English is a horribly inconsistent language. It has tremendously difficult rules with plenty of exceptions. It is a bad situation made worse by the fact that it has been split into two main variants: US, and UK. Each of these have their own distinct rules and tendencies. There isn't much for absolutes, in any rule. Spelling is not phonetic. There are words that are spelt weird, or at least not spelt according to the rules.
English is definitely not the ideal language for business use. It desperately needs to be improved. It becomes a barrier for people trying to conduct business if they were not taught it as a child. It may not be the worst language, but it is far from being the best language. It is, however, the language which is the most alive. New words are constantly being added to allow for the description and explanation of more complex technologies.
All of this leaves us in a horrible catch 22. English is a horrible language for learning, because it obeys no rules, but the business and technology worlds are so invested in English that it cannot be superseded by a superior language. There is no better language to use, if only because there is no business case for doing so. Many companies would refuse, because their people would need additional training in order to learn the new language.
So what is our world to do? International languages have been proposed before, with Esperanto being one of the best known. But the concept has never worked, it has always ended in failure! So what can be done? The only rules for English is that you have to use it. Not everyone speaks English, so they must learn it. There is no consistency in our language. We have to be able to communicate.
Monday 26 November 2012
Thursday 8 November 2012
Political Truth
What is truth to politicians? What is truth in politics? Well, truth is truth, and while some would consider truth to be relative, in most cases it is not. In science, it is a given that there is only one truth. Either a statement is correct, or it is not. Either we evolved from single cell organisms, or we did not. Either someone is dead, or they are not. There are millions of examples of truth that do not depend on your point of view, and are not relative to your experiences. In fact, there are very few statements that are true in a relative way. If it is a quantifiable, verifiable statement of fact, then it can be tested, and there can only be one outcome.
Politicians, though, would have it otherwise. They would bend their words so that you cannot quantify and verify them. They would state things so that they cannot be tested, but prove that their opponents are either lying or deluded. We saw plenty of that in the recent US presidential campaign. For the years leading up to the election, each side was constantly trying to belittle and disprove their opponents. A massive smear campaign, with little in the way of solid facts. Each side trying to blame everything bad on their opponents, and taking credit for everything good.
They certainly are willing to overemphasize the mistakes and unintended consequences of their opponents actions. I will not identify anything specific, but it is easy enough to find blame cast by one side for anything related to the other side by even the slimmest connection.
It reminds me of one particular scene in Star Wars, Episode V. Luke is speaking with Obi Wan's ghost. Initially, Obi Wan told Luke his father was killed by Darth Vader. Now, anybody familiar with the story knows that Luke father was Darth Vader, and Obi Wan was speaking allegorically. Darth Vader was the evil side of Anakin Skywalker, whereas Obi Wan was more accurately referring to the good side of Anakin Skywalker, which had been overtaken by Darth Vader. So Obi Wan may have considered him dead, but by any objective view, Luke's father was still alive. Of course, if you feel that truth is relative, then Obi Wan was speaking truth, from his point of view. But if what Obi Wan said was false, then truth is not relative. However, those are the types of statements that are commonly made by politicians.
So is it acceptable for them to make such statements? Do we accept their truths? Or in reality, are they telling us lies, and we are just choosing the lesser of two evils? You must decide what you will choose to believe, but that will not make falsehoods true. Truth will out, as they say, and sooner or later, our system of career politicians will destroy itself. Look to the recent US election. People say that Obama's campaign is one of the most negative campaigns ever seen. With most of it as exaggeration, he will be despised by many, especially as accuracy takes over. And yet that type of campaign, which has proven to be successful, will only become more common. It is a self destroying type of cycle. And while they may call it truth, and some others may call it truth, it will never be seen as wise. It will never be valuable.
