near the surface of the earth. Galileo had long before made accurate measurements of how fast objects fell to the ground when released, and how their speed kept increasing steadily as they fell. Copernicus had already observed that the moon revolved around the earth at a certain velocity without flying off into space. What Newton did achieve was to demonstrate that the same natural law that described the movement of falling bodies on earth, also described the movement of the moon around the earth, or of the planets around the sun. Newton showed that these objects all moved as they did because of a simple, universal relationship between every object in the universe and every other object, that every object in the universe attracts every other object in the universe, that the force of attraction between any two given objects is always dependent upon the masses of the objects and the distance between them. This was an extension of Aristotle's physics; this was non-aristotelian. Newton also said that this attracting force between any two objects in the universe could be calculated according to ^precise mathematical equation. He introduced a new language, mathematical equations, which was an important addition to his non-aristotelian or newtonian physics. A hundred years after Galileo, Isaac Newton summarized his observations of the behavior of bodies in motion and at rest in the form of two simple laws of motion which he believed applied to all objects, whether they were moving or at rest, anywhere in the universe. The two laws of inertia were:
1. Any object in motion will continue in motion in the same direction and at a constant velocity unless acted upon by some outside force. 2. Any object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by some outside force.

Taken together, these laws were first investigated by Galileo and finally formalized by Newton. They have come to be known as the "laws of inertia." They were among the first of a very few laws of nature which became the foundation for all of the modem work in physics. They were believed to be accurate and universal descriptions of the relationships that occurred in nature. They were believed to be general and apply to an objectno matter how large or smallwith no exceptions, and universal. They were at the heart of newtonian mechanics. There is much more to Newton's laws of motion and newtonianism but let us go to Einstein's theories of relativitythe special and the general theoriesand see how they are related to general semantics. Albert Einstein: Genera! Semantics and Special Relativity For me, two important principles in general semantics predominate about Albert Einstein. The first is that he was very extenskmally orientated and, second, the principles of non-elemental ism and ecological thinking permeated his special and general theories of relativity. In Einstein's relativistic physics, non-elementalism, as we have seen, indicates that we cannot separate 'space' and 'time', observer from observed, and so on. Ecological thinking is related to the scientific study of ecology wherein you cannot separate an organism from its environment or any phenomenon from its "field." The important point is that relativity, ecology and non-elementalism are inherently related, and this was one of the things that Einstein showed in the special and general theories.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

37

Einstein certainly sounded like Alfred Korzyhski when he said, Base your thinking only upon those things which can be observed in real experiments. Forget questions about things which cannot be observed. Ignore themthey are not only unanswerable, they have no place whatever in scientific thinking. Thus, if you are convinced by multitudes of experiments that there is no way to observe something such as "the ether 1 nor to measure earth's motion through it, then forget it. Simply throw it out, bag and baggage, and assume for scientific purposes that there is no such thing as 'the ether1. This was the the philosophy of Bridgman's "operational approach" to scientific investigations and became the doorway to virtually all of the revolutionary concepts of modern physics. Einstein proposed another hypothesis, contrary to Newton's instantaneous speed of light. He said, "Let us take as a basic assumption that the measured speed of light (or of any electromagnetic waves) will always be the same anywhere in the universe, no matter what the motion of the observer who is making the measurement, and no matter what the motion of the light source." Einstein was extremely extensional. He believed in intuition but it had to be tested with experiments. The behavior of light relative to a moving observerbehavior that seemed to violate common sensehad been observed in real experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Every single experiment in which measurement of the velocity of light was involved, under all circumstances, had always suggested the same basic fact: that light always traveled at the same velocity no matter what the motion of the individual doing the measuring, and no matter what the motion of the light source. The principle of non-elementalism came into play when Einstein took a new look at 'matter' and 'energy'. It had earlier been discovered that electricity and magnetism were one and the same thing, another non-elementalistic principle, which is now called electromagnetism. It was necessary for Einstein to assume that electromagnetic fields, or light waves, or radio waves, or other electromagnetic waves were themselves real physical entities. It was necessary to think of them as definite physical "things" which had just as much physical reality as any other material "things" in the universe, from atoms to galaxies. Einstein reasoned that if a magnetic field in itself was as much a real physical entity as, say, a rubber ball, then it followed that that magnetic field itself had to have a certain amount of mass. He was forced to conclude that any form of energy must have a certain amount of mass associated with it, and that, conversely, any solid massive object or particle has to have a certain amount of energy associated with it. Physicists for generations had fallen victim to their elementalistic assumptions. They had long regarded solid 'matter' on the one hand, and any other form of 'energy' on the other hand, as two totally different entities, quite separate and distinct from each other. Einstein demonstrated how one could calculate precisely how much energy was associated with a given quantity of matter and how much, mass was possessed by a given quantity of energy. This idea of the relationship between mass and energy is vitally important to our understanding of modem physics. Einstein understood the principle of elementalism and non-elementalism. He was not saying that matter and energy are two separate things. What he was saying was that matter and energy are two different manifestationstwo completely interchangeable formsof the same physical entity, an entity which we call mass-energy. Neils Bohr would call it complementary in his principle of complementarity. There are two more general-semantics principles related to this non-elementalism. These are non-identity and non-additivity. For example, we might visualize solid matter as a highly concen-

