People in uandaries The Semantics of Personal Adjustment

People in uandaries The Semantics of Personal Adjustment

People in uandaries The Semantics of Personal Adjustment [PDF / Epub] ☉ People in uandaries The Semantics of Personal Adjustment Author Wendell Johnson – This is a book about the problems we have in trying to live with ourselves and with each other These problems together with ways of dealoing with them are discussed from the point of view of general s This is a uandaries The Epub Þ book about the problems we have in trying to live with ourselves and with each other These problems together with ways of dealoing with them are discussed from the point of view of general semantics This point of view emphasizes those aspects of the People in Epub / scientific method that are useful in daily living.

5 thoughts on “People in uandaries The Semantics of Personal Adjustment

  1. Rebecca Rebecca says:

    The first 50 pages suggested like many books that clarifying insight would answer restless uestions harbored by many of us about the problems we have in trying to live with ourselves and with each other first sentence The ideals of the maladjusted are high in three chief respects In the first place they are high in the sense that they are vague Being vague they are difficult to recognize; being difficult to recognize they appear to be elusive It is the conseuent misfortune of the individual whose ideals are vaguely defined that he has no sure way of determining whether or not he has attained them He maintains therefore the disuieting belief that he has failed and he becomes increasingly convinced that his ideals are difficult to reach Ideals that are difficult to achieve although it may be primarily because one remains uncertain of whether or not one has achieved them have the practical effect of high idealsIFD disease idealism to frustration to demoralization Common among college students HahahaThe Verbal Cocoon derives from bad uestions based in eitheror absolutist Aristotelian Anot A uestions Johnson goes on to define what makes a good uestion not constituting should ought how right wrong cause why and is uestions hard to summarize here good science and ualities of behavior observed in verbal communication that show a disconnect between words and specific nature of problem in reality For example speaking about Content Rigidity in which one is detached from reality in only being able to converse about specific topics I enjoyed Johnson's sentence It is not merely a mark of 'culture' or a badge of leisure It is downright healthy to express and cultivate a wide range of interests Pg 254The most highly developed verbal specialists in the world are to be found in the insane asylums Or about the semantic disconnect of Evaluational Rigidity in which chronic pessimists and perennial Pollyanas project unconsciously and to extraordinary degrees the same overall opinion regardless of the specifics of the circumstance he writes We see as it were through verbal filters Pg 261One must ask What sort of observations or reported observations would serve to answer such and such a uestion?The second half of the book is largely outdated science giving a point of comparison of normal by contrast with extreme cases of maladjustment found in psychoses and pyschoneuroses Overall the practical application of Johnson's semantics gave less than the theory initially bode It also didn't seem to hold itself to the scientific standards he had proposed Well I'd recommend the first 80 or so pages

  2. Joe Nicassio Joe Nicassio says:

    This was a difficult book to read My friend challenged me to read this bookBy the time I was through I had a much refined and precise understanding of language communication and the neurological impact of our communicationsIt takes commitment to read this book and when you come out the other side you will understand communications better than 99% of the world

  3. Mina Soare Mina Soare says:

    Recommended in Norman Lewis's Word Power Made Easy

  4. St Fu St Fu says:

    Back in the 1930s Alfred Korzybski a Polish engineer wrote a book Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics which I found unreadable the few times I tried But back then it was a big deal Nowadays most people have never heard of him and if you google his name you'll find he is mainly known for having said The map is not the territory My introduction to Wendell Johnson was a uote I liked can't remember where I saw it A similarity is a difference that doesn't make a difference It turns out it comes from the book I am reviewing not verbatim but close Before I started to read it I was unaware that Mr Johnson was a follower of Korzybski and that he wrote a book that I was capable of reading which covers the gist of what Korzybski had to say Korzybski read this book and it has his blessing I put follower in uotes because Korzybski's movement known as General Semantics is not exactly a cult but has a following like one For him and Johnson they were doing science but it never uite made it into the main stream not because it was wrong so much as because it was different At any rate a lot of what they have to say is both instructive and should be better known if you could separate it out from some of their cult like utopian beliefs I will try and do some of that here in this reviewBasically General Semantics is an attempt to make language less ambiguous and reflect reality or failing that to make speaker and listener aware of how it neglects to do so It is an attempt to create a technology that would make arguments that are actually not arguments at all but misunderstandings easily detectable and resolvable This is extended to arguments within ourselves ie mental confusion and even to a form of psychotherapy to systematically unconfuse us The underlying idea is that most all? uandaries exist not in reality the territory but in how we talkthink about them the mapAnother way to say this is that sanity will come if we approach the world as scientists and insanity is there because so often we don't If we are confused or disagree about the world there should be some sort of experiment we could perform to find the truth at least in principle some experiments would be impractical or physically impossible in which case we could agree there is no possible answer to disagree about And if there were not such an experiment that the source of confusiondisagreement is merely semantic Or else the statement of the problem is ultimately meaninglessIf this sounds to you like the philosophy known as logical positivism or its practical application you'd be right The timing 1930s matches nicely tooAs a method of psychotherapy General Semantics is similar in spirit to CBT Cognitive Behavioral Therapy In this form a treatment one is taught to recognize and give up ones cognitive distortions false beliefs about the world leading to unnecessary bad feelingsThere are at least two problems with this solution the first being that it presumes all difficulties are cognitive Enough difficulties are cognitive that general semantics techniues and CBT techniues should be widely knownThe problem arises when these techniues are expected to solve those difficulties which are outside their scope especially when the fault of the difficulty is assigned to the persons on whom it fails to work eg You are being irrational Johnson understands this and thus his treatment of stutterers is directed on lowering their anxiety and self blameThe second problem one that has gotten much attention in philosophical circles yet I rarely see addressed outside of them is the belief that values can be derived from facts In actuality people can agree on all the facts but differ on what is morally right or wrong General Semantics could still make it clear that the argument isn't resolvable Similarly you can agree with the facts I present about this book yet disagree with me about its worthOn yet another note one thing I enjoy about reading books like this is to marvel at the certainty with which its understanding is expressed and think about all we're similarly certain about eighty something years later

  5. Rebecca Rebecca says:

    Published 1945

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *