(Based on Wood's explanation)
Symbolic Interactionism is an assumption of George Herbert Mead. According to Mead, humans use symbols as the foundation of both personal and social life.
It deals with the three core principles: meaning, language and thought.
It’s the meaning we give to things we have seen around us and how we act and observed towards it. The language gives humans a means by which to negotiate meaning through symbols, and for us to be able to understand one another. Engaging in speech acts may also affect like the naming and classifying of some things for further disclosure. The thought modifies each individual’s modification of symbols. It’s the sharing of points of view from what you’ve said through the use of language.
He also included some key concepts in Symbolic Interactionism:
This explanation came only from Wood which according to him, the mind has the ability to use symbols that have common social meaning. Some of the used symbols nowadays we portray to the things we’ve seen are products of our creative minds. When we interact with other people our self-development may progress.
-the “looking glass self” to know more about our selves from other people’s observations or descriptions to us.
-the “self-fulfilling prophecy” we live our lives by the shadows of others. Whatever things they had imposed on us we just go with the flow.
The “I” is the acting subject, impulsive, creative, spontaneous, and generally unburdened by social rules and restrictions. “Me” is the socially conscious part of the self who reflects on the I’s impulses and actions. It’s analytical, evaluative, and aware of social conventions, rules, and expectations. Lastly, our role taking reflects on the particular others (individuals significant to us) and to the generalized others (viewpoint of a social group).
As what I’ve mentioned earlier, people act on the basis of what things mean to them. Meanings are formed in the process of interacting symbolically with others in the society.
Symbols are the foundations of meanings. Individuals’ meanings aren’t strictly personal, but always carry social overtones. The individuals’ meanings reflect the internalized perspectives of particular others and generalized others.
However, Mead’s theory has conceptual inconsistencies. Like, he doesn’t formally write it. There are still concepts that seemed generalize and vague, some are abstract and hard to grasp. Nevertheless, we had been given the chance to understand its basics-- and that from the meanings we created there’s interaction, thus, probably can make a change around us!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Social Penetration Theory: a Summary
When we meet someone, and then we are very eager to make friends with that person, we need first to undergo some processes to know him or her deeply.
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed an assumption and named it the Social Penetration Process. It states that as relationship develop, person’s communication topics become deep, and as penetration goes on it could possibly reach its inner core and know a public person’s identity well.
“It is also considered to be a cyclical and dialectical--relationships have normal ebbs and flows”.
In order to understand their theory, they compared people to onions-a multilayered nature of personality. (Griffin) The outer layer (your outside appearance), the way people judge you based on your actions. The inner core serves as your sensitive part (where the inner beliefs, faith, values as an individual took place).
We have personal things to keep within our own selves and served as secrets, and in some instances it can hinder in creating a social relationship with others. But if we allow self-disclosure or open up to others, that would be the chance for a new friendship to grow.
According to Griffin, “the depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy”. When we dig and exert effort to know him/her better, we have to understand these four observations outlined by Taylor and Altman first.
1.Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information- the percentage of talk a person give may affect. But if there’s further penetration, and the sharing of true feelings may occur--it’s just a matter of when and how.
2.Self-disclosure is reciprocal especially in the early stages of relationship development- a give-and-take exchange in which both of you is sharing personal feelings towards each other in order to understand both companies.
3.Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are matched- telling more about you in just a short while may affect the situation. There’s a tendency that the other person may lose interest on you. We need to have that “sharing of positive and negative reactions” for a better outcome in a slower tempo yet we have to be sure on it.
4.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal- when there’s no enjoyment and satisfaction with each other anymore, a possibility in terminating the relationship may occur.
The two theorists also talked about the possible outcome which regards to the penetration process. It has something to deal with the rewards minus costs issue. For personal gain--the larger the reward the more self-disclosure may happen.
Next, is the comparison level (CL)-Gauging Relational Satisfaction. We tend to evaluate our actions in mingling with others. The sharing of most common experiences may affect; thus making as happy or sad and simply satisfied.
The last one is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)-Gauging Relational Stability. This time some advocates label social exchange as a “theory of economic behavior”. (Griffin) It is somehow complicated, but the two theorists put it this way; and that it has nothing to do with the self-satisfaction issue anymore. It’s more on the stability of the relationship, how it will last despite the certain dilemmas that may occur. And on how we can stand longer a person’s attitude whether it’s good or bad. “Mutual vulnerability will begin and reciprocal self-disclosure will draw them close”.
But Sandra Petronio (a communication theorist at the University of Indiana) questioned the work of Altman and Taylor. First, there are private information’s from each individual that he/she may not likely to share, and from that we should respect them. He or she merely speaks up and the other person may de disappointed and turned off making the social penetration end.
Another is the comparison of a person’s personal information’s to a fixed layering of an onion. She believes that a person’s private concerns may gradually change and seem to have a series of twists and turns.
The reward-cost issue also puzzled other scholars. Certainly, we don’t have to depend on the best interest we gain from being friends and socializing others, that could be a self-centered intention or action.
Altman and Taylor’s theory seems to pertain to real world experiences. They had just explained how people establish relationships and have just stated several factors which affect relationship of people to others--as to being open to one another. However, there are still gaps and lapses on the proposed assumption.
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed an assumption and named it the Social Penetration Process. It states that as relationship develop, person’s communication topics become deep, and as penetration goes on it could possibly reach its inner core and know a public person’s identity well.
“It is also considered to be a cyclical and dialectical--relationships have normal ebbs and flows”.
In order to understand their theory, they compared people to onions-a multilayered nature of personality. (Griffin) The outer layer (your outside appearance), the way people judge you based on your actions. The inner core serves as your sensitive part (where the inner beliefs, faith, values as an individual took place).
We have personal things to keep within our own selves and served as secrets, and in some instances it can hinder in creating a social relationship with others. But if we allow self-disclosure or open up to others, that would be the chance for a new friendship to grow.
According to Griffin, “the depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy”. When we dig and exert effort to know him/her better, we have to understand these four observations outlined by Taylor and Altman first.
1.Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information- the percentage of talk a person give may affect. But if there’s further penetration, and the sharing of true feelings may occur--it’s just a matter of when and how.
2.Self-disclosure is reciprocal especially in the early stages of relationship development- a give-and-take exchange in which both of you is sharing personal feelings towards each other in order to understand both companies.
3.Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are matched- telling more about you in just a short while may affect the situation. There’s a tendency that the other person may lose interest on you. We need to have that “sharing of positive and negative reactions” for a better outcome in a slower tempo yet we have to be sure on it.
4.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal- when there’s no enjoyment and satisfaction with each other anymore, a possibility in terminating the relationship may occur.
The two theorists also talked about the possible outcome which regards to the penetration process. It has something to deal with the rewards minus costs issue. For personal gain--the larger the reward the more self-disclosure may happen.
Next, is the comparison level (CL)-Gauging Relational Satisfaction. We tend to evaluate our actions in mingling with others. The sharing of most common experiences may affect; thus making as happy or sad and simply satisfied.
The last one is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)-Gauging Relational Stability. This time some advocates label social exchange as a “theory of economic behavior”. (Griffin) It is somehow complicated, but the two theorists put it this way; and that it has nothing to do with the self-satisfaction issue anymore. It’s more on the stability of the relationship, how it will last despite the certain dilemmas that may occur. And on how we can stand longer a person’s attitude whether it’s good or bad. “Mutual vulnerability will begin and reciprocal self-disclosure will draw them close”.
But Sandra Petronio (a communication theorist at the University of Indiana) questioned the work of Altman and Taylor. First, there are private information’s from each individual that he/she may not likely to share, and from that we should respect them. He or she merely speaks up and the other person may de disappointed and turned off making the social penetration end.
Another is the comparison of a person’s personal information’s to a fixed layering of an onion. She believes that a person’s private concerns may gradually change and seem to have a series of twists and turns.
The reward-cost issue also puzzled other scholars. Certainly, we don’t have to depend on the best interest we gain from being friends and socializing others, that could be a self-centered intention or action.
Altman and Taylor’s theory seems to pertain to real world experiences. They had just explained how people establish relationships and have just stated several factors which affect relationship of people to others--as to being open to one another. However, there are still gaps and lapses on the proposed assumption.
Social Information Processing Theory: Summary
Nowadays, through computer-mediated communication (CMC) we are able to disseminate information’s about current events, latest fashion trends, health tips and a whole lot more. It has been limited only on the system of transacting businesses since then. But, talking about cyberspace dating or chatting in building close relationships between two people or groups who haven’t seen each other face-to-face is mind boggling.
Not until Joe Walther proposed his Social Information Processing Theory, in which he considered CMC as a tool and can explain that through the exchange of social messages we will be able to create a succeeding relationship online, the same with the face-to-face communication.
But it is also an interpersonal communication theory that suggests that online interpersonal relationship development might require “more time” to develop than traditional face-to-face relationships. In CMC compared to face-to-face communication, personal interaction is absent (Social Presence theory), it makes a rich mix of verbal and nonverbal cue systems into a lean one (Media Richness theory), and people become more self-absorbed (Lack of social context cues).
Although it has been observed that in sending and receiving social messages through CMC nonverbal cues are missing (like tone of voice, facial expressions and gestures), Walther suggested that through verbal cues (the text only message) can be a great help in establishing a new relationship. It’s because through the type written words or message you’ll be able to catch the attention of the person. Another is through extended time (not the amount of social information that can be conveyed online; rather it’s the rate at which that information mounts). Despite our hectic schedules we still have time to chit-chat with others.
Under the SIP theory, there are still predictions about future interaction. There will be certain motivations to see each other sooner or later. Another one is the chronemics (it is the label that nonverbal researches use to describe how people perceive, use, and respond to issues of time in their interaction with others).
Walther introduced also the term hyper personal. It’s explained here the "sender-receiver-channel-feedback" categories.
Sender: Selective Presentation
A person is able to introduce herself/himself in a positive motivation as to attract the receiver. You can show off your good side through the text-based e-mails where the contents are truly impressionable.
Receiver: Over attribution of Similarity
The commonality between the sender and receiver is the issue. Sharing the same likes and dislikes or attributes maybe of great help. This is based on Lea and Spears, Social identity-deindividuation (SIDE).
Channel: Communicating on Your Own Time
Walther refers CMC as an asynchronous channel of communication, meaning parties can use it nonsimultaneously. The recipient can read the messages in his/her free time.
Feedback: Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
“The tendency for a person’s expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what he or she anticipated”. The outcome of all the processes they undergo in getting to know each other.
Here in the SIP Theory, the missing link will remain and it’s the absence of nonverbal cues. And there will always be anticipated future interactions that will disrupt the continuous establishment of relationships through CMC only.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Expectancy Violations Theory on the Go!
It took many years of study and researches until Judee Burgoon finally proposed her elegant theory. It took a lot of patience and hard work in making her assumption and be accepted by many people.
At first, her theory is based on Edward Hall’s proxemics (the study of personal space).That personal space is where our personal norms of conduct are embedded and “it’s the individuals preferred distance from others”. (
There are four proxemic zones where individuals choose in communicating with other people (Intimate, Personal, Social, and Public). And when someone violates our personal zone there’s a possibility of an “arousal” (an immediate reaction towards the violators)--depending on our rules in communicating.
But then again, Burgoon had improved her concept into something far better than the first one. Instead of focusing on with spatial violations only, she included some of the nonverbal cues or acts that can create violations towards a person like eye contact, tone of voice and body language. And which gives people an impression to one another during social interactions. She finally named the theory Expectancy Violations Theory or EVT.
EVT has its core concepts: Expectancy, Violation
Expectancy-“is what’s predicted to occur rather than what is desired”. It has something to deal with the context or the place where you had a conversation with a certain person. And it explained how the preferred distance in communicating affects the flow of the conversation. Another, is the relationship whether both of you shared a common interest, and similarities. The status in life may affect also the way in approaching one person. Lastly, are the communicator’s characteristics, which include the age/sex/ place-of birth and other personal aspects of a person. Your expectancies may be affected gradually by the person’s physical aura, personality, and mannerisms also.
Violation
Communicator Reward
EVT has been used to elaborate or explicate the way people behave in a given context when communicating with others. The perceptions of individuals differ from each other, and how they respond to certain actions rather. .
Burgoon also mentioned about the Interaction Adaptation Theory which is an extension of EVT. It’s stated that “interpersonal interactions involve synchronized actions rather than unilateral moves”. She suggested that conversations should not be linked to solos only, it can be duets. Humans can adapt other people’s actions even culture and which further relates to IAT. She also enumerated the three factors of interaction position. The requirement (outcomes that carry out self-worth), expectations (what we need to happen) and desires (we would like to see happen).
All of these assumptions, Burgoon was able to explain that there’s only one truth. “The norms and reactions to their violations are universal. It seeks to predict the outcomes that will result when specific violations are presented”. It has been well-explained since then, and each of us has been given the chance to grasp easily Burgoon’s Theory—and that we should be thankful.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Violations in How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Expectancy Violations Theory
In
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Introduction
I have seen a lot of films before, but lately I had watched one which is really different from the others. Well, it’s no big deal. It’s just that I need to explain the movie in connection with the theory “Expectancy Violations”. I really need to analyze the movie entitled “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” in relation to that communication theory.
In
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days
Introduction
I have seen a lot of films before, but lately I had watched one which is really different from the others. Well, it’s no big deal. It’s just that I need to explain the movie in connection with the theory “Expectancy Violations”. I really need to analyze the movie entitled “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” in relation to that communication theory.
I believe that explaining it is quite difficult. Studying Communication is just like Science, you need to explain the “how and why” of things which regards to communication processes. Same with the scientific method of inquiry (a step by step process), there are proposed theories to further explain and elaborate the ways of communication in every living things especially “we people”.
Summary of the Movie
Romance, comedy, action, drama and a whole lot more are all in the Paramount Picture’s film “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”. This is a story of a “How to Girl” columnist Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) who works in a woman’s magazine “Composure”. She’s expected by her boss to write something new aside from the latest fashion news, trends and tips. She’s about to write an article of recent origin and exciting to read for their next edition. Well, Andie planned to write on “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”, she got that idea from her officemate Michelle’s depressing love life experience. She thought that this could be a great scheme and for the readers to be thrilled. Andie would definitely find the lucky guy, date with him, do such annoying things to drive him crazy, and later on she will dump him after 10 days. She will dare to do anything by herself alone, and jot down everything based on her experiences.
Then, it was Ben, a successful advertising guru (Matthew McConaughey) who was chosen to be the lucky man. He’s working from the Delure Diamonds Company. Not knowing that both had set their own plans and strategies to win their bets. The two of them thought that having each other would be a great privilege, and to be able to reach their specific goals. But both fell in love with each other. They gave in and things turn out unexpectedly. They were both caught on their set traps in the end.
This movie could be further explained through the Expectancy Violations Theory. My explanation on this film is divided into different parts: Definition of EVT, Analysis and Conclusion.
Definition of EVT
Expectancy Violations Theory is a communication theory which is proposed by Judee Borgoon. This theory is based from Edward Hall’s coined term “Proxemics”. It refers to the appropriate personal space within specific cultures. “He claimed that Americans have four proxemic zones.” They are intimate, personal, social and public space and each has a specific personal distance, relating to the relationships. Without Hall’s idea that each individual has its personal space where his/her norms are molded within, EVT will not be understood. It is also explained in proxemics in which we people uses our personal space where we can be our own selves and we can choose to be away from others. In connection with EVT, there are instances that others will violate our own private zones—even our expectations in a given situation.
“The theory’s assumptions and its core concepts clearly demonstrate the importance of nonverbal messages and information processing”. (West, pg.128). But her theory broadened in 1980, as “Burgoon had realized that proxemic behavior is part of an interconnected system of nonlinguistic cues. She began to apply the model to a host of other nonverbal variables—facial expression, eye contact, touch and body lean” (Griffin 2006, pg.84). Burgoon didn’t stop there as she continued to research and bloom this theory in what it has evolved into today. “It has since been expanded to include behaviors other than non-verbal”.
Let’s see how these explications will work in connection with the film. In order to understand EVT, we need to elaborate its 3 core concepts: Expectancy, Violation Valence, and Communicator Reward Valence.
Expectancy- “it is what is predicted to occur rather than you desired”. As if you are really sure of your predictions on what will be the possible outcomes, the moment you’ve met a particular person.
Andie and Ben met on a particular night, where it was just their first meeting. They were just strangers then, but they had those flirtatious gestures, eyes gazing with each other and talk in gentle and tempting styles. With those cues, Ben expected that Andie will fall for him; and Andie thought the same. In that certain context/place where they’re in a convention hall, 4 to 10 feet distance is expected since they’re just new acquaintances, but it turned out to be in its intimate distance which is 0 to 18 inches. It’s somehow a violation of space for others, but for them they had dared to do it for the sake of winning their desires and bets—for their works.
The two people had in their minds that they will be a perfect match since they’re professionals in their own ways. They have similarities in their respective aspects and that could be a start of a new relationship. On the other hand, Burgoon explained it this way, “People of all ages and situations in life anticipate that lower-status people will keep their distance from others”. Well, I could say probably that if a she, acts and looks like a high-class and sociable being then, you would certainly suspect that you will click—just like Ben and Andie’s expectations.
Communicators’ characteristics also affect your expectancy. When you see a person who is pretty, adorable, and complaisant you will definitely keep an eye on her—just like Andie. She is a beautiful young lady, with blonde hair and blue eyes, has a fair complexion, and having that sexy and oozing body that no man could ever resist. Ben believes that he’s really on the verge to win the bet for having Andie and meeting her.
Violation Valence- Let’s talk about this other core concept of EVT. “It is a positive or negative value to each unexpected behavior. When the violation valence occurs it is likely to first interpret its meaning, and then lead into deciding if it is positive or negative value”.(Griffins, 200g, 89).
After their first meeting, it happened that Andie is in Ben’s place. As days passed by, she has been starting to do such annoying and foolish things. She brought those stuffs which are usually used by girls—like make-ups, foundation, sanitary napkins, etc.; and put those stuffs on Ben’s cabinet. She changed the color of Ben’s bed cover and replaced it with those pink, girly stuffs and toys. She didn’t even mind to ask Ben’s permission if she’s able to do those awkward deeds. Andie has been violating Ben’s personal space and interrupted every personal routines of Ben. Those were negative impacts for Ben. He had thought that Andie was a well-organized woman. But she absolutely turned out to be Ben’s worst nightmare. Despite all of these, he tried to be patient to accomplish his mission.
Communicator Reward Valence- causes the question, “What can you do for me?” (Griffin, pg. 91) “Burgoon thinks the issue of reward potential moves from the background to the foreground of our minds when someone violates our expectations and there’s no social consensus as to the meaning of the act.” (Griffins 2006, pg. 91)
Both Ben and Andie, made those non-verbal and verbal cues which could make each other fall in love. They had done different things for their ‘works’. Whether it turned out to be positive or negative (referring to the things they had done while still dating), they both seized the moment and opportunities. They tried to understand each flaws in order to maintain their relationship. But all their plans failed, since both cheated, it ended hurting each other.
The reward for the two of them is that even though there were conflicts in the situation they had entered; Ben was able to accomplish his bet, he was able to make an advertisement in endorsing the diamonds for the Delure Diamond Company. Andy, on the other hand was able to write her article and published it.
Conclusion
I had come to the point, wherein, I was able to understand Burgoon’s theory. Yes, we are living in a world where people tried to violate our personal space and so with our expectations. Wherever we are and whatever we do there are always violators—in school, office, and other centrums. In a relationship, there are expectancies. If it’s not fully discussed and understand, we tend to violate them. In the situation of Ben and Andie, their relationship turned out to be an awkward one. They violated their specific norms of conducts as well as their expectancies towards each other. Both had lied and tricked in order to win their bets.
“It is hard to drawl from a hypothesis and receive exact results, as critiques have said, but it causes one to reevaluate their relationships with an understanding of positive or negative value, and finding their reward valences”.(Deanna Williams,2007.)
References:
Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. Dir. Donald Petrie. Perf. Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. 2002. DVD. Paramount.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Parsimony Is Not Always a Good Thing..
We are living in a complex world—embedded with complex ideas, concepts and etc.
But as far as I know, people would always prefer to explain things simply in order for them to understand a certain phenomenon. It’s sort of a good thing but I’d rather prefer for a broader explanation, comprehension, and interpretations. And not just limit myself for a simpler one—I want expansion of ideas!
For me, parsimony is not always a good thing. But before stating my stand which regards on this matter, let me just first define the word parsimony and its advantages.
