Unconscious bias: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "{{a|philosophy|File:Humpty.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A “child of a child,” yesterday.}}{{quote|Un petit d’un petit <br> S’étonne aux Halles; <br> Un petit d’un petit..."
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|philosophy|[[File:Humpty.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A “child of a child,” yesterday.}}{{quote|Un petit d’un petit <br>
{{a|philosophy|[[File:Humpty.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A “child of a child,” yesterday.]]}}{{quote|
Un petit d’un petit <br>
S’étonne aux Halles; <br>
S’étonne aux Halles; <br>
Un petit d’un petit <br>
Un petit d’un petit <br>
Line 9: Line 10:
:—Luis d’Antin van Rooten, ''Mots D’Heures: Gousses, Rames'', (1967)}}
:—Luis d’Antin van Rooten, ''Mots D’Heures: Gousses, Rames'', (1967)}}


To construe a meaning; to select a metaphor; to form a sentence in any language is to systematically deploy a certain narrative account over all others. To assign a certain meaning to a certain string of symbols is to actively discriminate in favour of that meaning over any others one could imaginatively construct.
To utter a sentence is to prefer one model of the world; one “[[narrative]]” over the infinity of alternatives one could construct. To ''construe'' one is to do likewise: the success of the ''communication'' such an utterance and construal represents depends on how far the speaker’s and listener’s respective narratives coincide — how far they share the cultural conventions on which the language is founded. To understand a language is to understand the cultural conventions which it represents.  


The beauty of the cultural conventions around language is that they allow individuals who share those conventions to communicate but they are loose enough to allow miscommunication, and multiple meanings through the instrument of [[metaphor]].
If speaker and listener do not share cultural conventions, the result is usually incoherence: a monolingual English speaker cannot understand a French sentence, and that is that. Not necessarily, though: ask a French speaker to read van Rooten’s poem to an English speaker and watch what happens.

Revision as of 20:46, 14 February 2021

Philosophy
A “child of a child,” yesterday.
The JC looks deep into the well. Or abyss.
Click ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Un petit d’un petit
S’étonne aux Halles;
Un petit d’un petit
Ah! degrés te fallent. Indolent qui ne sort cesse
Indolent qui ne se mène
Qu'importe un petit
Tout gai de Reguennes.

—Luis d’Antin van Rooten, Mots D’Heures: Gousses, Rames, (1967)

To utter a sentence is to prefer one model of the world; one “narrative” over the infinity of alternatives one could construct. To construe one is to do likewise: the success of the communication such an utterance and construal represents depends on how far the speaker’s and listener’s respective narratives coincide — how far they share the cultural conventions on which the language is founded. To understand a language is to understand the cultural conventions which it represents.

If speaker and listener do not share cultural conventions, the result is usually incoherence: a monolingual English speaker cannot understand a French sentence, and that is that. Not necessarily, though: ask a French speaker to read van Rooten’s poem to an English speaker and watch what happens.