Are you disappointed in "news" reporting, talk shows, and commentators in general? Of course you are. Why need I even ask? I am too and it’s because I clearly see commentators taking statements, quotes if you will, out of context and using them to create or provoke sentiment or support a position in a completely different context that is contrary to what the person originally said. It is what I call verbal Photoshop. It is the act of touching up words rather than an image. Verbal Photoshop is a uniquely ubiquitous to political reporting.
Popular commentators seem to have a moral view that is averse to retouching images, but favors no moral limit on touching up a few phrases or two to provoke arguments between the visiting expert's talking head. Have they no respect for context?
Context is absolutely important. The English language, with all due respect, is efficient, many would say it is effective; but at times, it defies practical meaning without context. In other words, we need to know the context – how the word is being used in order to truly understand the definition. Certainly you can come up with your own examples. But just to make myself clear, consider the word “cool.” It could mean “I’m cool” or “I’m cold,” referencing the temperature. Or it could also mean “I’m cool,” I’m just a smart, clever guy in another context. It has so many meanings. “I’m cool towards you.” “The weather is cool.” “Great idea – you’re cool.” And so on. The word “cool” lacks definition, albeit understanding, without knowing the context. Cool is a simple example. When we move into the world of politics, which is the world of words often devoid of action, context is even more important.
Friends of mine often ask me the definitions of terms. Sometimes I reluctantly give them a definition without knowing or specifying or asking for the context. When I do this, it is almost always a mistake. They’ll reply, “Well, I thought it meant this, and you said it meant that. How can those be reconciled?” I reply, “Well, the definition I gave you was a generic one, not knowing the context of how it was actually being used." Depending on the person who’s eliciting the definition request, my response may be met with total rejection or I may begin to lose credibility because the other person believes that words have precise definitions that preempts context. I don’t believe that. Definitions, certainly understanding, can only be achieved by knowing context.
I’m going to give you a classic example that in my view shows the absolute importance of context. An English professor and a Computer Science professor were asked the same question: “What is the sum of one plus one?” The English professor quickly replied, “The sum of one plus one is two.” The same question was put to the Computer Science professor who after given the question ample thought replied, “The sum of one plus one equals ten.” Both professors were knowledgeable in their field, and both professors understood the question. I was called in to arbitrate the answers. After visiting with the English professor and visiting with the Computer Science professor, I said to the person who engaged me, “Both professors are correct.”
The person who engaged me, asked, “How can that be, Mr. Sherwood? How can one plus one equal ten and at the same time one plus one equals two? Aren’t those contradictory responses?” I replied, “No, particularly when one understands the context of the reply.” The English professor assumed that the context of the question, what is the sum of one plus one was the typical English counting system. In the English counting system, the counting base is ten, and one plus one equals two.
The Computer Science professor made no assumption like the English professor. He assumed that he was being asked the question in the context of the computer world. The computer world deals in binary where the counting base is two. In the binary system, the only digits that exist are a zero and a one. And when you add one plus one in the binary field, the answer is ten.
Do you now understand? The English professor’s context of the simple addition was the English counting system with a base ten. The Computer Science professor, believing he was asked the question in the context of his own computer background, replied the sum of one plus one equals ten which is absolute, and unambiguously correct in the binary system, the world the computer lives in, the world that the Computer Science professor lives in.
In other words, both answers were correct, but each had a different context. More often than not, when I observe arguments in the world, when I observe misquotes, reckless statements on CNN or news, what I observe is quotes taken out of context. I can assure you that a quote, phrase, or word taken out of context can frequently mean most anything the reporter wishes it to mean. The reporter takes a word out of context and places it in a new context, persuading the listener or convincing the listener that what the person who said the word meant was incorrect or means something else. Context doesn’t always trump definition, but it does provide understanding of definition, and understanding is what’s important in communicating.
Understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment