Linguistic Semantics as a method of Evaluation

Linguistic Semantics as a method of Evaluation:

Same Words, Same Contexts: Different People, Different Reactions, Different Meanings

 

"You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down; you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?"**

The test: Infinite variations of context, potentially infinite emotional reactions. But as we find out, emotional reactions are not infinite, they are defined by a priori knowledge (meaning:  to be a combination of knowledge, experience and impromptu intellect [a symbiotic relationship of aptitude and input]).  Come up against an unfamiliar context, physical/tangible, or simply described, we may find that we are not equipped to regulate ourselves in a manner that is generally consistent with the way in which we manage ourselves in more familiar contexts.  The shift in context can be blatant, or subtle, our shift in emotional reactions can be blatant, subtle, self-perceived, or not......

In my example (well not really mine...) Linguistic Semantics is used to invoke human (?) reaction through language, and very much to consider the meaning of the observed reaction.

While somewhat extreme, like in my example, sometimes finding the edges of a problem-space is the first step in filling in the blanks.  It's the way I approach a puzzle: corners first, and then complete the sides.  Now the boundaries have been established, and I can begin to consider the missing pieces, which by design, contain fewer obvious clues about where in general they belong. 

"Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother"** ....a simple question for some, a trigger event for others.  Same LS, different people (?), very different reactions....

A 10-year old boy has a note sent home from school with him from the teacher.  "Johnny may need glasses.  I observe him squinting to see the chalkboard.  You may want to take him to the eye doctor".  Mom does.  Johnny is nearsighted. Johnny needs glasses and is allowed to pick what whatever style he wants.  He brings them home.  He routinely brings them to school and at home at night, wearing them about 75% of the time.  Then he stops wearing them, and cannot be encourage to wear them again.  25% of his "cool" friends wear glasses, 50% wear braces on their teeth.

So, maybe Johnny is asked the following questions:

Do you wear glasses?  Do you need to where glasses?  Who told you that you need to wear glasses?  Do you like your glasses?  Do you believe that your glasses help you see better?  Do you believe that you receive benefits from wearing your glasses?  Do you believe that wearing glasses makes you as good as other people who do not wear glasses?  Are you ok being inferior to other people when you do not wear your glasses?  How does wearing your glasses make you feel?  Only losers wear glasses.  Superman wears glasses: is he a loser?  Do you feel like Superman when you wear your glasses? 

Words chosen carefully to elicit observable reaction, the meaning of which is considered to be the objective

** Footnote: Quotes from Blade Runner. Part of the Bio/Psycho/Social Standardized Evaluation tests to evaluate whether or not the subject is human or not.  Just in case you have not seen the movie, I will not make the next obvious comment about the evaluation scenario…..