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.
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 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.