38

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

trated and compact form of this mass-energy entity; while heat energy, electrical energy, or radiant energy are precisely the same mass-energy entity in an extremely diffuse and insubstantial form. Chemistry is a good example of this. Acertain chemical will change under certain conditions (non-identity); or, mix two different chemicals together and you get a dynamic new emergent (non-additivity). For example, take the different forms a common chemical compound, carbon dioxide, takes under different temperature conditions. At very low temperatures carbon dioxide assumes the solid compact form of dry ice (solid matter). When the temperature rises, the solid dry ice evaporates into the insubstantial form of carbon dioxide gas (comparable to energy). Regardless of which of the two physical forms may exist at a given time under given conditions, both consist of one chemical compoundcarbon dioxide (mass-energy), whether in the concentrated form of dry ice or in the diffuse form of dioxide gas. The important general-semantics principle of non-elementalism is involved when we regard matter and energy in this fashion, as two dissimilar manifestations of the same entity rather than as two separate entities; matter and energy must be equivalent to each other. Einstein's formula describing just how much mass in the form of matter was equivalent to how much energy was stated as a simple equation; mass (m) equals energy (E) divided by the square of the velocity of light (186,000 miles per second) or E=mc2. This simply states that an exceedingly tiny amount of matter is equivalent to an enormous amount of energy, or inversely, that a huge amount of energy is equivalent to only a very small amount of matter. The best example is the atomic bomb. Einstein's special theory of relativity was an example of non-elementalism. His theory of relativity, and the new view of space-time, arose through his generalization of the physical, mathematical, and philosophical sciences. His special theory of relativity was also an example of non-aristotelianism, an extension of Aristotle. He said that the thinking of physicists had been conditioned to a high degree by Newton's fundamental conceptions. He also gave credit to Galileo who first formulated the principle of relativity, according to which the laws of mechanics are formed identically in all systems of co-ordinates moving uniformly in a straight line. Development of that principle led to the theory of relativity. Einstein noted the importance of the epistemological ideas developed by the founders of classical mechanics; he also recognized the importance of replacing euclidean geometry with non-euclidean geometry. Flat space was replaced by the curvature of space-time, and this necessitated a new style of thinking. Einstein was the first to realize that he did not develop the special theory of relativity alone. There were many who preceded him. Einstein's immediate predecessors Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare made the most notable contributions to the development of relativistic physics. Einstein believed that the theory of relativity was the result of the study of the properties of the objective reality newly discovered by physical science, namely field matter. The "field" would play an important part in the theory of relativity. There was a great debate whether matter or light were characteristic of waves or particles. Such manifestations of light as interference and diffraction pointed to its wave character. Physicists suggested that light was the result of mechanical vibration of a certain hypothetical medium, ether. An important milestone in the essence of light was the work of Faraday and Maxwell, which indicated its electromagnetic nature. Maxwell interpreted light as an electromagnetic and not mechanical manifestation of ether. Also, in developing his theory Lorentz introduced the concept of local time, which was another step toward the creation of the theory of relativity. He also discovered formulas

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

39

for the transformation of time and co-ordinates in various moving systems. These constituted the mathematical basis of the special theory of relativity. Einstein highly valued Lorentz's discoveries. In Ideas and Opinions he said that, "Upon this simplified foundation Lorentz based a complete theory of all electromagnetic phenomena known at the time, including those of the electrodynamics of moving bodies." (p. 75) Non-elementalism and the extensional orientation played another important role. All the experimental data led Poincare to the idea that it was necessary to extend Galileo's principle of relativity based on the generalization of mechanical phenomena, to the electromagnetic field as well. A further non-elementalistic relationship was created when Poincare drew attention to Lorentz's idea in trying to extend the sphere of action of the principle of relativity. He said that this principle should hold with the existence not only of electromagnetic forces, but of all other natural forces as well. Lorentz and he thus attempted to study the changes that Lorentz's hypothesis could introduce into the laws of gravitation. This led to Einstein's general theory of relativity. A new non-newtonian mechanics was called for by Poincare which resulted from the researches of the scientists of that era. There were many new facts which indicated the need to alter several of the concepts and principles of classical physics. This led Poincare to conclude that it was necessary to create a new mechanics different from Newton's. Many of the ideas of the theory of relativity had been worked out by Poincare, but it was Einstein who saw the relationship and developed genera) theories. Einstein had a tremendous nonelementalistic orientation, he was able to see relationships and generalizations where others only saw particulars. Einstein's non-elementalistic, empirical, extensional orientation was characteristic of his interpretation of scientific concepts, principles and theories. He believed that knowledge cannot arise from sense data alone, without resort to 'mental' activity, just as theorizing divorced from 'reality' could not lead to knowledge. He recognized the different orders of abstraction when he said that concepts were not identical with the aggregate of sensations and perceptions. He seemed to indicate the map-territory relationship of general semantics and the importance of change when he suggested that principles and theories are approximate reflections of reality, and that they were constantly being enriched with new content. He drew scientists' attention to the point that it was necessary to re-examine theories from time to time and replace them with new ones, so changing the foundations of physical science. He had no doubt that physical propositions were closely linked with experience and that they reflected an external world. He saw no sense in science without reflection of objective reality. The first demand on a theory was that it should not contradict experience. In general-semantics terminology the map should fit the territory. Einstein's scientific and philosophical outlook was that of an extensional orientation. His philosophical analysis of the theory of relativity indicates that he interpreted it materialistically, factually or non-verbally. In contrast to Einstein, Poincare had an intensional orientation. He did not agree with materialists who affirmed that geometry had an experimental origin. "Is geometry derived from experience?" he asked. "Deeper discussion will show us that it is not." Experience, he said, could not resolve the problem of choosing between the geometries of Euclid and Lobachevsky. This is difficult to believe today.

