[SEQ RERUN] Sneaking in Connotations
Today’s post, Sneaking in Connotations was originally published on 19 February 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
You try to sneak in the connotations of a word, by arguing from a definition that doesn’t include the connotations. A “wiggin” is defined in the dictionary as a person with green eyes and black hair. The word “wiggin” also carries the connotation of someone who commits crimes and launches cute baby squirrels, but that part isn’t in the dictionary. So you point to someone and say: “Green eyes? Black hair? See, told you he’s a wiggin! Watch, next he’s going to steal the silverware.”
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we’ll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky’s old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Categorizing Has Consequences, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day’s sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Would you hold images to this standard? Or music? If I draw a picture or play a song chances are that in a 100 people there will be at least 10 different opinions on it. Some people might find it vulgar, some people might find it awesome, beautiful, etc. Their meaning is not a part of my picture. Does that make their sentiment any less valid? I understand the endeavor to hold words to a logical idea, but I don’t think it is human. Humans fill images, sounds, and words with connotations.
Hell the title of this essay “Sneaking in Connotations” is using connotations to make a point. Sneak here is meant as a.) done stealthily, but it carries with it the meaning b.) a underhanded method. The essay could have described it as “attaching connotations” advocating connotations , pushing connotations, supporting connotations, but the author chose “sneaking” probably for the connotations of the word.
No, not all connotations a word carries will be found in the dictionary, but we must remember that dictionaries are skeletons used to aid classification. It is illogical to use the skeleton to dictate the nature of a structure. Words are filled with connotations. This is a fact, one that I do not think can be avoided, at least not for humans.
In summary, I agree that connotations are smuggled with words, but I would challenge the negative connotation applied to this concept. I hope we can have a good discussion about this.
This post isn’t claiming that you shouldn’t use connotations. It’s claiming that you shouldn’t use connotations in a way that is deceptive. His use of the word sneak is deliberate. Everyone understands what he is trying to say, and he isn’t using any sort of verbal slight-of-hand.
Connotations are absolutely necessary. But one particular way of using connotations is particularly deceptive, and for that reason is often employed in arguments. All Eliezer is claiming is that we shouldn’t do that.
Sorry for the late response.
Nice response! You have basically convinced me. However, if you do not mind, for the sake of discussion I would like to contest what is “deceptive.” You say that Eliezer is upfront with his connotations and not using them in a deceptive way. However, I would argue that deliberately using negatively charged words is a very powerful way to subliminally influence a person’s connotations. When you hear a song over and over on the radio (Justin Bieber’s Baby for example) whether you want to or not, you learn it. When you are exposed to a connotation whether you want to or not you learn it. Even if a person does not understand his Eliezer’s argument, even if they do not read it, the moment he or she reads “Sneaking in Connotations” they are imprinted with a negative connotation for the work “connotations.” While the strength of that imprint depends on the level of meaning Eliezer, this community, essays, etc have for you, that does not change the fact that his will is being imposed on you through a rhetorical move. Isn’t this just another paradigm of what you call a verbal slight-of-hand?
I don’t think Eliezer is trying to give his readers a negative opinion of connotations. The rest of this sequence is all about the mathematics of connotations, and how they are vital for properly using language. The type of influence you’re talking about is extremely small, and probably unavoidable. It’s difficult to see how you could criticize one particular way in which connotations are used for manipulation without ever using the word “connotation” in the same sentence as a negatively charged word.
It is unavoidable, but I think extremely small is an exaggeration. I have no evidence as to the exact degree of impact, but I think extremely small is an unfair evaluation. Have you read Freakenomics, or any social research along similar lines? I think there is sufficient data out there to suggest that the impact is significant to some degree.
Right now one of the huge divides in epistemology is whether or not all reasons (even purported rational ones) do not boil down to emotionally charged values.
I agree that I do not think it is Eliezer’s intention, I am just wary of growing connotations of certain words within this community. In feeding these little connotations we run the risk of becoming emotionally rather than logically attached to a position.
I think Eliezer’s words/ideas are taking on a idolatrous status. It is not that he has bad ideas, obviously he is a brilliant individual. It is more that any idea without some moderation in its acceptance becomes damaging.
This generally falls under equivocation. Meaning is highly context dependent. So “prove” some statement in one context, then use that statement in another context to prove something else. The quote above is a hamfisted application of this.