Author Topic: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.  (Read 41180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7741
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #775 on: January 31, 2019, 05:13:26 am »
By what definition of dominated?  The vast majority of workers in the tech industry have been white males, yes. Dominated? That's a loaded term.

Considering the prevalence of subfields where women have been majority workers (from textile factories to welding during wartime), I would say the tech industry has generally been more open to people of all backgrounds than the surrounding culture at the same time (meaning, both women and men accepted, without their family history and upbringing being involved, as was otherwise common at the time.)  That's not domination by any definition I understand.

Dominated as in males have been the vast majority, no sense in debating semantics, you know what I meant.
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 548
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #776 on: January 31, 2019, 08:10:54 am »
Dominated as in males have been the vast majority, no sense in debating semantics, you know what I meant.
No, I don't.  English is not my native language, and that is not the definition of "to dominate" I have ever seen.  By using the term, you color the subject.  That is how you dominate a discussion; by redefining what is discussed, so instead of countering others arguments, you can simply redefine their terms to indicate they are by default wrong and monstrous.

It is as loaded as asking someone whether they have stopped beating their spouse yet.  I think I am more aware of this than you are, exactly because English is a foreign language to me.



Re-reading the above, I realize this still looks like nitpicking.  It is not; this is important.

Let me show an example. Compare these two sentences:

My time awake is dominated by work.
 
I spend most of my wakeful hours doing work.

Do you understand the difference, or do you claim they mean the exact same thing?

That sort of emotional loading of statements affects the discussion, and one should be damn aware of it, because it is a simple but effective ways of deliberately manipulating opinions through emotions instead of rational thought.
 
The following users thanked this post: doobedoobedo

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7741
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #777 on: January 31, 2019, 03:31:45 pm »

Let me show an example. Compare these two sentences:

My time awake is dominated by work.
 
I spend most of my wakeful hours doing work.

Do you understand the difference, or do you claim they mean the exact same thing?


To me both of those statements mean the same thing, if you said either one I would extract that you meant most of the time you are awake is spent doing work. "Dominate" has multiple meanings, it can be used to describe having control over or defeating something, or it can be used to describe a majority situation, for example Microsoft Windows dominates the desktop PC marketplace, or a very large piece of furniture could dominate the room.
 
English is a complex language, there are many nuances and context is very important. A word can have multiple valid meanings depending on how it is used. Then there are colloquial expressions, which are informal and may not be technically correct but are often used and understood.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4173
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #778 on: January 31, 2019, 10:03:17 pm »
By what definition of dominated?  The vast majority of workers in the tech industry have been white males, yes. Dominated? That's a loaded term.

Considering the prevalence of subfields where women have been majority workers (from textile factories to welding during wartime), I would say the tech industry has generally been more open to people of all backgrounds than the surrounding culture at the same time (meaning, both women and men accepted, without their family history and upbringing being involved, as was otherwise common at the time.)  That's not domination by any definition I understand.

Dominated as in males have been the vast majority, no sense in debating semantics, you know what I meant.
You do realise "semantics" means "meaning," don't you? Dominated is a word with a number of meanings, and most of them are emotionally charged. Without you being specific we have no idea what you mean.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7741
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #779 on: February 01, 2019, 03:31:29 am »
I used a very common expression, it's not my fault if someone else can't figure out what it means in this context. Once again I'm reminded how incredibly pedantic a few people on this forum are. Nowhere else have I had to lay something out so explicitly so many times over.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2973
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #780 on: February 01, 2019, 09:47:56 am »
people who are studying in the highest academic institutions should trivially recognize such, and the ideological traps they're stuck in.  (The major one being the fight against free speech, to protect against negative emotions.  That's just bonkers.)

Quote
No, I don't.  English is not my native language, and that is not the definition of "to dominate" I have ever seen.  By using the term, you color the subject.  That is how you dominate a discussion; by redefining what is discussed, so instead of countering others arguments, you can simply redefine their terms to indicate they are by default wrong and monstrous.

It is as loaded as asking someone whether they have stopped beating their spouse yet.  I think I am more aware of this than you are, exactly because English is a foreign language to me.

