Word meanings in arguments

2021-02-03

People argue a lot, about a lot of things. Here I don't just mean "argue" as in "yell at each other", but also ordinary, mild discussions around differences of opinion, or what the best course of action is for something.

In some of these arguments, the parties involved use the same words to mean different things. Many (English) words have multiple meanings, and multiple shades of meanings within each meaning. When people don't clarify what they mean by the words they say, then everyone else can't really understand their point of view.

For example, there's the word "defund" in the statement "defund the police". That's a snappy, bold phrase, but "defund" has different definitions.

Some who are in favor of the idea define "defund" as "reduce excessive funding", or maybe just "reduce funding".

Some who are opposed to the idea define "defund" as "eliminate funding", as in, completely.

> Kevin Robinson, a retired police chief and lecturer of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University, suggests that the slogan "defund the police" is misguided. He states that a more appropriate terminology would be "re-allocation" of specific portions of police department budgets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

There's so much subtlety and complexity to the issue, like where the funds go instead and how that might help, or harm, public safety overall. A single word like "defund" is doing way too much heavy lifting. This is a case where a word choice is hampering arguments.

This problem applies to technical discussions too. We're so steeped in jargon. It's convenient because it abbreviates concepts, but because the concepts are complex, it's easy for us to end up talking past each other due to lack of precision.

> The problem with digital-tech metaphors is that what's left out is usually what’s most important. They obscure more than they reveal and generate power by distorting conversations, expectations and understanding of the relationships between technology and humanity.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-misleading-power-of-internet-metaphors/

I'm currently trying to figure out with coworkers how we might employ a "redirect" to fix a bad choice for a hostname. The conversation started with talk about updates to DNS, where a "redirect" might really mean addition of a CNAME entry. Or would it be some other mechanism? No one specified. Then, talk turned to HTTP redirects instead ... but which one? 301? 307? 308?

To resolve this, I'm trying to get people to spell out what they mean, and not just hand-wave at "redirect". I want to avoid disagreement over whether a redirect makes sense, where the two sides don't actually mean the same thing when they say "redirect".

The core problem with not defining what you mean by a word is that everyone else is left to assume the details, and they might not agree with you. In a healthy organization with lots of different viewpoints, they shouldn't! So, get specific and detailed, and clarify yourself.

> "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass