1y, Posted for: Whole Community

Thoughts on "Concepts" podcast "going deeper"

Posted by: Mark Jones

{"ops":[{"insert":"Podcast on concepts. While watching the video, please complete these activities:\n\nWrite out the organizing idea, or the primary organizing ideas, being conveyed in the video. \n\n−      A concept is “an idea of the mind”.\n\n−      Your concepts can be accurate and inaccurate/skewed or at least the meaning you attribute to them can be incomplete.\n\n−      You can access, reflect, critique your (and other’s) concepts. Sometimes this requires checking current understandings as with looking up a concept in a dictionary where other times it may be a concept not found in a dictionary where you need to check with others, including those with other perspectives, regarding their understanding of the concept. This reminds me of the book by Pip Williams “Dictionary of Lost Words” where the main character (Esme) grows up around the men who are drafting the first Oxford dictionary and realizes over time that decisions made regarding what words make it into the dictionary are biased by male perspectives in writing and history and that there are many commonly used “women’s words” that never make it in. I wonder if every word we use is itself a concept? The meaning of words depends on the context they are used and the perspectives of those using them.\n\n−      Simple versus complex concepts (ink pen versus democracy)\n\n−      Concepts are ubiquitous in that they are the ideas we use that influence our perceptions, interpretations/inferences, assumptions, conclusions; they underpin our lives and our thinking.\n\n−      Animals also have concepts, but I wonder if their concepts are less complicated by the multitude of influences to the shaping of human concepts, for example a dog’s love/affection/pleasure seems to be more simple, more unconditional?\n\n−      Concepts, like assumptions, can be taken for granted where they are unconsciously learned and used without critique (hence the need for critical reflection). It is difficult to recognize your own concept errors when they are based on non-critical habits of thinking. \n\n−      You can apply concept reflection to your own life by asking “What are the concepts driving my behaviour?”\n\n−      Concepts only exist when they are identified (e.g. inferiority complex) however, I wonder if they are only categorized through labeling for some purpose when in fact they existed before this but probably called by some informal name (well evidenced in Dictionary of Lost Words).\n\n−      Me: Concepts also facilitate communication as with the alien who comes to earth and asks what a “chair” is. To answer this, we need to say a chair is something we sit on that usually has four legs, a seat and a back. However, there are other variations of these things we call chairs as some are designed to kneel on, etc. It is not efficient to say would you get me a thing to sit on with four legs, a seat and back etc., instead communication is facilitated by the concept “chair”.\n\nWrite out three insights you gained from viewing the video. In other words, how can you use the content in your own thinking and life?\n\n−      I have had a long-standing interest in concepts and clarifying how I use them when I write and speak. I have NOT applied this to critical reflection of my behaviours.\n\nWrite out three questions you have as a result of viewing the video. These questions can be focused on clarifying the theory or applying it.\n\n1.    Is every word we use itself a concept?\n\n2.    Are animal concepts simpler being uncomplicated by the endless influences humans have on their concepts?\n\n3.    Should we be more critical of the formation / definitions adopted of concepts, including those that appear in dictionaries? While they may be accepted by some pre-defined criteria, who determined those criteria? Definitions still represent a particular perspective and some meanings may not be captured.\n \n"}]}


Comments

Posted by: Linda Tym

{"ops":[{"insert":"Your Question #3 is so important, Mark! This is exactly why dictionaries keep changing, because language is continually evolving. Yes, there are particular perspectives that may be missing, which is a problem. I wonder how the \"relevant\" points of view are identified in educated usage? I'm thinking, for example, of the differences between the Urban Dictionary versus the Oxford English Dictionary. \n"}]}



Posted by: Gerald Nosich

{"ops":[{"insert":"Hi Mark,\nVery interesting comments.\nLet me briefly address (not "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"answer"},{"insert":") your 3 questions.\nI mentioned this to Linda Tym in an earlier comment: It's better say that a \"term\" or an \"expression\" (rather than a \"word\") names a concept. One difference this brings out is that a term can be composed of multiple individual words (e.g., \"the president of the United States\"). Another difference addresses your question 1: a term works like a noun; it names something. A lot of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"words"},{"insert":" are not terms: and, but, however, in, the.... \"Simultaneous\" is not a term (it's an adjective), but \"simultaneity\" is."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"There's a lot of research on how animals think, but as far as I know, no one has been able to devise a test or a measure for how simple or complex animals' concepts are. (An aside that just occurs to me: I don't have any way of telling how simple or complex "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"my own"},{"insert":" concepts are. I have an "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"impression"},{"insert":" about this, but impressions are not very reliable. If I probe even a very simple concept using the 8 elements, I can find complexity in even seemingly ultra-simple concepts. I just did it with the term \"paper clip\" and I quickly found dozens of possible purposes, assumptions, implications, and so forth."},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"An aside comment about dictionaries. According to linguists (and what they say seems clearly true to me), dictionaries are "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"empirical"},{"insert":" enterprises. (That's been well-known since the 1930s, but it wasn't until 1963 that the first purely empirical dictionary, Webster's Unabridged, owned that it was a purely empirical enterprise. Most notoriously, they defined \"ain't\" just as they would any other word, without any implicit finger-shaking that said you should say it.) To say they're purely empirical is to say that what they do is to report what people in a language mean when they use the words in that language. They aren't normative. (Or, rather, they ain't normative.)"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\t\t\t\t\tA problem with dictionary makers is part of the bias you mention, Mark. Before the Internet, dictionaries could be compiled only from "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"written"},{"insert":" sources. That meant they were compiled on the basis of fairly well-educated language users. But spoken language is far more vast than what is written down. So with the OED, since the majority of published writers was male, it meant that a male bias was virtually inevitable.\n"}]}



Top ▲