40

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Einstein looked upon these matters quite differently and it is one of the reasons why he rather than Poincare developed the special and general theories of relativity. Mathematical propositions, said Einstein, reflected real processes observable by us in nature. Poincare and others were guilty of elementalism, separating geometrical propositions from reality. According to Einstein, a geometry could be true or false according to how faithfully it reflected the reality it studied. He said that one of the reasons why Poincare could not arrive at the discovery of the theory of relativity was the fact that he had not found the connection between euclidean geometry and reality. As a result Poincare had considered it necessary to reject physical laws because he clung to the propositions of euclidean geometry. Elementalism, in Einstein's view, constituted Poincare's greatest error. Louis de Broglie expressed the same idea concerning the reasons why Poincare had been prevented from completing the creation of a theory of relativity. He said that although Einstein's mathematical knowledge might not have been comparable to Poincare's profound understanding, Einstein preceded Poincare in finding the synthesis for all the separate views of the universe, and at one stroke removing most of the difficulties found in physics. Einstein and de Broglie both, without naming Poincare's philosophical views, came to the conclusion that he held, in the language of science, subjectivist positions when considering physical and mathematical propositions. The subjectivist position is that of an intensional orientation. The principle of non-elementalism and the extensional orientation played another important role in Einstein's theory of relativity. It followed from Einstein's principle of relativity that there were no phenomena in the objective world that would indicate the existence of absolute motion, that is, motion relative to absolute space. There were only relative movements, motions of some material objects relative to others. The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light and the principle of relativity thus underlay the special theory of relativity. Einstein's reference to these propositions of physics was due to the fact that they reflected real processes of nature (extensional) and that they were the most fundamental properties connecting the two material spheres of the world, field and substance (non-elementalism). It was this principle that linked the two physics together. Einstein had to ask himself some questions. "Is the standpoint of classical mechanics absolute, or do its statements have a relative and thus revisable character? If that is so, to what extent are its statements true?" He rejected the view of Newton and his followers about the universal status of classical mechanics, he demonstrated the illegitimacy of reducing all of physics to mechanical laws, and he established the limits of the latter *s validity. Einstein critically analyzed the conceptual apparatus of classical mechanics. His analysis of the essence of Newton's mechanics led him to the conclusion that not all of its concepts had been experimentally substantiated; it was intensionally arrived at. In Ideas and Opinions Einstein said: We can indeed see from Newton's formulation of it that the concept of absolute space, which comprised that of absolute rest, made him feel uncomfortable; he realized that there seemed to be nothing in experience corresponding to this last concept. He was also not quite comfortable about the introduction of forces operating at a distance. But the tremendous practical success of his doctrines may well have prevented him and the physicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from recognizing the fictitious character of the foundations of his system." (p. 273) Einsteinfc concluded that considering'time' and 'space' as absolute, and the other fictitious definitions derived from them, sprang from the fact that the extensional, practical and experimental side of physical science had been at a comparatively low level of development.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

41

Non-elementalism plays the key role, not only in linking together space and time, but in linking together 'space', 'time', and 'motion'. With the newtonian absolute time, time is not linked with space, matter, or motion, and passes identically throughout the universe in any frame of reference. Einstein extended the principle of relativity to electromagnetic phenomena. These equations are called the Lorentz transformation equations, in honor of their author, though Lorentz himself, being trapped by the newtonian notion of absolute time and space, did not understand their true physical sense. He considered the form of the transformation for time fictitious, since it did not accord with the newtonian doctrine of absolute time and space. The Lorentz transformation equations non-elemeritalistically showed a profound link between the dimensions of'time' and 'space'. It also followed from the Lorentz equations that 'space' and 'time' were linked with motion. According to the theory of relativity, each system of coordinates has its own time, which depends on the system's velocity of motion. The length of a moving body can be expressed by Einstein's equation. It follows from Einstein's equation that a body's spatial dimensions are not an absolute quantity, as Newton had assumed, but are altered in accordance with its velocity in relation to its frame of reference. Its dimensions will contract as its velocity rises. The same thing occurs in the passage of time. When scientists employ the transformation equations of the theory of relativity to compare intervals of time in stationary and moving systems you get similar changes. The time interval proves to be a variable quantity changing in accordance with the body's velocity. The temporal rhythm slows with the increase in the body's velocity and it passes most rapidly in a stationary system. The special theory of relativity thus undermined the newtonian metaphysical notion of absolute time and absolute space. The theory of relativity demonstrated that a change in the velocity of a thing led to a change in its space-time. The special theory of relativity made it possible consistently to interpret the theory of electromagnetic processes in terms of non-elementalism. As Einstein wrote, "It has led to a formal clarification of Maxwell's equations of the electromagnetic field; in particular it has led to an understanding of the essential oneness of the electric and the magnetic field." Scientists have said that the natural connection of mass and energy, E=mc2, following from the special theory of relativity, is of enormous significance for science. According to this theory the mass of a body increases with an increase in its velocity. Einstein expressed the proposition that "if the accretion to the mass of a moving body was due to its kinetic energy, the mass proper of a stationary body was connected with an energy which, however, though hidden from us, was the internal energy of the body" Einstein's theory thus indicated the inseparable connection of matter and motion. In Out of My Later Years, Einstein "has shown generally the role which the universal constant c (velocity of light) plays in the laws of nature and has demonstrated that there exists a close connection between the form in which time on the one hand and the spatial co-ordinates on the other hand enter into the laws of nature." (p. 45) Non-elementalism enters into the picture once again in describing Einstein's special theory of relativity. It linked the two material spheres of the objective worldsubstance and fieldphysically, and through that link expressed previously unknown space-time properties of matter.

