Buzz phrases distorting reality

[HydrogenBond]

Language is a powerful tool for communication. But sometimes coining new words, meanings or clever phrases can lead to a distorted perception of reality.

 

Let me give an example; "weapons of mass destruction". This is one of those clever buzz phrases that is still popular, with the popularity helping to distort reality. For example, mustard gas is considered a "weapon of mass destruction". But in reality mustard gas does very little in the way of destruction. It does kill humans but typically leaves structures standing. Drop a 1000 lb bunker buster, which is not considered a "weapon of mass destruction, and that will kill the people, turn them to finely ground hamburger and leave nothing standing. I don't get it. Maybe I assume truth in words instead of illusions in buzz.

 

Years back Michael Jackson added a new definition to the word "bad". In this case it meant good or ego-centric.. Now if I do something bad and want to get away with it, I say "I'm Bad" and everyone in the buzz thinks I just did something good.

 

Political correctness uses buzz to the n-degree to help distort our perception of reality. Buzz is almost like fashion. If one wishes to be part of the cutting edge, one needs put aside common sense, and enjoy the short term prestige that comes with a good buzz. Soon the buzz will be put in the closet with the polyester leisure suits, but the ridiculous will have already happened.

[Leo]

Sometimes I wonder, when I read books or papers from past decades or centuries, how many such buzzes-of-the-time I'm overlooking. It's amazing the quantity of trends of expression that vanish in a few years, while only a tiny fraction of them remain to become part of the language.

[Qfwfq]

Yeah, when I read stuff of past centuries I see how many words had different acceptions. I think there are many misconceptions around, now, about what past people said.

[HydrogenBond]

A paradoxical buzz phrase is "second-hand smoke". I sort of picture a hand-me-down, of sorts, that has lower intrinsic value than brand new smoke. This is probably the linguistically correct interpretation, yet culture tries to sell this secondhand "used smoke" at the same price as brand new smoke. It is sort of a certifed used car at a new car price.

 

If the two are the same price, why not buy new? If both are the same price, why not enjoy new car smoke instead of being bothered by used car smoke, since they are both given equal social value. The reason one does not do that is that new always costs more than used, therefore used is cheaper (less harmful). If it takes 20 years of new car smoke, it may take 1000 years of used car smoke to get the same value. Just do a mass balance.

 

The smoke and mirrors, causes one to percieve reality in an irrational way. The result can be irrational behavior because of living in an irrational world. It is sort of like swatting imaginary bees. That is why the second hand smoke crowd can get out of control at times, because they don't fully exist in reality.

[InfiniteNow]

What if I infected you with "second hand" influenza? I fail to see the issue, as smoke inhaled through one's own act is, in fact, different from smoke inhaled due to close proximity of someone else smoking. However, I'm sometimes daft, and may be missing a key element to your presentation. :lol:

 

 

Isn't smoke and mirrors a buzz phrase? :)

[Qfwfq]

AS well as the fact that second hand smoke is something that

 

I don't choose!

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

[alexander]

Phrases that get me are usually either in commercials or on road signs, and i will give examples of both.

 

commercial phrases -

 

"no other leading brand aspirin releaves pain faster then Brand X" - a typical phrase used in thousands of commercials, not only pharmaceutical, but also technological and telecom ones such as "no other network is more reliable". Those piss me off so much, because they lead people to beleive that Brand X is better then the other products, but in all reality it is not what the phrase says, look at the first example: aspirin is aspirin and it all releaves pain at the same speed, but if all of them releave pain none are faster then others, meaning that all of them are as fast as each one. That phrase merely states that fact, and not that Brand X is a better or faster pain releaver (same applies to many medication commercials).

The telecom example is simple too, your operational definition of "reliable network" differs greatly from theirs, also how can a network be less reliable? they dont say phone network, they dont say phone signal, they say network, meaning any network, their office network or their network of communication tower, and even if they mean communication towers, they are all built the same way, and Brand X network is not more reliable then others by what the sentence actually says, but people perceive it as if it is!

 

Now road signs...

Who came up with the wording "Blind Driveway"? It is by far the most stupid wording a sign can have. Let me explain, driveways do not have eyes and therefore are either all blind or all are not blind because they are not even alive. Why dont they say the truth, like "Blind Driver, Especially in the Morning" or "Caution: Limited Visibility Driveway", no they have to blame the driveway for the driver blindedness.