According to the definition which has been taken up from Merriam Webster, “Parsimony is a less better concept of frugality, stinginess, or caution in arriving at a hypothesis, or course of action”. The word came from Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere: to spare. It’s a general principle that has applications in science, philosophy and all other fields.
William of Ockham also said that “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” and this means that the simplest and the most specific answer is preferred.
In explaining such concepts in an easy way, some researchers would use the shortcut or the simplest method. They apply the rule of parsimony in explaining their works and not making it as an intricate puzzle to deal with. They believe that without this rule, scientific theories would become needlessly complicated. It will take many years for Einstein to explain the theory of relativity and Newton’s law of gravity if they will find more concepts in further explaining it. Perhaps some of the grade school pupils wouldn’t be able to know its basics if it’s too difficult to understand. Since science is well known for its search for truth, it aims to explain things simply; they try to be more specific and precise.
Another example is in a linguistic parsimony, the use of the word “four” is most likely acceptable because it’s in its simplest form to denote a certain number. Instead of stating that in a manner like “the number that is greater than three and lesser than five”. Using the parsimonious way in this instance is preferable.
But not all the time parsimony is a good thing. Explaining theories, concepts, and observations should not be limited. We should open up new ideas, and branch out our explanations to a certain matter. We have to clarify things and explore more proofs because in the long run there are tendencies that gaps or even lapses may occur—that need a lot more explanations.
Nowadays, a lot of research works have been presented to this modern world. And if people have a minute detail or just a simple knowledge/ explanations about it, there understanding will be confined—half-baked in a sense. Although, it’s more complicated to elaborate things further, we have to do it whenever it’s badly needed. We shouldn’t narrow down our concepts and arrive into shallow explanations; we need to give the supporting details to explicate more.
Explaining theories simply may give people a more easy way to grasp ideas. Yet, tracking down concepts can also give them a wide variety of knowledge and understandings.
Take it from me, “Explaining things simply is a good thing –but it is not always good as to what we are expecting”.
But as far as I know, people would always prefer to explain things simply in order for them to understand a certain phenomenon. It’s sort of a good thing but I’d rather prefer for a broader explanation, comprehension, and interpretations. And not just limit myself for a simpler one—I want expansion of ideas!
For me, parsimony is not always a good thing. But before stating my stand which regards on this matter, let me just first define the word parsimony and its advantages.
According to the definition which has been taken up from Merriam Webster, “Parsimony is a less better concept of frugality, stinginess, or caution in arriving at a hypothesis, or course of action”. The word came from Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere: to spare. It’s a general principle that has applications in science, philosophy and all other fields.
William of Ockham also said that “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity” and this means that the simplest and the most specific answer is preferred.
In explaining such concepts in an easy way, some researchers would use the shortcut or the simplest method. They apply the rule of parsimony in explaining their works and not making it as an intricate puzzle to deal with. They believe that without this rule, scientific theories would become needlessly complicated. It will take many years for Einstein to explain the theory of relativity and Newton’s law of gravity if they will find more concepts in further explaining it. Perhaps some of the grade school pupils wouldn’t be able to know its basics if it’s too difficult to understand. Since science is well known for its search for truth, it aims to explain things simply; they try to be more specific and precise.
Another example is in a linguistic parsimony, the use of the word “four” is most likely acceptable because it’s in its simplest form to denote a certain number. Instead of stating that in a manner like “the number that is greater than three and lesser than five”. Using the parsimonious way in this instance is preferable.
But not all the time parsimony is a good thing. Explaining theories, concepts, and observations should not be limited. We should open up new ideas, and branch out our explanations to a certain matter. We have to clarify things and explore more proofs because in the long run there are tendencies that gaps or even lapses may occur—that need a lot more explanations.
Nowadays, a lot of research works have been presented to this modern world. And if people have a minute detail or just a simple knowledge/ explanations about it, there understanding will be confined—half-baked in a sense. Although, it’s more complicated to elaborate things further, we have to do it whenever it’s badly needed. We shouldn’t narrow down our concepts and arrive into shallow explanations; we need to give the supporting details to explicate more.
Explaining theories simply may give people a more easy way to grasp ideas. Yet, tracking down concepts can also give them a wide variety of knowledge and understandings.
Take it from me, “Explaining things simply is a good thing –but it is not always good as to what we are expecting”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)