Showing posts with label emotion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emotion. Show all posts

2 May 2025

Smart (part 6) - a world view we don't share

Photo of a cup with text The Future is, then the final word covered by a discount sticker that reads $2
This is the sixth and final post in the Smart series where I have been exploring why so much of the writing about ‘artificial intelligence’ causes me such irritation. I’ve identified so many wordly issues with key terms like intelligence, language, agency, learning, personality, decision-making, etc. You can read previous posts here: 

This post will draw on all this previous content. 

Okay, it’s definitely time to stop adding to the plethora of writing about so-called ‘AI’ . 

But before I do, I must spend some time exploring some better names, more accurate names, less misleading names. Alternative names that can help us be smart about this amazing technology. Alternative names that might help us avoid selling off our future cheaply.

7 March 2025

Smart (part 4) - convincing or human hacking?

Two women in Victorian style dress, one comforting the other. The upset one saying 'All his sweet talk was just ChatGPT'
The problem with taking so long to write this Smart series about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the 34,372 extra articles published on the topic in the meantime! 

Interestingly, though, not much has really changed. I still find most of this writing incredibly irritating and I'm still trying to work out exactly why. Here is a brief summary of my explorations so far.

In Smart part 1, I pointed out that intelligence is a complex concept (and not a thing) created to talk about human abilities. Consequently, our tests of intelligence are based on human attributes and physiological limitations. Intelligence is a contested concept – there is not broad agreement about what it even means. I asked, given intelligence is not a discrete thing in humans, how could we actually know when it ‘appears’ in machines?

In Smart part 2, I explored the concept of language to show why the conversational abilities of ChatGPT and its ilk are easily explained by sophisticated programming and the nature of language use by humans. It’s nothing to do with intelligence. And yet, the tech developers seem to be using the natural language capacity of the smart bots as a (quite flawed) proxy for intelligence. (Smart part 3 was a diversion into some of the fabulous toons on this topic, but now back to being serious!) 

As a reference, I keep coming back to the Turing Test that says if a machine can convince a knowledgeable human observer of its intelligence, then it should be considered to be intelligent. 

In this post, I explore how the focus of recent development has been more on the convincing than on the intelligence part of the Turing Test. Convincing, or perhaps more accurately it could be called human hacking.

5 April 2024

Gardening - lots of rotten tomatoes

What images does the word ‘gardening’ evoke for you? It’s a catch-all for tending a few indoor plants to running a large productive community patch. 

For many, gardening is strongly associated with all sorts of positive images and benefits. Sure, not everyone is into gardening.¹ But for those who are, it is a completely GOOD THING. 

Gardening is enjoyable, fun, healthy, and good for mental wellbeing for all ages, according to - well - everyone. 

A google search of 'gardening' will give you articles like Gardening makes you happier, Physical and mental benefits of gardening, A fun hobby that makes you healthier, Gardening improves emotional wellbeing, and more! 

When I searched 'gardening + emotions', I found a blog article that lists satisfaction, peace, joy, patience, adventure as the five emotions² that gardening brings out in you.   

But that's not my experience at all. I often find gardening to be anything but enjoyable. I often feel anxious, frustrated, incompetent, burdened and guilty. Am I doing something wrong? Or have we just been sold half the story?

1 March 2024

Clarity - about my need for clarity

Many times over the last year, I’ve started articles for this blog. Some were drafts of a few pages, some remained just a collection of images about my key questions, some were notes headed, ‘A Wordly Exploration topic?’ But nothing has made it to publication. 

As you may have noticed.

It’s been a rough two years for me for finding time and energy and routine to write. Floods, illness, loss and grief. Initially, I managed to post a few articles, but then it became too much.

I tinkered with ideas. I put them down.

A year - then more - ticked by since the last substantial article. Was the Wordly Explorations blog heading for oblivion, like so many others? 

This week is two years since my home was flooded, and two years since this blog went on the backburner. This post is about what I learned through this hiatus.

1 October 2021

Simplistic thinking - 12 steps to beat your addiction

It's great you're here. The world needs more people willing to let go of simplistic thinking, ready to join the complexity revolution. 

