Reading many of ci's threads, I've noticed that there is a huge lexicon used in autism politics and philosophy, most of the words of which are extremely charged with connotations.
Words with high connotations are terrible things for arguments. It is impossible to have an argument when the very things one uses to argue with, are distractions. This-effect is called the illusion of transparancy (pdf article) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency). Humans overestimate how much meaning our words express to others, and underestimate how much our own beliefs influence our interpretation of words.
So, let's play the the game of Taboo:
Quote:
When you find yourself in philosophical difficulties, the first line of defense is not to define your problematic terms, but to see whether you can think without using those terms at all. Or any of their short synonyms. And be careful not to let yourself invent a new word to use instead. Describe outward observables and interior mechanisms; don't use a single handle, whatever that handle may be.
Can you argue your position regarding pro-cure/anti-cure/disability/etc without using the words commonly used in such arguments?
More importantly, how hard is it for you to express your belief without using these emotionally-charged and very divisive words? Do you find yourself really, really wanting to just use the familiar "team A" word rather than manually and explicitly express the concept you think it stands for?
I'd really be interested in seeing ci argue without using any of the popular words used in advocacy debate.
26 Mar 2011, 10:48 am