In the real world, people use language to color the subject. But unlike in a forum, there is no point and counterpoint. Life just goes on. By your previous argument,  if speech is willfully used to "color the subject" or to subtly "redefine the discussion" in a way that is intentionally hurtful and exclusive, so be it. Free speech is too important. You think it is easy to distinguish that james is intentionally using loaded language to shade the discussion in an unfair way. You are bringing it to light... but you kinda just said this kind of combing through language and wording is bonkers, and let's just have free speech.  This is maybe part of what your free speech vs hurt emotions thing is about. Language is constantly evolving in ways to exclude. This starts in first grade. This is a tricky thing. In and of itself, it's part of the rise to power and influence. The question is... does it have to be? Can we not be more open and rational? Is there another way? It seems to me that some people are cognizant of what their words can do, and they "grow out" of it? Some accept that this is a daily battle they like to win no matter the cost to others. It's a nontrivial matter.

When pewdiepie makes fun of the Indian language or makes nazi jokes, to his followers this is just his "quirky sense of humor." No harm no foul.

Does human culture ever reach something beyond this? Or this is where we are stuck, forever? Power is defined by exclusion. If everyone is a king, everyone is a pauper. The question is if there will ever be some evolution or next step where something resembling a meritocracy that is blind to where people happened to be born or their own culture. But there are so many cultures that are themselves inherently self-serving. So I think the answer is more than likely that this is where the buck stops.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 11:05:30 am by KL27x »
 

Offline forrestc

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 446
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #781 on: February 01, 2019, 03:45:41 pm »
English is not my native language, and that is not the definition of "to dominate" I have ever seen.  By using the term, you color the subject.  That is how you dominate a discussion; by redefining what is discussed, so instead of countering others arguments, you can simply redefine their terms to indicate they are by default wrong and monstrous.

There seems to be a lot more emotional charge in the wiktionary definitions than how I use and interpret the word dominate.   The Merriam-Webster definition of dominate is much more balanced, and closer to the variety of how this word is used at least in the US.

I think the problem with dominate is that it is commonly used as the verb version of both 'dominant' and 'domination'.   If you say males 'dominate' the workforce, you could arguably mean either context.   


 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7741
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #782 on: February 01, 2019, 05:18:49 pm »
It *could* mean either thing, but it should be fairly obvious from the context that I meant dominate in the sense that males are the majority of the tech workforce. I didn't deliberately use "loaded" language, I simply used a common and very widely accepted term to describe something being predominant, majority, greater representation, in the same sense that cedar trees dominate the forest behind my house and the sofa dominates my livingroom.

Now I don't blame a non-native speaker for missing nuances of American English but it's a bit silly to fixate on the wording and making assumptions rather than either asking for clarification or browsing some of my other posts in this thread for context.
 

Offline TheNewLab

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #783 on: February 01, 2019, 07:34:42 pm »
I have no problem with gender equality in engineering..or at least more women in the field. Just more in the sciences is cool. I know a woman who is the first Hmong in the field doing AI work for NASA. now that is really cool!

first Hmong, male or female! and she's female! really cool.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4173
  • Country: gb
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #784 on: February 01, 2019, 08:29:37 pm »
It *could* mean either thing, but it should be fairly obvious from the context that I meant dominate in the sense that males are the majority of the tech workforce. I didn't deliberately use "loaded" language, I simply used a common and very widely accepted term to describe something being predominant, majority, greater representation, in the same sense that cedar trees dominate the forest behind my house and the sofa dominates my livingroom.

Now I don't blame a non-native speaker for missing nuances of American English but it's a bit silly to fixate on the wording and making assumptions rather than either asking for clarification or browsing some of my other posts in this thread for context.
Nothing people say is obvious these days. For example, when someone says "racism" most people hear "prejudice against certain races". Many activists now say "no, racism means prejudice + power", so its asymmetric. Then they claim only white men can be racist, because they have an equally odd way of defining power, that makes it something only white men can have. You'll even see rich powerful women say their white servants are oppressing them with all their white privilege. Language is being turned upside down, so clarification of intent is now bizarrely necessary.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 10:41:43 pm by coppice »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28112
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #785 on: February 01, 2019, 08:39:50 pm »
Back elementary and high school I don't remember knowing any girls who had any interest in engineering and it wasn't because boys wouldn't let them into our club. It wasn't until tech became big money business that I ever heard anyone complain about women being under-represented.

