"Post-digestive- nuggets"  Erimitus
More Pics
The mind of God, Antarctica
Joined: Jun 2009 |
| |
|
If we are to attempt to communicate ideas we would have to pick a definition for a term and then use the term and its definition consistently.
There are different approaches to definition
One approach is to go from the top down; general to specific. (i.e., state a concept and then label it).
One approach is to go from the bottom up; specific to general. (i.e., State a label/term and then define it)
The approach used depends on the circumstances.
| |
Erimitus
| I find (quite frequently), when I make an assertion, there is a considerable disparity between my intended meaning and how I have been understood.
If I am not understood I might as well be saying blah, blah, blah. Yes I know I am always saying Blah, blah anyway. |
mrmhead
| Operational Definitions are very important.
You explicitly define what a particular term means, and if necessary, what it doesn't mean.
It was stressed in my Process Improvement and Project Management training and very much agree. It helps prevent scope creep. It is also a "defense" if you will, for irrelevant or mis-directing questions from the peanut gallery.
However, when conversing in person or on a forum, it is difficult to stop and operationally define every word that could be taken out of context or skewed.
Operational Definition: "Explicitly" - use vulgar language and inappropriate terms to get your point across in a memorable fashion.
(not really, but it would be funny) |
Erimitus
| MM: Operational Definitions are very important.
You explicitly define what a particular term means, and if necessary, what it doesn't mean.
E: Of course operational definitions (ad hoc). I really do not know why I cannot think of these things myself. much of the time (it seems to me) that everyone knows but me. Duh! And that is not self deprecation; it is a statement of that which is the case.
___________________
MM: It was stressed in my Process Improvement and Project Management training and very much agree. It helps prevent scope creep. It is also a "defense" if you will, for irrelevant or mis-directing questions from the peanut gallery.
E: So you are a manager. I did not know that. I have been put in managerial positions. As a manager I am a perfect example of the Peter principle. I am far to passive to be a cracker.
E: Menial servitude is my forte.
E: I am not familiar with the concept of scope creep.
__________________
MM: However, when conversing in person or on a forum, it is difficult to stop and operationally define every word that could be taken out of context or skewed.
E: Indeed
______________
MM: Operational Definition: "Explicitly" - use vulgar language and inappropriate terms to get your point across in a memorable fashion.
(not really, but it would be funny)
E: I never use any Phukin improprieties to make a point; Ever!! |
mrmhead
| @Erimitus Said 
E: So you are a manager. I did not know that. I have been put in managerial positions. As a manager I am a perfect example of the Peter principle. I am far to passive to be a cracker.
I used to be a pseudo-supervisor: play the role without the title, or pay-grade. But that was a separate role from what I was referring to.
I was also not a "Project Manager" but managed projects and process improvement activities.
Those experiences help me excel at being the peon I am today.
It's interesting that a number of my co-workers were managers or supervisors at previous jobs, but have no desire to go back to that role. |
chaski
Stalker
| “If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (Chapter 2, Aristotle and Greek Science, Part 3, The Foundation of Logic).
Some will argue that it can be hard to "define" one's terms...words.
Personally I think that is a BS argument.
If "we" are going to have a conversation, we need to come to some level of agreement as to the meanings of the words we are using within the context of the conversation.
Example 1:
E wants to use the word "blue" to refer to feelings of depression or sadness.
C thinks using "blue" in that context is stupid.
Both E & C want to participate in a discussion on the topic of depression or sadness.
What's to be done?
E & C can waste their time fighting over the usage of the word "blue".
OR
E & C can agree to disagree on the usage of the word "blue" under normal circumstances, but decide to go ahead and use the word (or another word) so that they can both continue to discuss the important topic of depression and sadness.
Example 2: On TFS, during a discussion regarding evolution, it occurred to me that one of the participants might not understand the meaning of the word evolution. I asked TFS member to give me his/her definition of evolution so that we might have an intelligent and informed discussion to the topic. I even told the TFS member that I would accept, for the purposes of the discussion, whatever definition he/she wanted to use. The TFS member essentially refused to give me any definition of the word evolution. Thus our discussion could not continue. |
|
Defintion
June 10, 2017 @ 12:50:58 pm