Simplistic Anonymous (SimpAnon) is an international fellowship helping addicts resist the appeal and pervasiveness of simplistic thinking in our culture. It opens the door to living well with complexity.

If you are willing to let go of some simplistic illusions, experience the discomfort AND awe of complexity and contradiction, and embrace the rewards of living in an amazingly rich and incredible world - Simplistics Anonymous is for you. 

The Twelve Step program was created as Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935. It has since been used for many types of addictions - gambling, shopping, prescription medication, etc. Although it has been adapted over time, the premise of each step remains the same for all recovery programs. The original program emphasised healing power of the Christian conception of God, but recent adaptations use the idea of 'a higher power' however the person conceives it. 

The Simplistics Anonymous twelve-step program provides a guide to a lifestyle that embraces the rich fullness of our amazing world and your place within it. 

This page outlines the 12-step program for recovery from addition to simplistic thinking. On this page, you can read a background to addiction and the appeal and many dangers of an addiction to simplistic thinking.

3 September 2021

Simplistic thinking - are you an addict?

Welcome to Simplistics Anonymous, also known as SimpAnon.

You may have come to this page because a friend recommended us, or you may have been googling why you feel numb, bored or so disconnected from life. You may be wondering if there is an alternative to feeling that life is pretty flat. 

Well, it's possible you are addicted to simplistic thinking, without knowing it. This addiction is real, it's destructive, and it's disconnecting. 

Luckily, there is a solution. 

Part 1 on this page explains the appeal and dangers of simplistic thinking, and why people become addicted to it. Part 2 outlines the 12-step recovery program for people addicted to simplistic thinking. 

20 August 2021

Post-truth (part 9) - camouflage for an old adversary

painting of coloured squares and lines called House Under Construction
House Under Construction
Kazimir Malevich
Source 
The emergence of the word post-truth sparks a very old philosophical question - what is truth

I've now written over 20,000 words in 8 posts to attempt to explain how I see truth. (A full recap and a contents page are coming.) 

My exploration has focused on how humanity pictures the concept of truth. I contend that our most common image - the metaphor of the tortuous journey to an absolute objective truth as a destination (out there) - is part of problem in thinking clearly about truth and post-truth

In this series, I have presented a new metaphor that is a better fit with humanity's relationship with truth - the house construction metaphor. The metaphor represents the shared process of constructing and maintaining the house - our sense of truth - and also the vulnerabilities inherent in any project that involves a lot of people. 

The house construction metaphor illustrates that truth is personal, provisional, and socially constructed by humans, and that is not only okay, it is inevitable. Our concept of truth, as I see it, is the outcome of our human needs. 

So, how does the new metaphor help in understanding post-truth

16 July 2021

Post truth (part 8) - persuasion or propaganda

In the last post, I explored the motivations of those involved in the social agreement for truth, with a focus on how marketing and lobbying work to influence that agreement for their own aims. 

text box: We think [advertising] has meant an increase of untruthfulness. In fact, it has meant a reshaping of our very concept of truth.  Daniel Boorstin The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, 1962
While this influence can be sinister, my main point was that we are rather cavalier about overt manipulation of truth, even as it infiltrates our minds and shapes our actions. The strategies of marketing and lobbying reveal so much about the social construction of truth

And yet, still we prefer to think about truth as objective and absolute, and advertising as inconsequential or irrelevant to truth. Many disagree, including the insightful Daniel Boorstin

This series began in November 2020 with my puzzlement about the word post-truth and what it means about the word truth. I had no idea then how hard it would be to explore these concepts.

In parts 1 and 2, I pointed out that the false journey metaphor for truth has allowed the emergence of post-truth to be laughed off as a problem of some 'stupid', misinformed or misguided individuals, or decried as the lies of narcissistic or sociopathic political figures to stay in power. 'Objective truth still exists', we say to ourselves: 'They are just wrong'. 