 

I thought that was bad, and then i saw an even better one

"Blind Drive"... Am i supposed to close my eyes and drive blind or something? I mean "Caution: Limited Visibility Around the Turn" would be much more discriptive and appropriate a sign for the situation, no?

[HydrogenBond]

Here is a little linguistic insight that is not well understood by most. I was listening to the radio. Because I like all types of music I tuned into a rap station and heard a song that had the lyrics "you're so fly". The song has been around for a little while.

 

The term "fly" is suppose to be a compliment, but when I thought about it logically, it is actually an insult. A fly is an ugly "big eyed" insect, that likes to walk on sh@t. Granted, a fly does have good reflexes. It appeared to me that would get one more slaps than action, if one used the term to convey information with language.

 

This led to the train of thought that there are two uses for the same words of language and linguistics. One use is to convey data and logic and the other use to convey feelings and emotions. In the case of the song, it wasn't what he said, that was important, but how he said it that defined how it was to be interpretted by the babe. If I said it, without whining for sex, sort of like Mr Spoke, I would get a slap instead of lucky.

 

Back in the hippy years, one said the word "man", at the end of everything they said. How's it hanging, man. That was really boring, man. Power to the people, man. Even if one was talking to women or children, they were "man". The "man" was not there to help express data, ideas or logic. It was added for an emotional commnuication.

 

Picture this. One is at a concert, where a female with an enchanting voice is singing a beautiful song in foreign language. Just the sound of her voice allows one to get nice feelings from the music. All of a sudden, someone gives you a program which has the lyrics translated. It turns out she was insulting your mother and calling you vulgarities. The same words now no longer make one feel warm and fuzzy.

 

The emotional use of language is actually very ancient. Just read Shakespear. He used way more words then needed to given intellectual understanding. All the extra words are there for feelings. Even if he was speaking the language of the day, one may notice all the extra of the day was not there for information but for emotions.

 

Rhetoric use languahe to convey emotion and semtiment. One can say "all the children need to be fed". This makes one feel, but is often sold as intellectual. It does not contain enough information to rationally address the problem but the simple buzz can make one feel. Yet, most people are content to have their emotions and sentiments stroked and call that intellectual information. It is sort of important to distinguish the two. One us for language is learnng and conveying information and the other use is for entertainment that stirs the emotions They're both important, but not necessarily interchangeable. Even though many who commuicate with sentiment think both are the same thing.

[HydrogenBond]

I will try to show how the two types of language work in practical life. Using language to gain meaning and understanding, without emotional sentiment, can be dry and boring. But it is, nevetheless, an internally active process requiring the listener to ponder, analyze and extrapolate what is being said to be able to come to a solid understanding. Often the summary of this active process is felt with a type of conviction, pro or con.

 

Using language to induce emotion or sentiment is more fun and active on the surface but is actually a very passive possess. The speaker goes right to the heart of emotion and conviction using catchy buzz words and phrases. For example, "end the war now". The first approach goes through a long active intellectual process to reach this core sentiment. The second approach goes right to the core of the listener, with minimal effort on the part of the passive listener. One only has to feel the conviction that can result from the voice, dynamics, or catchy phrases of the speaker. Even the emotion of the crowd can do the trick.

 

In the first case, the processs begins at the cerebral perimeter and focuses to a core of knowing conviction. While the second starts at the core and then moves toward the perimeter. Once the audience feels the feeling, then the speaker begins to feed them reinfocing data. An active intellectual process might involve coming to terms with conflicting data, which could spoil the core buzz. That is why cherry picking is often used by emotional language speakers. It keeps the buzz going longer, with minimal effort on the part of the listener.

 

In entertainment, stimulating the emotional core is the goal. The whole basis is to move the feelings within the audience. It may also involve moving from there toward the rational perimeter, here and there, to add logic to the story line. But in education, the active process begins at the perimeter, with the hope of lighting the fire of understanding that is beyond the bias of emotional language.

 

If one looks at the media, doom, gloom and outrage is the theme of the play. They make it even easier, by cherry picking data, to keep the ambience buzz of the play going as long as possible. Too many people, think the induction using emotional language is the same as active learning, since both use a perimeter and core affect. The difference is which comes first and which comes second.

 

Look at the politics of global warming. It is an emotional language play, designed to create fear. If it was based on the language of learning, that would require looking at both sides of the issue. That's too much work and may result in a type of neutralization affect due to conflicting data. That would ruin the buzz created by the entertainment of emotional language.