It would be a factor.
Some reason you won't ever hear anyone complain about lack of female representation in garbage collecting or plumbing apprenticeships, or insert any other non-glamorous low paying job.
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2993
  • Country: us
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #786 on: February 01, 2019, 10:39:05 pm »
I propose a change of title to this hereto: "Language politics has now infected the Gender politics has now infected engineering discussion". :-DD
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
  • Country: us
  • Black Magic Design
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #787 on: February 02, 2019, 12:59:33 am »
plumbing makes me crazy sometimes. at other times its beautiful.
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1008
  • Country: fo
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #788 on: February 02, 2019, 02:03:58 am »
Back in Sovjet women had very high profile and equal access, actually promoted by the state to go into engineering.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4054
  • Country: nl
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #789 on: February 02, 2019, 03:04:24 am »
Also nuclear family natalist state propaganda.
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 548
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #790 on: February 02, 2019, 04:15:35 am »
You think it is easy to distinguish that james is intentionally using loaded language to shade the discussion in an unfair way.
No, just the opposite.  I do not think james_s is doing so intentionally.

I am saying that not paying attention to it one can easily miscolor the subject unintentionally, and usually caters to someone elses agenda, rather than furthers the discussion.

See?  It is not about intentions per se, but about being precise, and taking care you do not accidentally color the subject through unfortunate word choice.  One of the ways me fail English often is exactly that.

If you have language talent, choosing the terms being used carefully, picking the ones with the desired emotional associations, is an effective way of dominating a discussion.  I am not saying james_s is doing so; I am saying that james_s is going along with what someone else has designed, and thus steering the discussion from a purely rational one into one based on carefully chosen terminology that completely skews it unfairly emotionally.  Before you even state your first argument, you've already been labeled being wrong, and there is no point in the debate at all.

In a discussion related to gender and gender differences, using "to dominate" in the sense of "being in the majority" is an error.  The term "male domination" is explicitly used as a reference to, and to bolster, the concept of modern western societies being patriarchies because the gender ratio in every single field is not 50:50.  It is a direct reference to men having control over the other gender(s), and is a deliberate choice made by verbally talented people.  If you have the language talent, you can make even an absolutely absurd statement that sounds believable, by carefully controlling the emotional content.  I can't do it myself (I can do some absurdist jokes, the equivalent of Buffy Speak, in Finnish, and enjoy doing so), but it does often poke me in the eye, when I am in a sceptical mood.

(See what I did there? I originally wrote "in a suspicious mood", which is closer to the truth, because when I assume the best about any speaker, I'm completely oblivious to such details. I only detect them when I do not completely trust the speaker, and even then only occasionally.  However, "sceptical" conveys a rationalist emotional stance, whereas "suspicious" is irrational, more like a personality problem. By changing that single word, I completely changed how I pictured myself in the emotional sense, without changing the rational content at all. See?)
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 548
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #791 on: February 02, 2019, 04:23:56 am »
I propose a change of title to this hereto: "Language politics has now infected the Gender politics has now infected engineering discussion". :-DD
Sorry about that.  I only wanted to show how sneaky language is used to steer discussions (specifically, those discussions the sneaky ones do not even participate in; to load the discussion emotionally so that neutral or opposing arguments will look emotionally offensive), so to discuss these things rationally, we should be very precise in the terminology.  :-[
 

Offline rsjsouza

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2993
  • Country: us
    • Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #792 on: February 02, 2019, 07:14:40 am »
I propose a change of title to this hereto: "Language politics has now infected the Gender politics has now infected engineering discussion". :-DD
Sorry about that.  I only wanted to show how sneaky language is used to steer discussions (specifically, those discussions the sneaky ones do not even participate in; to load the discussion emotionally so that neutral or opposing arguments will look emotionally offensive), so to discuss these things rationally, we should be very precise in the terminology.  :-[
No worries; I am chill.
Vbe - vídeo blog eletrônico http://videos.vbeletronico.com

Oh, the "whys" of the datasheets... The information is there not to be an axiomatic truth, but instead each speck of data must be slowly inhaled while carefully performing a deep search inside oneself to find the true metaphysical sense...
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2973
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #793 on: February 03, 2019, 07:02:13 am »
Quote
You think it is easy to distinguish that james is intentionally using loaded language to shade the discussion in an unfair way.
No, just the opposite.  I do not think james_s is doing so intentionally.

I am saying that not paying attention to it one can easily miscolor the subject unintentionally, and usually caters to someone elses agenda, rather than furthers the discussion.

See?  It is not about intentions per se, but about being precise, and taking care you do not accidentally color the subject through unfortunate word choice.  One of the ways me fail English often is exactly that.

If you have language talent, choosing the terms being used carefully, picking the ones with the desired emotional associations, is an effective way of dominating a discussion.  I am not saying james_s is doing so; I am saying that james_s is going along with what someone else has designed, and thus steering the discussion from a purely rational one into one based on carefully chosen terminology that completely skews it unfairly emotionally.  Before you even state your first argument, you've already been labeled being wrong, and there is no point in the debate at all.