General Semantics and the General Theory of Relativity The General Theory of Relativity was developed by Einstein as a generalization of the special theory. It was a logical development of the special theory of relativity in which the work of

42

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Minkowski, Einstein's teacher, played an important role. Non-elementalism also came into play when Minkowski recognized the relationship between the spatial and time co-ordinates. Einstein said, "The generalizing of the theory of relativity was greatly facilitated by the form that the special theory of relativity was given by Minkowski, the mathematician who first clearly recognized the formal equivalence of the spatial co-ordinates and the time co-ordinates and utilized it for the construction of the theory." The general theory of relativity arose, said Einstein, through the extension of the principle of relativity to the gravitational field. Einstein understood that gravitation, like electromagnetism, was a field area of the material world. Its properties, like those of electromagnetism were not some subjective phenomenon, but were manifestations of matter that he had to take into account when studying the structure of the material world. The development of the general theory of relativity was a consequence of the generalization of experimental facts already known about inertial mass (a body's resistance to acceleration) and gravitational mass (the gravitational force the body produces). The theoretical generalization of those observations led Einstein to establish the principle of equivalence. While the special theory of relativity arose from the study of the properties of the electromagnetic field, which followed from the constancy of the velocity of the propagation of light, the creation of the general theory of relativity was stimulated by the discovery of the fact of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. The inertial mass of a body increased in proportion to the increase in its velocity. Its gravitational mass, he reasoned, should also increase by virtue of the equivalence, of inertial and gravitational mass. This last conclusion could not be explained within the framework of the special theory of relativity. He had to extend his theories, a new theory was needed. As Einstein explained in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, "That the special theory of relativity is only the first step of a necessary development became completely clear to me only in my efforts to represent gravitation in the framework of this theory." (p. 63) Einstein recognized the limited character of the principle of relativity developed by him in the special theory of relativity in connection with the description of electromagnetic processes. This principle affirmed that there was no preferred system among those moving uniformly in a straight line. But, in fact, other systems did not just move in straight lines with the same, non-accelerated velocity. There were many other forms of motion. In actual fact other systems also existed that were in accelerated, slow or fast speed, circular, diagonal and rotational motion. Einstein asked himself, was the principle valid for systems of that kind, motions that did not travel at a constant speed and in a straight line? In non-inertial systems, systems that are not at rest, we perceive phenomena of the acceleration or slowing down of the moving body. Later the idea came to him that these perceptions were not necessarily connected with the changes in the velocity of the system. They could be the consequence of the action of gravitational forces. Einstein set about to study another field force, similar to the electromagnetic field, and this was the gravitational field. He had to include the gravitational forces in a new theory of relativity, the general theory of relativity. His new concern was how the gravitational field influences the process studied. This involves non-elementalism and ecology, how an environment influences a process or how you cannot separate any "thing" from its environment. The influence of the gravitational field on the motion of bodies had previously been known but the new result connected with the general theory of relativity was that gravitation acted on electromagnetic radiation. To quote Einstein, "In general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields." In other words, rays of light were not straight lines, they were characterized by curved lines.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

43

Einstein's theoretical conclusions could be tested experimentally. According to his calculations the bending of rays of light in the Sun's gravitational field would be 1.7 seconds of arc. The effect that Einstein predicted was confmned by British scientists with a high degree of accuracy during the eclipse of the Sun in 1919. This proof changed the minds of many scientists and many other skeptics. The fact of the bending of the trajectory of a ray of light in a gravitational field was evidence that the theory had a relative character. It also had a non-elementalistic and ecological character. You cannot separate anything from its environment. Thus Einstein came to discover such an important property of gravitation as its influence on the course of electromagnetic as well as of mechanical processes. This was only the first step in a study of this form of 'field matter, that processes are related to afield. The general theory of relativity made a substantial contribution to the physical theory of spacetime. As Einstein said in The Meaning of Relativity, "The gravitational field influences and even determines the metrical law of the space-time continuum." (p. 59) He further said that according to the general theory of relativity the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by matter. In opposition to Newton's view, space proved to be non-uniform. It was deformed by the influence of gravitation. The denser material objects are the greater is the distortion of the space around the bodies. This non-elementalistic assertion holds true for time, for the gravitational field also determines the rhythm of time. Einstein has shown that the more massive cosmic bodies exert a stronger effect on slowing its rhythm, and vice versa. Relativistic physics implies non-elementalism and ecology. The discovery of the fact that the mass of bodies determines the geometric structure of space-time indicated the existence of an organic link between time, space and matter. While this link was determined in the special theory of relativity solely by external material factors (it depended on the relative position and movement of material bodies), in the general theory inner connections were discovered and it was shown that the space-time continuum depended on the distribution of matter in the universe. There are further non-elementalistic applications of the general theory of relativity and they are applied in cosmology. The recognition of the existence of material cosmic objects and the forces operating between them suggested the study of problems like the finiteness and infinity of the Universe and the density of its matter. In fact, Einstein wrote in Relativity: The Special and General Theory, "The theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it." (p. 137) Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to find a Unified Theory that would bring together, in one formula, electromagnetism and gravitation. This brings non-elementalism to the extreme. Science is corning to a conclusion today about the relativity of the concepts of a macrocosmos and microcosmosthe ultimate of Korzybski's prediction. What we have seen is that relativistic physics more and more strongly stresses the genetic link of physical science as a whole. The content and methods of physics point to the material unity of nature. Einstein understood that every new scientific theory was a step toward fuller knowledge. It was not by chance that he denied the absolutism of Newton's doctrine, criticizing its elementalistic and separate propositions. Whereas Newton's doctrine was taken as ultimate truth for decades, Einstein showed that it was a relative truth. He also indicated the road that physics would have to go if it wanted to answer the problems posed by modern science and the theories of relativity.