 

A good analogy between educational and emotional language is connected to sex. This analogy is not without basis, since the best expressions of language, of birds and many animals (songs) come from mating rituals. The person on top, doing most of the work, is analogous to active learning using the language of education. The person on the bottom, lies there passively and lets another do them. They get to enjoy the feelings with minimal effort on their part.

 

Entertainment is based on the bottom person. One goes to the movie and just sits there and lets the movie do the work. You just sit back and enjoy. Education is the top person. Just like in busy life, one doesn't have enough time for the top person to go through the Karma Sutra. One often wants a quickie, that cuts to the chase while also allowing the buzz. That is sort of the state of modern culture, more slant toward entertainment. One gets to enjoy the buzz without having to break a sweat.

 

In traditional male and female stereo-types the male was considered the logical type and the female the emotional type. The old missionary position sort of reinforced this stereo type. Women, then and now, still like romance to help passively induce feelings. Logical and practical efforts are considered less than romance. It is possible, that the shift toward emotional language, in preference to knowledge language, could be the result of the feminization of culture. Men are taught to be less cold and rational and more sensitive and emotional. Or get off the top and lay on the bottom so culture can do you.

 

I love women. I just think men need to get back on top and not be afraid to bust a sweat with the language of knowledge. But at the same time, enjoy the passive entertainment language of females. But realize that there is a difference between top man and bottom man. The females are also not stuck on the bottom. Get on top and bust a sweat too.

[InfiniteNow]

A good analogy between educational and emotional language is connected to sex. This analogy is not without basis, since the best expressions of language, of birds and many animals (songs) come from mating rituals. The person on top, doing most of the work, is analogous to active learning using the language of education. The person on the bottom, lies there passively and lets another do them. They get to enjoy the feelings with minimal effort on their part.

Since you've used this point as the crux of your position, I feel the need to clarify it. List all of the animals known who engage in coitus in a missionary position. :cocktail:

 

Humans are the only ones I can think of, so you may do better to use the terms of dominant and submissive, or active and passive, or ....

 

 

Women, then and now, still like romance to help passively induce feelings. Logical and practical efforts are considered less than romance.

The funny part, to me, is that you actually believe such nonsense. :rolleyes:

 

It is possible, that the shift toward emotional language, in preference to knowledge language, could be the result of the feminization of culture.

I guess it could, but much more likely is the problems with education, or more accurately, the lack of quality education and mentorship of our young. Emotions are older, and easier. Education is getting weaker, so the emotions are more salient than intelligence and knowledge.

 

 

I love women. I just think men need to get back on top and not be afraid to bust a sweat with the language of knowledge. But at the same time, enjoy the passive entertainment language of females. But realize that there is a difference between top man and bottom man.

Reading your post makes one realize that it's not buzz words distorting reality, but people. The "passive entertainment language of females"?

 

 

Tell me about your mother. :Freud:

[PsyCho]

My current list of inappropriatly used words and phrases are:

 

Terrorist (see is terrorism changing us multi-rant)

Enemy Combatant

Axis of Evil

"general terror alert" (Homeland Security National Terror Alert » Homeland Security)

 

Live in fear people...

[Michaelangelica]

Emotion seems to be the motivator of thought, language and action.

 

Look up "Weasel Words" on the web and in this forum.

 

Politicians seem expert at distorting reality. I call it "spin".

[HydrogenBond]

In the last post I was trying to show that there are two layers of lingusitics, both which use the same words, with each type appealing to a different area of the mind. One is thought language, that is mostly thinking with little in the way of emotional ambience. The other is emotional language that is more emotionally stirring and can occur with or without, much in the way of thinking. There is overlap of the two and various degrees of both in the middle.

 

Intellectual language conveys information without stacking the deck with emotional bias, in one direction or the other. If one discussed religion or politics, such conversations may start out with cool logic, will eventually shift into emotional language, with strong feeling helping to censor what they can and can not think about. It will also help fuel one's personal opinion, with the louder person the winner.

 

Both are very important. Thought language provides a way to gather unbiased or rational information. Emotional language is important for participating in the traditions of culture. Emotional language, is simpler in final affect, but is actually more complicated in practice. It also involves varying the tone of the voice and using body language. Hitler was an expert at emotional language using his loud angry voice and his finger pointing angy body language to appeal to the emotions. Picture if he had been mono-tone, his arms by his side, engaging in objective/unbiased discussions. History would be different. Intellectual language can transfer information, but it isn't affective for stirring emotions.

 

Almost all advertising makes use of emotional language, adding even more complex layers of emotional association. Add a fancy car, a pretty girl in a swimsuit and a clever jingle, the pitch appeals to the heart. No advertiser will stand in from a blank wall and calmly tell you their product is good, but not much better than product B. That would be objective and appeal to the mind, but it would not motive you in an emotional way. With emotional appeal, one is not suppose to be rational but excited, allowing one to go outside the realm of common sense, into the traditions of a culture.

 

If all we had was intellectual language, life would be boring. Most of the fun comes from emotional language such as music and drama. Even sitting at a sports bar, yelling at the TV, is emotional language. If one gets too intellectual the fun will disappear. It not uncommon for a bright person not to know how to have fun. They may specialize in intellectual language and can undermine the input affects of emotional language. Add a little alcohol and chances for fun improve. On the other hand, there are those who won't or can't see anything objectively. People, such as these, specialize in emotional language and will reduce intellectual discussion to some type of emotional stance or stock answer.

 

Politics is sort of a hybrid between emotional and intellectual language, although it reduces to pure emotional language as the elections get closer. No politian will say my party has good points but comes up short in others areas. That would be using intellectual language to create a level of objectivity in the audience. But that would be political suicide. Instead, he needs to appeal to emotions and tell people my party is a one man band with all the answers. It sounds stronger and appeals to feelings, even though it is not true. That is the beauty of emotional language; it is not constrained to cause and affect, the feeling is the goal.

 

One way to use emotional language and pretend an intellectual discussion is by making use of rhetoric. For example, you put on your best leadership face and fluctuate the voice with strength timber and tell people "we need more jobs". The crowd feels the strength, heard the buzz and irrationally concludes, i.e., thinking with emotion, this guy is strong and knows how to create a bunch of new jobs. The other team tries to spoil the buzz, by dishing out mud or cherry picked facts. If they can shut off the buzz, the hope is the emotional thinker will move toward their side to ge this does of buzz. May the best buzz win.

 

When they get to Washington, they don't do what they promise. The goal was emotional buzz and not intellectual reality, so one should not be so surprised. Although people are disappointed, the next time, they still go for the buzz once again, as though hitting yourself in the foot with a hammer, won't hurt this time. Politians are sort of the guy that plays guitar at the train station. If he stirs your feelings, you toss a coin in his hat. With politians we toss them a vote for entertaining us.

[alexander]

ok, so here are some more over-used buzz phrase examples

 

Focused and Driven as a suffix ex: client-focused or people-driven

Outside the box

Step up especialy in something like this ex: you have to step up the game

Get on ex: get on the bus, get on the plane, get on the wagon, get on the train or subway... i dunno about you, but i try to get in the train, not much of a fan of vehicle roofs

Goal-oriented as in ex: goal-oriented solution (how much sense does this make if you think about it? solutions ARE goal-oriented...)

Near miss total bs, it is used wrong in 99 of 100 situations, if 2 cars or planes miss hitting each other it's a NEAR HIT!

Investing in not as in bonds or stock, as in ex: investing in your child's edutation

Mission-critical

Mutli-tasking

War on ... drugs, terror, illiteracy, poverty ... whatever

Make a scene

Situation as in ex: weather situation, emergency situation, traffic situation... etc Everything is a situation, why call a situation a situation?

Event what is better then a weather situation? a weather event... can you get tickets to those?

Process adding after a verb to add importance ex: boarding process

Activity ex: shower activity

Pre prefix gets used too much ex: preheated oven, or prerecorded

Complete Stop A stop is a stop, its when something is not moving, how can there be a partial stop? this goes along with event, situation, activity and process a totaly useless word to add to make something sound more complicated then it is!

 

Finally, there was an article that was ran by the cbs news on buzz phrases in today's politics, check it out here: Buzz Phrases That Deaden The Mind - CBS News

[HydrogenBond]

Both emotional and intellectual language are important. Emotional language is more common because it is far easier to induce. The reason being, there are only a small handful of emotional potentials needing to be induced, whereas the intellect is far more diverse.

 

For example, if you were at a theatre, you can get up on stage and yell "fire". This will give the entire group one common heart or feeling, i.e., fear and panic, in a few secons. The group becomes emotionally unified with only one word plus voice timber and body language. If one tried to create a consensus of thought, as to how to evacuate, in the case of fire. There would be as many opinions as there would be people. That is why emotional language is so important. It is short and sweet and can organize groups with one heart with very little effort.

 

Although emotional language is important, because the goal is feeling instead of thought, the path to inducing a feeling is not limited by logic, common sense or even reality. Liars, confidence men, story tellers, etc., know how the emotional language works and can take advantage. One can tell a fairy tale to childen (fantasy) and get an emotional response.

 

Intellectual language can also be used for deception, but one can check sources and references to clear their heads. In the cases of emotional language, feelings and opinions are subjective and therefore relative, so there is no clear cut right or wrong to gauge feelings.

 

This may sound sexist but here goes. Many women complain about men being liars. This is especially true of the players. The reason some guys do this is that women like to feel. While males are good at pushing the female feeling buttons. Objective language can be cool or boring. If a guy said I am a middle manager and may have peaked professionally due to company size and manager ages, that may recieve a cool response from a woman because it is intellectual language with a rational assessment. If he instead exagerates, by mixing this truth with some embellishment and a little fiction and says, I am a middle manager. I am really tight with the owner who promised me a VP position in two years, he will get a warmer reaction. (those sweet little lies).

 

The women may suspect he is full of it, but if he can continue with the emotional language and keep her heart stoked, she will continue to buy into it because of the fun feelings and fantasy it can induce. Guys only become liars when they stop the game or when the guy is no longer willing or able to keep the emotional game goings. Up to that he is charming or a go getter. I have a friend, who has been happily married for 20 years. He is full of bull but very entertaining due to his skill with emotional language. I still fall for it at times because I want to believe since it is fun and hopeful to do so. To this day, he keeps the future game going and his wife still plays along because of the excitement.

 

Where I was heading with this is that since the women got the right to vote and with the invention of mass marketing, polititians have turned the stock male emotional charm game to get to the females. With men having become more feminine, they are also targetted because they are now more likely to fall for the hollow promises of the dating game. Very few polititians will get into substance. That would involve intellectual language that can cool the heart. That can be countered with emotional language in one sentence that stokes the heart.

[Erasmus00]

Where I was heading with this is that since the women got the right to vote and with the invention of mass marketing, polititians have turned the stock male emotional charm game to get to the females.

 

Give me some evidence that women respond to "buzz words," "sound bites" and advertising better than men.

 

With men having become more feminine, they are also targetted because they are now more likely to fall for the hollow promises of the dating game.

 

What evidence do you have for the "feminization" of men? Your whole thesis (and the thesis of several of your posts) rests on this. Give me some hard evidence that this is happening, that this is true. How are men today less like men of old?

 

Very few polititians will get into substance. That would involve intellectual language that can cool the heart. That can be countered with emotional language in one sentence that stokes the heart.

 

BUT this has nothing to do with men/women, and everything to do with the nature of media. Substance takes time, consideration and is nuanced. Its far easier to pack a misleading sound bite into a few words. Its advertising at its most honed.

-Will

[Boerseun]

Oooooh, don't you just hate buzzwords and corporate glibspeak? It's all bs as far as I'm concerned.

 

And my favourite of all is 'resources', as used by corporations when referring to personnel. As in "we have three resources on site".

 

Reason for this, is of course, to dehumanize the person under discussion. The planners and accountants can merrilly carry on with their evil schemes, getting rid of some 'resources' when profits go down. Hey - it's not a guy with a wife and kids and a mortgage, it's a resource, fellas. Fire his ***.

 

I have quit the corporate world, largely due to corporate glibspeak and bullshit. And I have started up my own business and laid down a vow of never referring to any of my personnel as 'resources'. They are 'people'.

 

We'll see if I'm still around in ten years. If I'm not, it'll be sad. If I am, I would have proven a lot of corporate sh*theads wrong.

 

My other fave is a political weasel word, 'Regime'. Have you noticed that people only refer to governments as 'regimes' when that government doesn't represent what they stand for? As in America refers to the Iraqi 'regime' (when Saddam was still in charge) and the Iraqis refer to the American 'regime'. No US voter who voted for whoever won the election, will refer to the US gov as a 'regime', although the description would be perfectly valid. So, when you talk about a 'regime', you're saying that that specific government is bad and evil simply because they don't represent your values.