I don't feel so disdainful. I speculated in that post that post-truth is a symptom of a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign to control truth. But I didn't really understand how anyone could succeed in controlling truth

To explore this idea, I created a new metaphor, the house construction metaphor for truth

In this post I use the house metaphor to think about propaganda, the final word to explore before I can come back to where I started and ponder what we mean by truth and post-truth.

2 July 2021

Yantbom - claiming the right not to think

Last week, I was standing at the lights waiting for the Walk signal. A guy drove past, going way too fast for the built-up area. I could see the automatic 'SLOW DOWN' signal flash at him. He revved loudly and increased his speed.

traffic sign with text in leds SLOW DOWN 30
I felt disconcerted by this reaction, one I notice more and more often. 

When I see people objecting to instructions to slow down, wear masks to combat Covid 19, use seatbelts or bike helmets, or ideas like restricting human access to some natural areas, changing the date of Australia day, allowing gay people to marry, ad infinitum, I am puzzled not so much by their opposition, but their intensity and anger. 

Rarely do they offer any specific reasoning for their objection.

Instead, resistance is often fiercely proclaimed as the vital defence of individual freedom. They might call themselves freedom fighters, freedom lovers, upholders of personal liberty, or sometimes libertarians.

But I don't think it's about freedom or liberty at all. 

I think what I'm seeing is just an adult tantrum in response to being asked to think and to self-reflect. And tantrums always look rather disconcerting in adults. 

This type of reaction needs a better name; a name that reflects what's really going on. 

16 April 2021

Post-truth (part 5) - from hmmm? to ah-ha!

This post builds on the ideas explored in the previous Post truth posts: part 1 - a false metaphor, part 2 - a metaphor that fits, part 3 - reviewing the project brief and part 4 - tell me a story. 

wrecking ball going into brick wall
In part 4, I described how the walls of the metaphoric house of truth are constructed. The metaphoric walls represent our interwoven explanatory stories, shared and reinforced by lots of people throughout life. Our explanatory stories run constantly under our thinking, most often without our awareness. It's hard for us to pull out any single 'story', think critically about our understanding of the world, or notice if some stories have only a tenuous link to 'facts' about reality (the metaphorical floor). 

But we don't really want to anyway; why take a wrecking ball to the walls of our own house? We like living there!

In the last post, I suggested that our shared explanatory stories meet fundamental human needs in a way that facts cannot. Those needs include our need to understand 'cause and effect' so we can do things, out need to belong and share a sense of reality with others, and our need to feel safe. 

Here's an idea: truth is the status that we give to the explanatory stories that meet these human needs. 

'Whoa!?!' you say. 'Don't facts count for anything? Doesn't being right or accurate matter? Can I just call any random idea truth if it 'feels' good then?'

Very important questions. To begin to answer them, in this post I'm looking into the nature of our relationship to truth, how truth meets fundamental human needs.

I want to explore how truth makes us feel.

23 May 2020

Uncertain 2 - our costly false comforts

In the first part of this post, Uncertain - about these uncertain times, I explored a contradiction at the centre of our humanity: wanting to be certain in an uncertain world.


Humans do whatever we can to avoid acknowledging the inherent uncertainty in our lives: cocooning ourselves in safe enclosures, limiting our lives, or planning obsessively to control the future.

We equate 'uncertain' with 'unsafe', to which our primal reaction is to run or make things safe again.


Our response when we perceive danger is emotional and compelling. Only rarely are our actions driven by an objective or factual assessment of information. We can even feel fear of imagined dangers, when there is no imminent threat. Being told there really is no monster under the bed does not necessarily soothe our fear, and we continue to seek reassurance. We need to feel safe.

We do the same with the inherent uncertainty of life. The driver of our actions is emotion: we want a FEELING of certainty and safety. We want to FEEL reassured that things are certain and safe.

This means we are extremely vulnerable to any information that stirs our feelings of uncertainty and insecurity, regardless of actual threats, or to people who promise us certainty and safety in the face of real, imagined and even concocted threats.

Perversely, the emotional comfort of 'false' certainty is often more compelling than any facts of certainty and safety.

Every successful politician, marketing executive, con artist and cult leader knows this. And they exploit us with this knowledge.