44

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

The theory of relativity has brought out the law-governed character of the universe more profoundly than classical physics ever did. Through the influence of Einstein's theories a picture of the world has grown up in which matter, motion, time, and space, previously considered disconnected and separate, are united. This theory was an immense step forward in the interpretation of the structure of the universe. An extensional orientation played an important role in Einstein's theories of relativity. He constantly called for empirical and experimental verification. His and others' discoveries were prepared by the revolution in experimental techniques. Analysis of the fundamentals of Einstein's theories indicates that they arose from the study of 'objective' properties of nature. Its empirical origin is obvious. Underlying the theories are the principles of relativity which were the result of generalizations of much experimental material. The extensional nature of the theories of relativity is also established by the agreement of its theoretical conclusions in practice. Relativistic effects are not a mathematical device and not a 'subjective' view based on the whims of an observer. The interpretation of space-time properties of matter makes it possible to explain many natural phenomena. Some philosophers and scientists have said that the theory of relativity has removed the question of absolutes from physical science. More careful study shows that this is not so. It does not follow from the theory that it disregards absolute quantities and reduces all quantities to relativity. Max Plank, and even earlier Minkowski, said that this theory did not deny absolute quantities at all. Plank wrote that "the absolute is not uprooted in the much misunderstood theory of relativity; on the contrary it has attained even sharper expression in it since physics is based everywhere in that respect on an absolute underlying the external world." In fact a whole number of absolute quantities have been disclosed in the theory of relativity that were previously not known to science. These theories reduced separate concepts, that used to be considered absolutes, to the relative; and recognized other concepts, that had been considered separate, as unitary. The theory of relativity deepened knowledge about space-time. The special theory deprived 'time' and 'space' of their absolute meaning and ended their isolation from one another. The general theory showed that 'space' and 'time' are not only connected with one another but also with matter. Taken separately they have a relative status, and the idea of time-space-matter alone has an absolute character. Niels Bohr's Parallel Path With General Semantics Of all the physicists I know of, no one got closer to the formulations of general semantics than Niels Bohr. Bohr realized the importance of language in physics, as well as in life, a topic he often wrote and lectured upon. He also appeared conscious of many other principles related to general semantics. Niels Bohr displayed a non-allness orientation. After Paul Dirac's great paper on the theory of the electron, some physicists had the impression that all of the fundamental features of atomic physics had been neatly incorporated into a new and final conceptual structure. One prominent physicist declared, "In a couple of years we shall have cleared up electrodynamics; another couple of years for the nuclei, and physics will be finished." To Bohr, with his continual non-allness orientation about physics and other aspects of life, it would never occur that physics might soon be "finished." On the contrary, he saw so many points still in need of elucidation in quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics initiated by Heisenberg and Pauli.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

45

Bohr realized that the kinds of questions that physicists ask themselves indicate the kinds of answers they will receive or the kinds of research that they will undertake. Bohr had first of all to find which were the proper questions to ask, and then to develop methods of approach to these problems and an appropriate terminology in which the answers couid be formulated. This new approach indicated to Bohr that physicists were confronted with problems in epistemology of a much deeper nature than those they had encountered before. Bohr clearly saw that the fundamental issue was the unambiguous communication of experience. It is only because Bohr faced his problems with a non-allness orientation and a multi-valued orientation, rather than an allness orientation or one and two-valued orientation, that he was able to develop hisprinciple of complementarity. Like Korzybski, he was able to point to situations in psychology, biology and other areas of life that also present complementary aspects. The one and twovalued orientation are not adequate in a multi-valued situation, and Bohr saw the necessity of applying the principle of complementarity outside of physics as well. The principle of complementarity or the multi-valued orientation threw light on unfamiliar problems. Bohri realized the idea of complementarity when we have to choose between two standpoints which, although apparently conflicting, have their justifications. There are often two approaches to the same object which are equally essential parts of a full understanding of its nature, but seem mutually exclusive, like the wave-particle duality. Often the two complementary aspects are so intimately associated that we deliberately refer to both of them by the same word. Bohr recognized that this is a very fundamental ambiguity of our language. Since his early youth, Bohr had been preoccupied by this problem of the ambiguity of language, and had with sure intuition grasped its essential dialectical character. Very early he had occasion to realize the relevance of his views on the ambiguity of language even in the realm of physics. He recognized that the concept of light presented such an ambiguity, inasmuch as it referred to aspects of the phenomenalight waves and light quantawhich were in that relationship of mutual exclusiveness he later call complementarity. He was therefore well prepared to analyze from the same point of view the duality of aspects under which the electrons (and in fact all fundamental constituents of matter) had to be considered. Bohr also saw the relationship between complementarity and Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy. This is related to Korzybski's multi-valued orientationthis is the content of Heisenberg's indeterminacy relations, the meaning of the complementarity between different ways of looking at the process. Non-elementalism also comes into play. You cannot separate the observer from the observed. As a direct consequence of Heisenberg's indeterminacy relations, it is highly necessary, in the definition of any phenomenon, to specify the conditions of its observation, the kind of apparatus determining the particular aspect of the phenomenon scientists wish to observe, and many other indeterminacy relations of the Heisenberg type. In such situations scientists speak of complementary aspects of an atomic system or of complementary phenomena. The concept of "phenomenon" now includes the specification of "all" (many) circumstances under which the system is observed. Such a multi-valued orientation is in broad outline a new theory of knowledge which gradually emerged from Bohr's analysis of the implications of quantum mechanics. Like Korzybski, he knew that he was dealing with general features of human knowledge, to counteract the determinism of classical physics and its one and two-valued orientations.

46

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Aage Peterson, a physicist who worked closely with Bohr in Copenhagen, said: To Bohr, philosophical problems were neither about existence or reality, nor about the structure and limitations of human reason. They were communication problems. They dealt with the general conditions for conceptual communication. When asked what he meant by that, Bohr would say, 'What is it that we human beings ultimately depend on? We depend on our words. We are suspended in language. Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character." (French & Kennedy, p. 301) In a Rutherford Memorial Lecture in 1958 Bohr indicated the limitations of language when he said, "Indeed, mathematics is not to be regarded as a special branch of knowledge based on the accumulation of experience, but rather as a refinement of general language, supplementing it with appropriate tools to represent relations for which ordinary verbal communication is imprecise or too cumbersome." (Ibid. p. 301)

Peterson commented:
Traditional philosophy has accustomed us to regard language as something secondary, and reality as something primary. Bohr considered this attitude toward the relation between language and reality inappropriate. When one said to him that it cannot be language which is fundamental, but that it must be reality which, so to speak, lies beneath language, and of which language is a picture, he would reply, 'We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly." (Ibid. p. 302) Describing Bohr's consideration of the importance of language, Peterson wrote: The chief characteristic of the sort of description we seek both in science and in practical life is objectivity. In Bohr's usage, an objective message was an unambiguous message, one that could not be misunderstood. If our communications are to be understood, their content must be clearly delineated. There must be, so to speak, a structural relationship between the subject which communicates and the object which is the content of communication. This relationship is indispensible in every objective description, and Bohr saw in it the core of the problem of knowledge." (Ibid. p. 302) Students of general semantics are familiar with Wendell Johnson's often-repeated statement that when we talk we are often talking more about ourselves than what we are presumably talking about. This non-elementalism, not separating the subject from the object of discussion, is characteristic of Bohr's orientation. As Peterson noted: Thus our situation is characterized by the fact that, on the one hand, we separate subject and object, while, on the other hand, we ourselves belong to that about which we are talking. In Bohr's opinion, the problems in epistemology originate primarily because we do not master the dialectics of the movable subject-object partition or relationship. The difficulty of delineating clearly the content of our messages is the chief source of ambiguity and paradox in conceptual communication." (Ibid. p. 303) Another form of non-elementalism was presented by Bohr in a 1913 paper in which he introduced the correspondence principle, in its early form, in order to connect quantum physics with classical physics in the limit of large orbits. Dealing with science in a coherent and non-elementalistic

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

47

way also led him to think about scientific fields far beyond physics. Like Korzybski, he saw the correspondence principle and the principle of complementarity as applicable in many areas. He struggled constantly with what he called, ...the epistemological lesson which the modern development of atomic physics has given us, and its relevance for the other fields of human knowledge. One chief lesson of quantum mechanics was that atomic processes did not have to be described in fragmentary ways, with different theories for different effects, but that through quantum mechanics we could see the wholeness of the processes in and ampng them." Bohr thought that this process could be applied to other fields. He often talked and wrote about biological and anthropological problems, stressing the features of wholeness. He often used the phrase "the unity of all sciences." Bohr and Korzybski anticipated the non-elementalistic pursuits of scientists, that science is one organic, interlocking picture of the world. As Gerald Holton wrote in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: A modern paper on cosmology is really a jigsaw puzzle of which the pieces might well carry individually such labels as 'elementary particle physics,' 'general relativity,* 'applied mathematics,' and 'observational astronomy.' An experiment in neurophysiology brings together physics, chemistry, biology, computer technology, mathematics, and engineering, all at once. Such examples are becoming the rule. As Brownowski wrote, 'Science is not a set of facts, but a way of giving order and therefore giving unity and intelligibility to the facts of nature." Bohr was not only interested in biology and anthropology but, as suggested by Max Jammer, he was especially inspired by this passage from William James', The Principles of Psychology: "In certain persons the total consciousness may be split into two parts which coexist but mutually ignore each other, and share the objects of knowledge between them. More remarkable still, they are complementary." (Jammer, p. 102) D. S. Kothari, in The Complementarity Principle in Eastern Philosophy, has written that: The principle of complementarity, which we owe principally to Niels Bohr, is perhaps the most significant and revolutionary concept of modern physics. The complementarity approach can enable people to see that seemingly irreconcilable points of view need not be contradictory. These, on deeper understanding, may be found to be complementary and mutually illuminatingthe two opposing contradictory aspects being parts of a 'totality,' seen from different perspectives. It allows the possibility of accommodating widely divergent human experiences into an underlying harmony, and bringing to light new social and ethical vistas for exploration and for alleviation of human suffering. Bohr fervently hoped that one day complementarity would be an integral part of everyone's education and would provide guidance in the problems and challenges of life. Hideki Yukawa was once asked whether young physicists in Japan, like most young physicists in the West, found it difficult to comprehend the idea of complementarity. He replied that Bohr's complementarity always appeared to them as quite evident: "You see, we in Japan have not been corrupted by Aristotle'." (p. 325) [For a more complete analysis of the differences between the Eastern and Western theories of knowledge, and aristotelian and non-aristotelian logics, see Logic and General Semantics: Writings of Oliver L. Reiser and others, edited by Sanford I. Herman, International Society for General Semantics (now Institute of General Semantics), P. O. Box 1565, Fort Worth, Texas 76101-1565. See, especially, "A Chinese Philosopher's Theory of Knowledge" by Chang Tung-Sun.]

48

GENERAL SEMANTICS BULLETIN 71, 2004

Notes
1. Alfred Tarski, in a 1944 paper, "The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics," wrote the following: It is perhaps worth while saying that semantics as conceived in this paper (and in former papers of the author) is a sober and modest discipline which has no pretentions to being a universal patent medicine for all the ills and diseases of mankind, whether imaginary or real. You will not find in semantics any remedy for decayed teeth or illusions of grandeur or class conflicts. Nor is semantics a device for establishing that everyone except the speaker and his friends is speaking nonsense. As Adam Schaff noted in his book Introduction to Semantics, Tarski's reference to Korzybski was clear: It is not difficult to guess who is the addressee of that piquant remark. It is necessary only to read, for instance, the following passage from a book by Alfred Korzybski, much quoted in literature abroad, but practically unknown in Poland, (p. 90) From a book of over 800 pages that is what Tarskiand Schaffgot out of Science and Sanityl To show you how little Adam Schaff knew about general semantics, he went on to say: In fairness, it must be said that Alfred Korzybski also emphasized the difference between former semantics and what he himself called semantics. A. Korzybski's book is quite useless as a source of information about general semantics, (p. 91) 2. Cassius J. Keyser, wrote the following in "The Foundations of a Science of Man": Korzybski's Science and Sanity arouses a deep and increasing interest. Its content, explicit and implicit, is so immense and manifold, so far-reaching in its diversified ramifications, that I will confine myself to submitting a general estimate of its importance and to sketching briefly some of the considerations that have served me as a basis for judgment. Despite all the reservations that I am constrained to make, I feel bound to say that this work, taken as a whole, is undoubtedly and beyond all comparison the most momentous single contribution that has ever been made to our knowledge and understanding of what is essential and distinctive in the nature of man. One readily understands why it has been heartily acclaimed by so many distinguished scholars representing many widely separated fields of researchanthropology, biology, physiology, psychiatry, education, physics, semantics, and mathematics. There can be no doubt of its being a work that every serious student, no matter what the field of his special interest, ought to have as an indispensable part of his equipment; with its finding, all capable men desiring to be in touch with the thought of their time will be obliged to reckon." (p. 325) BIBLIOGRAPHY Einstein, Albert. 1982. Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown. . 1971. Relativity: The Special and General Theory New York: Crown. , 1950. Out of My Later Years. New York: Philosophical Library. . 1957. The Meaning of Relativity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. French, A. P. & Kennedy, P. J. (Eds.). 1985. Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