Politicians, though, would have it otherwise. They would bend their words so that you cannot quantify and verify them. They would state things so that they cannot be tested, but prove that their opponents are either lying or deluded. We saw plenty of that in the recent US presidential campaign. For the years leading up to the election, each side was constantly trying to belittle and disprove their opponents. A massive smear campaign, with little in the way of solid facts. Each side trying to blame everything bad on their opponents, and taking credit for everything good.
They certainly are willing to overemphasize the mistakes and unintended consequences of their opponents actions. I will not identify anything specific, but it is easy enough to find blame cast by one side for anything related to the other side by even the slimmest connection.
It reminds me of one particular scene in Star Wars, Episode V. Luke is speaking with Obi Wan's ghost. Initially, Obi Wan told Luke his father was killed by Darth Vader. Now, anybody familiar with the story knows that Luke father was Darth Vader, and Obi Wan was speaking allegorically. Darth Vader was the evil side of Anakin Skywalker, whereas Obi Wan was more accurately referring to the good side of Anakin Skywalker, which had been overtaken by Darth Vader. So Obi Wan may have considered him dead, but by any objective view, Luke's father was still alive. Of course, if you feel that truth is relative, then Obi Wan was speaking truth, from his point of view. But if what Obi Wan said was false, then truth is not relative. However, those are the types of statements that are commonly made by politicians.
So is it acceptable for them to make such statements? Do we accept their truths? Or in reality, are they telling us lies, and we are just choosing the lesser of two evils? You must decide what you will choose to believe, but that will not make falsehoods true. Truth will out, as they say, and sooner or later, our system of career politicians will destroy itself. Look to the recent US election. People say that Obama's campaign is one of the most negative campaigns ever seen. With most of it as exaggeration, he will be despised by many, especially as accuracy takes over. And yet that type of campaign, which has proven to be successful, will only become more common. It is a self destroying type of cycle. And while they may call it truth, and some others may call it truth, it will never be seen as wise. It will never be valuable.
Monday 29 October 2012
Teamwork or Groupthink
Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? It is a concept described by sociology that shows that people working together have a tendency to stick with what has been done previously, and not consider possible problems, or superior alternatives. The reason that it happens is because people don't want to express a dissenting opinion, or any opinion that goes against the group as a whole. Of course, sometimes the dissenting opinion may be the opinion of the majority of the group, but nobody wants to be the one to point it out, so it goes unnoticed.
Teamwork, on the other hand, is necessary to get many projects done. It is not the opposite of Groupthink, of course, it is a solution to a different problem, and it creates the circumstances under which Groupthink occurs. However, if Groupthink does not occur, then teamwork is a valuable method of improving productivity by having multiple individuals contribute to a particular project. They are able to do more than what any one person could accomplish alone.
The ideal objective of teamwork, then, is improved productivity, while the danger is Groupthink. This challenge needs to addressed if teamwork is to fulfill its objectives. And how does one counteract Groupthink? Well, in order to properly address it, one must work to achieve the opposite of Groupthink, which is free and unrestricted communication. One must encourage all ideas without restriction, and then seek all challenges that exist so that they can be properly solved, without resistance or ridicule.
Teamwork, on the other hand, is necessary to get many projects done. It is not the opposite of Groupthink, of course, it is a solution to a different problem, and it creates the circumstances under which Groupthink occurs. However, if Groupthink does not occur, then teamwork is a valuable method of improving productivity by having multiple individuals contribute to a particular project. They are able to do more than what any one person could accomplish alone.
The ideal objective of teamwork, then, is improved productivity, while the danger is Groupthink. This challenge needs to addressed if teamwork is to fulfill its objectives. And how does one counteract Groupthink? Well, in order to properly address it, one must work to achieve the opposite of Groupthink, which is free and unrestricted communication. One must encourage all ideas without restriction, and then seek all challenges that exist so that they can be properly solved, without resistance or ridicule.
Monday 22 October 2012
Communicative Overload
The world is changing rapidly. 20 years ago, the online world was only just beginning. There was next to nothing, really not much more than online forums, a few games. Only the very technical were online. Cell phones existed, but for the most part, they were rare, still large and bulky, and hadn't produced any changes in the world. The only ways of communicating were in person, by mail, and by phone. Of course, there were telegraphs still, short wave radio, and so on, but those were relatively minor, not really intruding into the lives of the average person. For someone to talk to someone else, it was one of those three methods.
10 years ago, the Internet had hit us in full force, there were IM clients on many computers, e-mail was taking hold as a major method of communication, smartphones were on the verge of being available with the development of the Palm Treo and the BlackBerry. They weren't mainstream yet, but cell phones were popping up everywhere.
Now we are truly in the age of total connection. Many people have smartphones. In Canada, approximately one third of cell phones are smart phones, and out of nearly 35 million people in Canada, close to 25 million have a cell phone. The United States, with approximately 314 million people, have over 100 million smartphone users out of approximately 234 million cell phone users. These numbers are based on early 2012. We have text messages, social media, video and audio conferencing online, instant messaging, e-mails, forums, blogs, and other means of communicating online, all of which are available through our computers or our smartphones. We can call and be called, and can be reached at any time because of our obsession with being always connected, always online, always available. In short, we think that we are never out of touch of the world around us.
I would suggest that all of this does not make it easier to communicate. Certainly it makes communication more possible and convenient than ever, but it does not really make us any more likely to communicate. The idea is possible, it has even been achieved, but it hasn't really accomplished anything. We have too much happening. If you spent all of your time focusing on communications and social media, it would not be enough time to keep up with every possible piece of communication sent more or less in your direction through social media. It's mostly just buzz. Overload. Irrelevant.
However, instead of recognizing that, most of us use it to soothe ourselves, make us think that we are more communicative, because we are a part of the community. We delude ourselves into thinking that because we have all of this information being sent our way, it combines into a meaningful social interaction. How pointless life can become. How dull, how lonely. I loved the Toyota's ads for the Venza, pointing out the difference between friends on social networking sites that you interact with daily, versus actually getting out there and experiencing something. I would disagree on the importance of their vehicle to make it happen, but life can be an adventure, and certainly it is more meaningful when shared with friends. Have we forgotten how to do that? Have we forgotten how to have meaningful social experiences? That is communication. That is the development of friendship. That, my friend, is life.
10 years ago, the Internet had hit us in full force, there were IM clients on many computers, e-mail was taking hold as a major method of communication, smartphones were on the verge of being available with the development of the Palm Treo and the BlackBerry. They weren't mainstream yet, but cell phones were popping up everywhere.
Now we are truly in the age of total connection. Many people have smartphones. In Canada, approximately one third of cell phones are smart phones, and out of nearly 35 million people in Canada, close to 25 million have a cell phone. The United States, with approximately 314 million people, have over 100 million smartphone users out of approximately 234 million cell phone users. These numbers are based on early 2012. We have text messages, social media, video and audio conferencing online, instant messaging, e-mails, forums, blogs, and other means of communicating online, all of which are available through our computers or our smartphones. We can call and be called, and can be reached at any time because of our obsession with being always connected, always online, always available. In short, we think that we are never out of touch of the world around us.
I would suggest that all of this does not make it easier to communicate. Certainly it makes communication more possible and convenient than ever, but it does not really make us any more likely to communicate. The idea is possible, it has even been achieved, but it hasn't really accomplished anything. We have too much happening. If you spent all of your time focusing on communications and social media, it would not be enough time to keep up with every possible piece of communication sent more or less in your direction through social media. It's mostly just buzz. Overload. Irrelevant.
However, instead of recognizing that, most of us use it to soothe ourselves, make us think that we are more communicative, because we are a part of the community. We delude ourselves into thinking that because we have all of this information being sent our way, it combines into a meaningful social interaction. How pointless life can become. How dull, how lonely. I loved the Toyota's ads for the Venza, pointing out the difference between friends on social networking sites that you interact with daily, versus actually getting out there and experiencing something. I would disagree on the importance of their vehicle to make it happen, but life can be an adventure, and certainly it is more meaningful when shared with friends. Have we forgotten how to do that? Have we forgotten how to have meaningful social experiences? That is communication. That is the development of friendship. That, my friend, is life.
Monday 15 October 2012
A Shrinking World, A Growing Community
The potential of the Internet is astonishing. It allows us to grow our community without regard for borders and reach out to those who share our values and beliefs. It entirely redefines what community is. The Internet is the biggest revolution since mail systems gave us the ability to communicate beyond our immediate vicinity.
The reason for that is that while telegraphs and telephones sped up our ability to communicate with people around the world, in order to use them, we still needed to know what was at the other end of the line. We needed to have someone to send our message to, or they did nothing for us. The Internet encourage exploration, growth, and interaction beyond our immediate community.
The result is that we are no longer forced to rely on traditional models. We no longer need to have met someone in the real world before we develop some kind of friendship. We can be the people we truly are, instead of trying to fit in to the world to which we were born. We don't have to rely on chance any more. We can make what we want of our life. The world is no longer limited to what is within reach, because the whole world is at our fingertips.
So what do we choose to do with this? Generally, we stay in our own, small, pre-Internet communities, and wish for change. It requires a different model, and that relies on us being willing to take the plunge and actually change. We need to take the next step, but our teachers tell us not to. They tell us to fear the outside world, to resist that kind of break with tradition, because there might be predators out there. There may be people who would take advantage of us. They want us to live in their world, the place where strangers cannot be trusted, and where we must rely on them. So how do we deal with this?
Simple. When we are communicating on the Internet, we either remain anonymous, or we require people to use some sort of Government issued identification. If we remain anonymous, then we can develop friendships, but we don't divulge the information that would be needed to locate us. We don't share our gender, our age, or our picture. We maintain our identity separate from our online persona, so nobody we meet can take advantage of a friendship developed online. If we require Government identification, then there is a means of proving who we are meeting, but why would we need to do that if we never need to meet these people in reality?
There is no reason that we can't be part of global communities, ones that actually represent who we are, and encourage us to be our truest selves. There are, of course, still risks, as in anything, but are the opportunities as small as those who would stop us would lead us to believe? I think not.
The reason for that is that while telegraphs and telephones sped up our ability to communicate with people around the world, in order to use them, we still needed to know what was at the other end of the line. We needed to have someone to send our message to, or they did nothing for us. The Internet encourage exploration, growth, and interaction beyond our immediate community.
The result is that we are no longer forced to rely on traditional models. We no longer need to have met someone in the real world before we develop some kind of friendship. We can be the people we truly are, instead of trying to fit in to the world to which we were born. We don't have to rely on chance any more. We can make what we want of our life. The world is no longer limited to what is within reach, because the whole world is at our fingertips.
So what do we choose to do with this? Generally, we stay in our own, small, pre-Internet communities, and wish for change. It requires a different model, and that relies on us being willing to take the plunge and actually change. We need to take the next step, but our teachers tell us not to. They tell us to fear the outside world, to resist that kind of break with tradition, because there might be predators out there. There may be people who would take advantage of us. They want us to live in their world, the place where strangers cannot be trusted, and where we must rely on them. So how do we deal with this?
Simple. When we are communicating on the Internet, we either remain anonymous, or we require people to use some sort of Government issued identification. If we remain anonymous, then we can develop friendships, but we don't divulge the information that would be needed to locate us. We don't share our gender, our age, or our picture. We maintain our identity separate from our online persona, so nobody we meet can take advantage of a friendship developed online. If we require Government identification, then there is a means of proving who we are meeting, but why would we need to do that if we never need to meet these people in reality?
There is no reason that we can't be part of global communities, ones that actually represent who we are, and encourage us to be our truest selves. There are, of course, still risks, as in anything, but are the opportunities as small as those who would stop us would lead us to believe? I think not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)