Part 2 looks at the implications of our need to feel things are certain, and therefore 'safe', and what false promises we will happily accept in order not to feel the fear of uncertainty.

9 May 2020

Uncertain - about these uncertain times

We are living in uncertain times.

Many of us feel very unsettled, even in the relative safety of Australia. When we are not searching out the latest pandemic news, we are flooding social media with our struggle to find focus or positivity, or we are comforting ourselves with nostalgia on travel, books and music, getting into gardening and busy work.

I sure feel a greater sense of uncertainty than I did this time last year.

The words: 'these uncertain times' are everywhere - news stories, ministerial announcements, articles on physical and mental health, reports, and advertisements for everything from cleaning products to insurance to dating apps. Some go so far as to call our times 'an era of uncertainty'. (Here's an Australian example from 2018.) An American report published in 2004, told us to expect that 2020 would be characterised by a 'pervasive sense of insecurityrelated to concerns over job security, fears around migration, terrorism and internal conflicts, and military conflicts .

No prediction of a global pandemic though, the latest source of the ubiquitous statement that we are 'living in uncertain times'.

Try searching Google's library of digitised manuscripts for the phrase 'these uncertain times', and you'll find that it occurs over and over, in hundreds of journals and books, in virtually every decade the database encompasses, reaching back to the seventeenth century.But are 'these times' truly more uncertain than other times? 

In his book, The Antidote - Happiness for people who can't stand positive thinking, Oliver Burkeman says that every era describes itself as characterised by unprecedented uncertainties and lack of stability. 

Just a few of his examples:
♦️  In 1951, Alan Watt highlighted a contemporary 'feeling that we live in a time of unusual insecurity'… referring to the impact of the breakdown of long-established family, social, economic and belief traditions.
♦️ Writing about the Roman Republic and Empire over three centuries is replete with political instability and social unrest and the impact on people who felt their future was disturbingly uncertain.
The idea that earlier times were more certain and stable than our own experience of life is really just nostalgia, based on an imagined and idealised past.

In fact, when you're fully engrossed in living your own life, you face uncertainty all the time.

Because life is irrevocably, constantly and most certainly uncertain. 

The global pandemic reveals a fundamental truth: we humans are deeply deluded that we are fully in control of ourselves, our future, our world. We desperately want to believe we can make our lives certain, set and fixed. 

28 February 2020

Argument 2 - offence as defence

In Part 1, I explored my perplexing fear reaction about arguing with someone on social media.

Well, I was not really arguing, I was just trying to engage. I asked people questions about their ideas. I was trying to step out of my own bubble.

But I failed completely. Several times. I wasn't really expecting a reasoned argument, but I was expecting some sort of answers to simple questions about their views. However, asking questions was seen as attack; my questions were met with outrage and offence.

I'm sure you've seen it too.

people throwing food at each other with some vehemence
Fun? For some... Source
What gets called an 'argument' these days is actually a fight to hold 'territory', to defend firmly held opinions, and to damage the other person as much as possible. No-one ever, ever, ever modifies their idea or changes their mind. People fling words at each other like a food fight. They hurl soggy information (simplistic memes), rotten comments (outrage and offence) and stale explanations ('that's what my grandparents did'). Simply pour over some vinaigrette of arrogance: 'Well, you have no idea', and a garnish of insults: 'Only an idiot could think that' and you have a mess no one wants to clean up.

When and why did my much-loved calm and respectful argument about differing ideas deteriorate into a word fight to defend territory?

15 February 2020

Argument 1 - asking as attack

I love a good argument. I don't mean an angry disagreement. I mean the curious and respectful exploration of opposing ideas to find the source of difference, see if there is some 'middle ground', and something new to learn.

But genuine arguments so rarely happen these days.

The so-called 'argument' these days is more like a vehement battle of opposing ideas. A battle to the death with tongues as weapons: 'I believe 'this' and I'm right.' 'Well no, you're wrong; I believe 'that'.' 'No way, how could you think 'that'? You are so brainwashed and stupid.'

Source: memegenerator.net 
The aim of the contemporary 'argument' seems to be to beat your opponent's idea, and really, to conquer your opponent personally. 

Nowhere is this more evident than on social media - platforms geared to witty and pithy comments which reward those who generate outrage (going viral).

Social media platforms were born in a part of youth culture where verbal one-upmanship and scathing put-downs were a 'performance art' that replaced genuine conversation. Fun for some. Entertaining for some topics. But now, serious topics of discussion on social media get the same treatment.

Arguing on social media is so well known to be pointless, it has generated its own memes.

A new 'golden rule' for our times is never argue with someone online. 


Recently, I broke that golden rule. Long story, short: it did not go well.

Long story, not short at all: the contemporary 'argument' remains pretty woeful. World harmony and understanding was not advanced. No agreement was reached. But I learnt a lot. Mainly about myself. And I learnt to pay attention to some red flags that can lurk in an argument.

In fact, I would go so far as to recommend it to you, if you're brave!

A plan to engage with people I disagree with


Prior to my venture into online argument, I had read about the benefits of engaging with people you disagree with. It is promoted as a starting point to resolving some of the bigger issues facing humanity: 'Get out of your own bubble!' In our increasingly polarised society, it made sense. So I thought I would try it.

I was not going to criticise anyone's claims. I would be respectful. And remain calm. And maybe I might learn something and understand other people's views better.

(I haven't included any actual content of the various 'arguments' in this blog, as I want to focus on the process. For context, I responded to various posts I disagreed with about what caused the disastrous bushfires in Australia over summer of 2020, religious education in primary schools, and aboriginal land management prior to white colonisation; all easy topics - not!)

I had no intention of arguing or trying to persuade anyone to change their point of view. Instead, all I wanted was to open discussion: I planned to ask people about what they thought in more detail and the reasons they held that view.

Snipped from social media 

The opportunity soon presented itself. A post accused 'greenies' of causing the bushfires, and implied they were enjoying see the fires ravage the country. And several others like this, with or without personal insults. I snipped one implying how dumb people must be to be 'ignoring' the arsonists, for an example.

Okay, ready… how to start? I sat at the keyboard pondering options: 'That's an interesting idea, S. Why do you think that…'

But I couldn't type. My body was not on the same page at all. My heart was pounding, my legs shaking violently, my chest felt tight. I had to walk away from the keyboard.

In the only way that it could, my body was sending me a clear message.

My body was communicating dread and fear.


But what on earth was I afraid of? What peril was my body anticipating in the safety of my office?

A simple definition of fear: 
♦️ An anxious feeling, caused by our anticipation of some imagined event or experience.

Regardless of what we fear, the body send essentially the same set of signals: through your body, like leg shakes or rapid breathing; through your own actions you don't quite understand, like not 'getting around to' applying for a job that you think you want; and through feelings like fear, anger or sadness.

The purpose of fear is survival.

If it's a physical threat, like a dangerous animal, those signals trigger us to avoid the danger or to defend ourselves. If it's a social threat, they signal the need to change our actions to avoid social rejection. Fight or flight; engage or retreat from personal conflict.

So, I thought about the likely 'suspects' for my fear.

Was it a fear of conflict? Many of us fear and avoid angry conflict. Sometimes we avoid it as a way of taking care of others' feelings: we don't want to upset others. Women, in particular, are socialised into this in their roles as caretakers. Other times, we are just making sure the other person still likes us. We might not reveal our contrary opinion to avoid disapproval, as the fear of rejection is a deep one for all of us.

A common fear is a fear of being exposed as wrong or a failure.


Fear of being a wrong, inadequate or a failure can be the reason we avoid things like singing or speaking in public, fully completing creative projects, putting a view forward in a discussion. Oh…

At its pathological extreme, the fear of being wrong or a failure is known as kakorrhaphiophobia. It's from Greek kakorrhaphia, meaning 'a contrivance of ill, mischievousness' (with kakós, meaning 'bad' plus -rrhaphía, meaning 'I sew') with the ending -phóbos, meaning 'fear.' So, the literal meaning is 'a fear of creating something bad'. (I could also apply this to my fear of messing up my sewing, so that's handy to know!)

I recall experiencing kakorrhaphiophobia in my childhood at school. I have a strong still gut-turning memory of the minute I realised I would be exposed as not only wrong but also lying about being wrong, feeling nauseous and dizzy, and needing to rush to the toilet. Fear and shame can not only make us feel physically sick, our skin crawl or flush, our guts fill with stabbing pain, we often also want to crawl into a hole and hide. The standard fear signals.

Was it fear of being thought of as bad or dumb? We may avoid declaring our views to allow others to continue to think we are who they imagine us to be. In the social group I shared with S, I had the image of being clever, as I had done well when we studied together. It would definitely annoy me if someone insulted my opinion as stupid or implied that I was bad or dumb - the ubiquitous insult in disagreements. But fear?

Finally, it could even be a fear of engaging in what I suspected may well be futile. The fear of futility, the fear of dedicating oneself to useless activities, is strong in all of us. In the extreme, it's a paralysing perfectionism. For most of us, it drives us to creative and engaging activities and to meaningful occupation and work.

We humans are afraid of so many different things; we are a scaredy bunch.


None of these 'social threats' seemed to explain the intensity of my body's messages of fear; this person is an acquaintance only; she doesn't matter to me, and if she doesn't like me and we never speak again, well, meh. I didn't think it would really matter to me if she thought I was dumb. I wouldn't like it, but I didn't think I needed constant validation for my self-concept as clever, friendly, curious. I was not planning to push my own views, so I wouldn't be exposing myself to the risk of being shown as wrong or a failure. 

However, despite the various articles suggesting engaging is THE way forward, I did suspect it might be futile. But that's okay; it's just a trial and if it doesn't work out, I will stop.

Well, I could tell myself that. I could rationalise that I was prepared to engage with people with whom I disagree. But my body was telling me loudly that I was not.

Fear is not easy to ignore even when we know it's not rational or warranted. 


Fears are not easily overridden by logic; they are deep evolutionary responses to both physical threats and social threats. The reason for this is obvious for physical threats - ignore them, you likely experience pain or die. Same for social threats, if an early human was kicked out of the group they would likely have died. Not being accepted, respected or valued by others could literally threaten our survival.

It seems even now when we consider taking certain actions, like engaging with someone with a chance of conflict and rejection, those deep fears of being 'kicked out' can be triggered, even when there is no real danger.

What to do then?

How could engage while my body was 'shouting' about my deep fear of engaging?


I found a useful way to think about my reaction in Dr Karl Albrecht's five basic fear categories, a sort of fear 'hierarchy' from the most direct and overt threats (fear of extinction: death, dark, spiders) to less obvious but very real personal psychological threats (fear of ego-death: disapproval, humiliation, shame, being wrong, being worthless). More examples are provided at the end of this post. 



The fears communicated through my pounding heart, shaking legs and tight chest would fit under fear of ego-death: fear of humiliation, shame or worthlessness. The threat of 'ego-death' is a threat to our sense of ourselves in the world.

Albrecht's concept of ego-death explained the signals from my body: an anticipated threat to my sense of myself was under it all. That WAS a threat to take seriously!

Okay, having anticipated what could happen, what I might feel and why, I thought I was ready. My body now agreed: the shakes and heart pounding stopped, but my persisting tight chest signalled that I should still take care. I was confident I could read words of anger, insult, etc., and not take them on. My aim was merely to remain engaged and be respectful. My second aim was to observe my own responses. If I learnt anything about the topic of the 'argument' it would be a bonus.

I would feel the fear and 'argue' anyway.


Um... maybe don't! Source 
I took a day to draft a careful response off-line, asking for the reasons for S's position. My comment was met with outrage within minutes. I kept what I thought was a careful and measured tone in my next comments, tried to further soften my questions, to make it clear I was genuinely asking, not baiting her. It went badly from there. At no time did she present any reasons for her views. She thought I was attacking her, her friends, her grandparents' parents, and her god. She said we would have to 'agree to disagree' while commenting that any view other than hers was stupid brainwashing. (And I hadn't even presented my views!) 

My main feeling was shock at her intensity. In fact, her vehement response was almost like I had threatened to annihilate her.

And perhaps I had. Did S lash out due to her perceived threat of 'ego-death'?

Other friends watching the discussion posted pap memes about the importance of being kind to each other. They too apparently interpreted my comments as a personal attack, or at least as unkind. Other mutual friends (all women) supported S, giving her comments a 'thumbs up' or responding to her angry statements with 'Well said.'

But, I wasn't attacking; I wasn't even disagreeing. I was just asking S why she held her views.

It seemed even being asked why she held a particular point of view threatened S's sense of herself in the world.

Okay, mark that one as a 'fail'.

I tried a few more times. But always the same: offence, anger, insults, and statements I was unreasonable, brainwashed, or plain stupid.

It was an experiment, and success would have been any direct answer to my question, 'Why do you think that?' But nothing like a reason was forthcoming. The few statements presented in 'support' of their position referred to their family 'traditions' or emotions like pride and loyalty, and always, outrage that I didn't respect their views which they had a 'right' to hold. One person just deleted their post altogether rather than answer my question.

It was not engagement. It was entirely futile. 


So, I gave up. It was clear that even asking a question is perceived as an attack in what passes for a contemporary argument: asking as attack.

I wasn't hurt or even disappointed. I did worry that I came across as a nasty person, and wondered how that might affect our future interactions in the bigger group, but I could cope with that.

But I did have some other nagging sense…

It took a few days until I stopped replaying the various 'arguments' in my head. Over time, what emerged was a sense of unfairness. A feeling that the 'arguments' involved foul play; that my 'friends' hadn't been playing fair.

Why on earth would I be feeling badly done by?

I found the answers to my feelings of fear and unfairness, not in psychology, but in the way we 'argue', and in the nature of the answers we think are possible.

My next post attempts to unravel the mess we call an argument.



Examples of Dr Karl Albrecht's five categories of fear (2007)
  1. Extinction: fear of annihilation or of not existing; fear of death; fear of heights/falling; fear of the dark; fear of sick people.
  2. Mutilation or Bodily Invasion: fear of losing a body part (a hand) or a body function (hearing), fear of having our body's boundaries invaded, fear of wild animals, snakes, spiders, dogs, sharks, cockroaches etc; fear of crowds; fear of needles, germs, the dentist.
  3. Loss of Autonomy: fear of being restricted, confined, trapped, suffocated, paralysed, overwhelmed, etc; fear of being controlled by things outside us; fear of confined spaces (claustrophobia); fear of poverty (scarcity); fear of lack of time; fear of aging; fear of commitment; fear of others' dependency.
  4. Separation, Abandonment or Rejection: fear of abandonment, rejection or exclusion; fear of not being respected or valued; fear of being alone and isolated from others; fear of punishment; fear of vulnerability; fear of intimacy (due to risk of loss).
  5. Humiliation, Shame or Worthlessness: fear of not being lovable; fear of disapproval; fear of public speaking; fear of conflict; fear of futility; fear of being wrong (perfectionism) or appearing foolish/stupid; fear of being found out; fear of not being 'good enough'; fear of the disintegration of our idea of ourselves.
Credits for images, used under Creative Commons Licences

12 July 2019

Alternate - a small grief

Batman smacks Robin across the face for saying 'your'
Source: Know your meme
By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

Have you ever corrected someone's dreadful grammar, fixed their awful punctuation, or pointed out that they used the wrong word?

I get it - those errors can be very irritating. They distract from the meaning. And certain errors are particularly 'triggering' for some of us. A whole online army seem fully occupied waging war against you're errors.

But have you ever considered that in your battle against errors, you might be fighting against the natural process of language change?

I'm starting to think I might be doing just that when I react to one of my 'trigger' words errors - alternate, the adjective form. I consider it an error to use alternate when the meaning is alternative.

I frequently notice alternate used wrongly in both formal and informal contexts, and I always correct it (at least to myself!) However, deep in my word nerd heart, I am starting to feel I might have to accept the word alternate is just changing its meaning, like so many have before.

But I'm not ready to accept it just yet.