I hope we have no armed bear baiters in class, but one never knows, eh? Nice self-reflections, Thump. People can undermine or derail communication accidentally, simply because they are so focused on their intended meaning, or (as you said, John) their preconceived reality.

Actually, it occurs to me that I was thinking “ten word phrase” more in relation to spoken interaction than written text, although in this kind of interactive forum (blog commenting) a short phrase can take one off in wild directions, don’t you think?

We are actually playing with the notion of short phrases encapsulating multiple meanings with combining various of the critical-cultural term analyses completed by the students. Hopefully everyone will turn these in tomorrow (the first time I gave an extension on a Test!)

What I meant was, within the length of an entire book, there will be many passages and even whole major parts of the work which may be interpreted in varying ways.

The more content one has to work with, the more one can form, for example, opinions about how the writer may think.

Now, you may feel you can do that in a certain 10 word passage (as Steph suggests above) but I think that’s too short a passage to be truly revealing. To me, 10 word passages are more likely to reveal errors in editing (absence of a comma, for example) or poor word choice on the part of the author (ambiguous meaning)

I also think there are times we write things that have several possible interpretations and we do so deliberately. In such a case, if you saw multiple meanings, you simply got the total message

That said, I suppose it’s possible to get other meanings even there but that’s where I’d say the other meanings are likely to come from wrong interpretation, rather than new insight.

For example, consider the famous example where an armed Panda enters a local restaurant/nightclub. He eats shoots and leaves.

Now, you may think that are 3 or 4 dramaticlly different ways one might interpret that passage.

If I were an eyewitness, and I were the writer, I might well contend your interpretation is wrong, and I’d say the proof is out back in the ambulance, where the two lowlife bear baiters that interrupted his meal are being hauled to the hospital.

We are always temped to choose the meaning that fits our preconceived reality, but every now and then, you come up against a damn bear with a gun.

And that’s when mental agility and communication skill can really save you. Which is why you’re in a class like this, I suppose.

I must say when I first read your response I was taken back a bit. I did not know how to interpret it. After rereading the response a few times, I decided you were in disagreement with most of my argument. However, I could not draw a tone from it. It is necessary to add that these difficulties are common in text communication. Still, it didn’t strike me as encouraging, or harsh. The best way word for it would probably be “direct.” This is something I probably should have expected, having read your book, but it took me by surprise.

After reading “Look Me in the Eye,” I considered myself adept in “Aspergian” interaction. I thought if I were to ever interact with you or anyone else with Asperger’s I would “get” them. However, this did not prove to be the case. As a result, for me your response was very revealing and beneficial. I have a much clearer understanding of the communication difficulties you discussed in your memoir. As they say, there is nothing like learning by doing. Perhaps I had this false confidence because your book was so personal and expressed so clearly. To a certain extent, it was also quite relatable

I agree with Steph that an interpretation of a ten word phrase can at times be quite insightful. Unfortunately I cannot recall an example, but I know there has been time when I’ve heard a familiar phrase uttered differently, leaving my paradigm in question.

On that note there is something I have to ask. You wrote “…when you get to 50,000 or 90,000 words, anything is possible.” Was there any reason you chose the numbers 50,000 and 90,000? That struck me as kind of funny, because I think people would have typically said 50 or 60. I don’t mean prod, I only ask for the sake of studying Communication.

Thanks again.

First, you acknowledge an “openness” to communication. You use the example of your book, allowing that phrases or entire chapters can be read/understood by others in alternative ways than those you expected.

Second, you remind us of your logical orientation, a direct line as it were from “here” (what you intended) to “there” (a “wrong” interpretation – something other than what you wanted people to comprehend).

Third (!), you recognize a kind of inherent power in those supposed misunderstandings. (This is where I become excited, in my “sideways” manner, smile.) Of course revelations do not always happen, but the unintentional, the random or surprising interaction can lead us to something new. I would say these instances are when learning occurs.

You have made similar remarks about gaining new insights a few times in your responses to me, so now I am wondering if you are sensing something ‘new’ – something that you may be able to articulate and share with us?

I can imagine that it (whatever “it” is) may not have words, yet. I find myself, sometimes, on an edge of intuition that usually requires a concrete event which “fits” what I’ve been perceiving; then I can actually say something about it.

The one point where I disagree with you is that such interpretations leading to new knowledge can occur only in long passages or long exchanges. I can imagine a 10 word quote (from someone’s speech or their writing) that I read/hear at the ‘right’ time under the ‘right’ circumstances – ’sending’ me somewhere unforeseen or being taken by me to serve a purpose of my own, unrelated to the author or speaker’s plan.

Likewise, in a long passage, the chances of a cyclical repetition (habits of interpretation) could actually work against alternatives that could otherwise open up new possibilities. We get so used to what we (think we) know!

As the writer, I often logically take the position that those people’s interpretation is simply wrong.

However, on other occasions, those other interpretations may lead me to greater insight; to seeing things I did not know were there in something I myself created.

That doesn’t happen in a 10 word passage but when you get to 50,000 or 90,000 words, anything is possible.

Best of and worst of (class/major choices, etc)
Target faculty and admin
Film Certificate/Film Studies program
“explain from my mistakes how to make the most of your film interest here at Umass”
“post shorts that more successful film students have made”
“make it pretty imaginative too, using images from various films, quotes or what have you as hyperlinks.”
“the major is a critique of the media. However, this is not what these students want to study. I feel like this creates animosity and resistance with the students in relation to their classes, limiting the classes greatly.”

What about doing/making your critique/contribution through film? Someone mentioned filming class members…

Another idea (although the two could possibly be merged?) is to take the “ingredients” you’ve suggested so far as “raw material” to critique not the Film Studies program per se, but the group dynamics that students enter into and pass through… using the notions of intra- and inter-group dynamics we discussed yesterday? Hmmmm . . . . !

When I think of the stereotypical “wicked” user, someone with a thick Boston accent comes to mind. “Dude, Jetah is wicked retaaahded, toss me another Budweisah!” I thought maybe this connotation explains “wicked’s” slang status. However, not only people with heavy Boston accents say “wicked.” In my hometown, most people speak with the standard American accent, but still say wicked. Also, to my surprise, while at Roanoke College in Virginia I found some people said wicked. They weren’t from New England either. However, they used it incorrectly (at least by my standards). They would say “that’s wicked!” instead of “thats wicked cool!” These people were few and far between at Roanoke.

In that usage, “wicked” is an adjective. However I think that for most people in New England “wicked” functions as an adverb. I assume that most of my classmates from New England use the word, but I haven’t heard it from their mouths much. Maybe I just don’t notice it because it is so common.

I used to think that catch phrases and pop-words such as “sick” and “ill” were really only formed to express positive things. I thought this was because it is cooler to express that something is positive, and associate yourself with that. However, I’m not so sure that is the case now. I can think of plenty of examples of slang words used to negatively describe things. These words seems to be less popular though.

Hmm. Are “worldviews” substantially distinct from “viewpoints”?

Your application of the concept of “frames” is also right on target.

The explanation you provide of the difference between the traditional definitions found by Anna (in “How the Word wicked Creates Reality“) and her own contemporary experience of its meaning left me with some questions.

For instance, I found the 4th regular variation provided by the Merriam Webster online dictionary, “going beyond reasonable or predictable limits: of exceptional quality or degree” to be perfectly consistent with the contemporary usage of “wonderful.” Why is this usage categorized as “slang” instead of as an equally valid ancient meaning as the dictionary states?

I’m also curious about the use of “wicked” in our class. Does anyone say it? If so, about what? Do they use it as an adjective, a good noun (“wonderful”), or a bad noun (“evil”)? And why might this matter?