In a discussion related to gender and gender differences, using "to dominate" in the sense of "being in the majority" is an error.  The term "male domination" is explicitly used as a reference to, and to bolster, the concept of modern western societies being patriarchies because the gender ratio in every single field is not 50:50.  It is a direct reference to men having control over the other gender(s), and is a deliberate choice made by verbally talented people.  If you have the language talent, you can make even an absolutely absurd statement that sounds believable, by carefully controlling the emotional content.  I can't do it myself (I can do some absurdist jokes, the equivalent of Buffy Speak, in Finnish, and enjoy doing so), but it does often poke me in the eye, when I am in a sceptical mood.

(See what I did there? I originally wrote "in a suspicious mood", which is closer to the truth, because when I assume the best about any speaker, I'm completely oblivious to such details. I only detect them when I do not completely trust the speaker, and even then only occasionally.  However, "sceptical" conveys a rationalist emotional stance, whereas "suspicious" is irrational, more like a personality problem. By changing that single word, I completely changed how I pictured myself in the emotional sense, without changing the rational content at all. See?)

After writing all this, go back and read this:
Quote
I'd just think that people who are studying in the highest academic institutions should trivially recognize such, and the ideological traps they're stuck in.  (The major one being the fight against free speech, to protect against negative emotions.  That's just bonkers.)
You wrote this, too. I think the opponents to this will twist it to appear to be a "fight against free speech," which is not accurate. If you want to look at only black and white, you could say anything the promote political correctness is a blow to free speech. But I think there's an actual issue in there, between the black and the white.

European sparrows are considered an invasive species in the US. They take over territory of domestic birds. It's not because they are better adapted at living in those areas. It's not because they are more efficient at eating the worms and seeds in those areas. It's because they are better adapted at being dicks to each other. They have evolved short, strong beaks and an aggressive nature because they are used to living and fighting with other European sparrows. These birds steal the homes of the domestic birds by repeatedly attacking the homeowners until they leave.

Humans have evolved weapons for taking from other humans. The more urban the lifestyle, the better the weaponry and the higher the aggression. If we apply the analogy, we can call a profession a nest. Do we want these nests to be dominated by a single evasive species simply due to that species knack for driving other species away? Maybe the other species had some unique tricks that are now lost.

We can't tell the European sparrows to stop attacking and forcing other birds out of their own nests, then taking those same nests over. They are going to do what they evolved to be. The only option is maintain some kind of balance and to protect domestic species from extinction might be to kill European sparrows. When it comes to humans we have more options. 
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 07:29:45 am by KL27x »
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3340
  • Country: ch
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #794 on: February 03, 2019, 07:04:55 am »
I used a very common expression, it's not my fault if someone else can't figure out what it means in this context. Once again I'm reminded how incredibly pedantic a few people on this forum are. Nowhere else have I had to lay something out so explicitly so many times over.
Hear, hear. This forum is great, but I also have never experienced a forum as pedantic as this one.


Dominated as in males have been the vast majority, no sense in debating semantics, you know what I meant.
No, I don't.  English is not my native language, and that is not the definition of "to dominate" I have ever seen.  By using the term, you color the subject.  That is how you dominate a discussion; by redefining what is discussed, so instead of countering others arguments, you can simply redefine their terms to indicate they are by default wrong and monstrous.

It is as loaded as asking someone whether they have stopped beating their spouse yet.  I think I am more aware of this than you are, exactly because English is a foreign language to me.
While learning a language as a foreign language may cause you to consciously inspect and investigate meaning in a way that native speakers don’t, do not think for a second that this gives you greater insight into the language than a native speaker has!!

As a general rule, as a non-native speaker, I strongly advise you to not lecture to native speakers about their language, in particular about the nuances of meaning and connotation. Because no matter how much you’ve thought about it, when it comes to subtleties of meaning, they’re practically guaranteed to be correct, not you. (No, not 100% of the time. But almost.) You will NEVER get the nuance out of a dictionary. (And as forrestc said, the wiktionary definition seems unnaturally rigid to us native speakers.)

For what it’s worth, I’m a native English speaker (who has worked as a professional technical writer, and whose mother is an English teacher) living in a German-speaking place. English? I got this. German? I know better than to try and correct a native German speaker... ;)

(I am fluent, but I’ll never be at 100% native level.)
 

