Page 108 - Essentials of Human Communication

Principles for Using Verbal Messages Effectively 87

_____ ➏ A tall, broad figure appeared after the professor turned off the lights in the office.
_____ ➐ The man who opened the drawer was the professor.
_____ ➑ The professor ran down the corridor.
_____ ➒ The drawer was never actually opened.

_____ ➓ Three persons are referred to in this report.
HOw DiD yOu DO? After you respond to all the statements, form small groups of five or six and discuss your
answers. Look at each statement from each member’s point of view. For each statement, ask yourself, “How can
you be absolutely certain that the statement is true or false?” You should find that only one statement can be
clearly identified as true and only one as false; eight should be marked “?”.
wHat will yOu DO? Think about this exercise and try to formulate specific guidelines that will help you
distinguish facts from inferences.

Distinguishing between these two types of statements does not imply that one type is
better than the other. Both types of statements are useful and important. The problem arises
when you treat an inferential statement as if it were fact. Phrase your inferential statements as
tentative. Recognize that such statements may be wrong. Leave open the possibility of other
alternatives.

DisCriMinate aMOng: avOiD inDisCriMinatiOn
Everything is unique. Language, however, provides common nouns, such as teacher, student,
friend, enemy, war, politician, liberal, and the like, that may lead you to focus on similarities
within the group rather than individuals’ differences.
Indiscrimination, a form of stereotyping, can be seen in such statements as these:
● He’s just like the rest of them: lazy, stupid, a real slob.
● I really don’t want another ethnic on the board of directors. One is enough for me.
● Read a romance novel? I read one when I was 16. That was enough to convince me.
A useful antidote to indiscrimination is the extensional device called the index, a spoken
or mental subscript that identifies each individual in a group as an individual even though all
members of the group may be covered by the same label. For example, when you think and These guidelines are derived from
talk of an individual politician as only a “politician,” you may fail to see the uniqueness in this the work of general semanticists.
politician and the differences between this particular politician and other politicians. How- For a look at this area of study
ever, when you think with the index—when you think not of politician but of politician or concerned with the relationships
1
among language, thought, and
politician or politician —you’re less likely to fall into the trap of indiscrimination and more behavior, see “General Semantics”
3
2
likely to focus on the differences among politicians. The same is true with members of cul- at tcbdevito.blogspot.com.
tural, national, or religious groups; when you think and even talk of Iraqi and Iraqi , you’ll Which of these principles/
2
1
be reminded that not all Iraqis are the same. The more you discriminate among individuals guidelines do you see violated
covered by the same label, the less likely you are to discriminate against any group. most often?
talk abOut tHe MiDDle: avOiD POlarizatiOn
Polarization, often referred to as the fallacy of “either/or,” is the tendency to look at the
world and to describe it in terms of extremes—good or bad, positive or negative, healthy or
sick, brilliant or stupid, rich or poor, and so on. Polarized statements come in many forms.
Here are some examples:

● After listening to the evidence, I’m still not clear who the good guys are and who the bad
guys are.
● Well, are you for us or against us?
● College had better get me a good job. Otherwise, this has been a big waste of time.