GENERAL SEMANTICS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

49

Holton, Gerald. 1988. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jammer, Max. 1974. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Johnson, Wendell. 1946. People in Quandaries. New York: Harper & Bros. Keyser, Cassius J. 1934. "The Foundations of a Science of Man." The New Humanist, Vol. VII, No. 2, January-February.

Korzybski, Alfred. 1994 (1933). Science and Sanity, Fifth Edition. Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Kothari, D. S. 1985. "The Complementarity Principle and Eastern Philosophy" in French, A. P. & Kennedy, P. J. (Eds.) Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lee, Irving J. 1941. Language Habits in Human Affairs. New York: Harper & Bros. Motz, Lloyd & Weaver, Jefferson Hane. 1985. The Story of Physics. New York: Avon Books. Pula, Robert P. 2000. A General Semantics Glossary: Pula s Guide to the Perplexed. Concord, CA: International Society for General Semantics. Schaff, Adam. 1962. Introduction to Semantics. New York: Pergamon Press. Schilpp, Paul. ed. 1957. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing. Vaihinger, Hans. 1965. The Philosophy of 'As If. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, LTD..

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Berman, Sanford I., The Closed Mind', International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1962. 2. Berman, Sanford I., How To Lessen Misunderstandings-, International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1962. 3. Berman, Sanford L, Understanding and Being Understood; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1962. 4. Herman, Sanford I., Why Do We Jump To Conclusions?; International Society for Gertei di Semantics, Jr'.U. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1962. 5. Berman, Sanford I., Words, Meanings and People; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1982. 6. Berman, Sanford L, Logic and General Semantics: Writings of Oliver L. Reiser and Others; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522, 1989. 7. Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S., The Managerial Grid III; Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 1985. 8. Bois, J. Samuel, Explorations in Awareness; Harper & Bros., New York, 1957. Now available from Viewpoints Institute, 1133 Miradero Rd., Beverly Hills, CA 90210. 9. Bois, J. Samuel, The Art of Awareness; Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, IA, 1966. Now available from Viewpoints Institute, 1133 Miradero Rd., Beverly Hills, CA 90210. 10. Bourland, D. David Jr., and Johnston, Paul Dennithorne, (Eds.), To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1991. 11. Chase, Stuart, The Tyranny of Words; Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1938.

12. Chase, Stuart, Power of Words', Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1954. 13. Chisholm, Francis P., Introductory Lectures on General Semantics; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engle Street, Engjewood, NJ 07631,1945. 14. Enomides, Antony M., A Non-Aristotelian Study of Philosophy; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje Street, Englewood, NJ 07631,1947. 15. Ellis, Albert A., and Harper, Robert A., A New Guide To Rational Living; Wilshire Book Co., 12015 Sherman Way, North Hollywood, CA 91605,1976. 16. Fabun, Don, Communications: The Transfer of Meaning; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1968. 17. Fleishman, Alfred, Common Sense Management; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1984. 18. Gorman, Margaret, General Semantics and Contemporary Thomism; University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, ME, 1962. 19. Haney, William V., Communication and Organizational Behavior; Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL, 1967. 20. Hayakawa, S.I., Symbol, Status and Personality; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1963. 21. Hayakawa, S.I., Language in Thought and Action; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1964. 22. Johnson, Kenneth G., (Ed.), General Semantics: An Outline Survey; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1972. 23. Johnson, Kenneth G. (Ed.), Research Designs in General Semantics; Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 1974. 24. Johnson, Kenneth G., (Ed.), Thinking Creatically; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje Street, Engjewood, NJ 07631,1991.

25. Johnson, Wendell, Language and Speech Hygiene; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engle Street, Englewood, NJ 07631,1939. 26. Johnson, Wendell; People In Quandaries; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 725, Concord, CA 94522,1946. 27. Johnson, Wendell, and Moeller, Dorothy, Living With Change: The Semantics of Coping; Harper & Row, New York, 1972. 28. Johnston, Paul Dennithorne; Bourland, D. David, and Klein, Jeremy (Eds.), More E-Prime: To Be or Not II; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1994. 29. Kendig, M. (Ed.), Alfred Korzybski: Collected Writings, 1920-1950; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje St., Englewood, NJ 07631,1994. 30. Keyes, Kenneth S., Jr., How To Develop Your Thinking Ability; McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950. 31. Kodish, Susan P., and Kodish, Bruce I., Drive Yourself Sane; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engle Street, Englewood, NJ 07631,1993. 32. Korzybski, Alfred, Manhood Of Humanity; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engle Street, Engjewpod, NJ 07631,1931. 33. Korzybski, Alfred, Science and Sanity; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje Street, Englewood, NJ 07631,1933. 34. Lee, Irving J., The Language of Wisdom and Folly; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1949. 35. Lee, Irving J., How To Talk With People; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1952. 36. Lee, Irving J., Customs and Crises in Communication; Harper & Bros., New York, 1954.

37. Lee, Irving J., and Lee, Laura L., Handling Barriers in Communication; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA, 94522,1956. 38. Minteer, Catherine, Words and What They Do To You; Row, Peterson & Co., Evanston, IL, 1953. Now available from Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje Street, EngJewood,NJ 07631. 39. Minteer, Catherine, Understanding in a World Of Words; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1970. 40. Moore, Wilbur E., Speech: Code, Meaning and Communication, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1955. 41. Morain, Mary, (Ed.), Teaching General Semantics; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1969. 42. Morain, Mary, (Ed.), Classroom Exercises in General Semantics; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1980. 43. Morain, Mary, (Ed.), Bridging Worlds Through General Semantics; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1984. 44. Morain, Mary, (Ed.), Enriching Professional Skills Through General Semantics; International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522,1986. 45. Murray, Elwood; Barnard, Raymond, and Garland, Naspar, Integrative Speech: The Function of Oral Communication in Human Affairs; Dryden Press, New York, 1953. 46. Paulson, Ross Evans, Language, Science and Action; Greenwood Press, Westport, CT London, England, 1983. 47. Pollock, Thomas dark, and Spaulding, John Gordon, A Theory of Meaning Analyzed; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje Street, Eng}ewood, NJ 07631,1942. 48. Potter, Robert R., Making Sense: Exploring Semantics and Critical Thinking; Globe Book Co., New York, 1974. 49. Rapoport, Anatol, Science and the Goals of Man; Harper & Bros., New York, 1950.

50. Rapoport, Anatol, Operational Philosophy; Harper & Bros., New York, 1953. Now available from International Society for General Semantics, P.O. Box 728, Concord, CA 94522. 51. Ruchlis, Hy, Clear Thinking; Harper & Row, New York, 1962. 52. Sondel, Bess, The Humanity of Words: A Primer of Semantics; The World Publishing Co., Cleveland, OH, 1958. 53. Swanson, Marjorie A., Scientific Epistemologic Backgrounds of General Semantics; Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engle Street, Engjewood, NJ 07631,1959. 54. Thayer, Lee (Ed.), Communication: General Semantics Perspectives; Spartan Books, New York, 1970. 55. Washburn, Donald E., and Smith, Dennis R. (Eds.), Coping with Increasing Complexity: Implications of General Semantics and General Systems Theory; Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, New York, 1974. 56. Weinberg, Harry, Levels of Knowing and Existence; Harper & Bros., New York, 1959. Now available from Institute of General Semantics, 163 Engje Street, Engjewood, NJ 07631. 57. Weiss, Thomas M., and Others, Psychological Foundations of Education; William C. Brown Co., Dubuque, IA, 1963.

oemanucs; INCWS and t-vents

Page 1 of2

Institute of General
founded in 1936 by Alfred karzyhsm

Home

The institute

General Semantics

Learning Center

Library

Beck Store

Bowed

Contact, Join

Berman Scholar Program The Institute is pleased to announce that because of the generous Capital Campaign commitment from Dr, Sanford I. Berman, we are instituting a new "Scholars Program." The first of the Berman Scholar, will commence in January 2006. Highlights of the Scholars Program include: 1. A one-semester paid internship for a college graduate or undergraduate student. 2. Candidates who apply for consideration must demonstrate their familiarity with an interest in GS and its applications to their own experiences. 3. Initially open to students within the local area of the Institute (Fort WorthDallas area). 4. Scholars will work-study at the Institute for 20 hours per week for one semester under the direction of IGS staff. They will focus the efforts toward a specific project developed jointly by the IGS staff and the scholar. Projects could include research, web development, community outreach, membership growth, archives mining, etc. 5. Dr. Herman's gift will fund 6-8 Berman Scholars. The program can grow to include up to three scholars per semester as future funding is provided by future scholar benefactors. 6. The Scholars program picks up the legacy of the "Korzybski Fellowships" underwritten by the late Robert K. Strauss in the 1940's. Guthrie Janssen and D. David Bourland, Jr., served as the only two "Korzybski Fellows" before Korzybski died in 1950.

Dr. Sanford Berman & Mrs. Sandra Berman with debaters Mike Eisenstadt and Alyssa Lucas-Bolin

i The Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Continues its Success i i i i i i

Within a very short time, the Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum has become one of the most successful new debate programs in the nation. Since its inception in fall 2006, the UNLV debate team has quickly become a shining star of excellence, attracting top debaters from all over the country to attend and debate at UNLV. The enthusiasm of the program's director has translated into a team of disciplined and successful debaters. "Our objective is to consistently represent UNLV with one of the top ten debate teams in America," says Dr. Jacob Thompson, Director of the Sanford I Berman Debate Forum. "This team has boundless potential for future success, and we look forward to one day winning the national championship." In its first year of existence the team traveled to twelve tournaments, and although many may have underestimated the potential of such a new program, the team came back to UNLV with twelve awards for their performance in various divisions. This year at the District I Qualifying Tournament in late February, UNLV qualified two teams for the National Debate Tournament, which will be held March 19-23 at the University of California at Berkeley.

Program News:

The Forum serves the national debate community by hosting tournaments on campus, including the Las Vegas Classic Invitational Debate Tournament in October, which attracted more than sixty teams from all over the country. The program director, along with assistant coaches and debaters also volunteer to coach and judge several local high school debate teams, This gives our students the opportunity to share their knowledge and support the next generation of debaters. Understanding that the ongoing success of the program rests on the ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest students to debate for UNLV, Sanford and Sandra Berman recently made a gift for scholarship support in addition to the support they provide for the program each year. "This is another example of the Bermans' dedication to education and debate at UNLV," Thompson says. "We couldn't be more grateful."

"Our objective is to consistently represent UNLV with one of the top ten debate teams 'in America." Dr. Jacob Thompson, Director of the Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum.

I I