Offline edavid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2676
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #795 on: February 03, 2019, 07:14:54 am »
Well, I'm a native speaker, and I think "dominate" is always a loaded word.

For that matter, so is "infected".

For that matter, so is "infected", except when referring to sepsis or a wound.

P.S. "Dominant pole" is OK too.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 07:56:49 am by edavid »
 

Offline tooki

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3340
  • Country: ch
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #796 on: February 03, 2019, 07:36:05 am »
Well, I'm a native speaker, and I think "dominate" is always a loaded word.

For that matter, so is "infected".
I disagree. ”Coverage of the tsunami dominated the evening news” isn’t using “dominate” in a loaded way.

Similarly, if you use “infected” to refer to sepsis or a wound, I don’t think that can be considered loaded, either.
 

Offline edavid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2676
  • Country: us
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #797 on: February 03, 2019, 07:39:05 am »
Well, I'm a native speaker, and I think "dominate" is always a loaded word.

For that matter, so is "infected".
I disagree. ”Coverage of the tsunami dominated the evening news” isn’t using “dominate” in a loaded way.
I guess we'll have to disagree on that.  In that sentence I'd say the connotation is that there was too much coverage.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2019, 07:42:46 am by edavid »
 

Offline Circlotron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1378
  • Country: au
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #798 on: February 03, 2019, 07:50:14 am »
Stop being white male priveliged, and especially being racist toward those poor words!
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 548
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.
« Reply #799 on: February 04, 2019, 09:23:02 am »
While learning a language as a foreign language may cause you to consciously inspect and investigate meaning in a way that native speakers don’t, do not think for a second that this gives you greater insight into the language than a native speaker has!!
This is not about English language.  It is about a technique used across all human languages.

As a general rule, as a non-native speaker, I strongly advise you to not lecture to native speakers about their language, in particular about the nuances of meaning and connotation. Because no matter how much you’ve thought about it, when it comes to subtleties of meaning, they’re practically guaranteed to be correct, not you. (No, not 100% of the time. But almost.) You will NEVER get the nuance out of a dictionary. (And as forrestc said, the wiktionary definition seems unnaturally rigid to us native speakers.)
That is not what I'm trying to describe.  I am well aware of that my particular understanding of "dominate" may be wrong; but I see enough correlation between use cases of "dominate" vs. "majority" and the context they are used, to think it is likely one example of this.

I am pointing out a specific technique that some people use innately, across all languages, and some learn as a manipulation technique, that most people are not aware of: deliberately choosing terminology based mainly on their emotive connotations.  Whenever you use a descriptive term in a socially sensitive context, you must be aware of its possible emotive color.

Otherwise, you let whoever chose the terms to control the emotive color of all discussion on the subject, and I find that nefarious; as close to evil as there is.  It is subjucation of others' perceptions, almost like a verbal virus.  I intensely dislike subjucation.

Perhaps the reason I am aware of this technique is that I often use the incorrect-subtext term myself: it is an error I make often.  So, it's not me telling others how to use their native language better, but me telling about an error I make often, and warning others about it.

English? I got this. German? I know better than to try and correct a native German speaker... ;)
I am very willing to admit I am wrong, if I am wrong.  I could be wrong about "dominate", but looking at the contexts it is used in on the interwebs, it does not look like I am wrong.  Am I?

But, how do I discuss the underlying technique, and describe this scientist-engineer types who are extremely often unaware of this method/technique, and are being unwittingly steered by people who disregard logic and rational thought?  I only know how to do it via examples, even though those particular examples are wrong.

I am not good at it myself, at all, in any language; but I am overly analytical, and noticed the effects when quite young in my own native language.  I see it being more effective among non-native speakers than native speakers, too; I suspect because native and non-native languages are processed by different sets of cells in the brain.

My hope was to help others to be more in control of the perception of their output.  If I failed, and only caused discord, I apologize: it was not intentional.

I disagree. ”Coverage of the tsunami dominated the evening news” isn’t using “dominate” in a loaded way.
This is intriguing.  Do you not perceive subtext indicating that other, lesser news were omitted?

I mean, to me the difference between "The majority of the evening news was about the tsunami" and "Coverage of the tsunami dominated the evening news", is that the former has no subtext regarding any unpublished news; whereas the latter seems to imply that there were unpublished news that were omitted as less important.  Do you really disagree?  Do you disagree that this kind of verbal control could be used to intentionally emotionally color the response in the receivers?  Do you think it is so rare or the effect so small that it is not worth bothering about?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf