General Semantics Course

General Semantics - Full Course
Course Availability: 13 January 2014 - 24 February 2014
Welcome from your Instructors

Instructors
Mary Lahman, PhD, Manchester University (Indiana)
Greg Thompson, PhD, Brigham Young University
Steve Stockdale, MA, New Mexico State University (Grants Community College)
Read about the instructors.
Course Description
If you have not enrolled but would like to join this course in progress, just click the Join this Course button in the
upper right sidebar.
This course provides an introduction to General Semanticsthe study of how we transform our life experiences
into language and thought. Students will learn how language habits and behaviors, how they think about and
share experiences, are what make them uniquely human. In other words, students will discover the critical, but
sometimes subtle, distinctions between what happens in their lives and how they talk about what happens. The course
will include readings from a wide array of disciplines, such as communication studies, neuroscience, and cultural
anthropology, in addition to visual and auditory demonstrations, music and social media, and collaborative
interactions with fellow learners. These types of learning experiences allow students to not only learn about more
effective language behaviors, but also practice those new behaviors in order to communicate more effectively and
appropriately in interpersonal and organizational contexts.
Learning Objectives
Participants will learn:
how language and thought shape, and are shaped by, our experiences;
the critical, but sometimes subtle, distinctions between what happens in our lives vs. how we talk about what
happens;
the importance of distinguishing facts from inferences and opinions;
how to spot attempts to use language in manipulative ways;
the limitations and potential pitfalls of some language habits;
how to analyze unexamined assumptions and premises that contribute to many of our interpersonal and
organizational communication difficulties;
and how to use simple, straightforward methodologies to more effectively and appropriately think,
communicate, and behave as 21st century citizens of the world.
Course Organization
This six-week course is organized into weekly Modules that will open and be available to you each Monday morning
at 08.00 Eastern Standard Time in the U.S. ( or UTC 13.00). Once opened, each Module will remain available
throughout the duration of the course.
What do I do now?
New students should go directly to the Getting Started page and begin working your way through the Getting
Started Module. Thereafter, you can pick up where you left off by going directly to the Modules List from the
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
1 of 68
course navigation panel. And if you're joining us after the 13 January course opening, please review all of the course
Announcements.
About this Course - Specifically

Points
The course is worth a total of 1,000 points. Except for the quizzes (which are multiple choice, true/false, and short
answer), you earn points for an assignment simply by completing the assignment. The purpose of the assignments is
to facilitate and reinforce learning. As you earn points, you can track your progress by checking the Grades tab in the
left menu.
To be clear, this course does not provide grades (A, B, etc.) or academic credit. The points simply provide a marker of
progress and, we hope, some modest incentive or motivation to complete the assignments.
Badges
One developing aspect about online courses, especially those like this which are open and do
not offer academic credit, is the awarding of certificates or badges. In this course we are going
to experiment with one type of badge - a Canvabadge. We'll announce more specifics as the
course proceeds, but the general plan is to offer one badge per module, and one badge for
completing all of the course requirements, for a total of 7 badges that can be earned. If you are
an educator interested in online badges, you might consider the Canvas Network course, Badge
101: The Discovery of Badging, beginning 27 January.
Schedule
The course is organized into weekly modules. On 13
January, the Getting Started module and Module 1: What is
General Semantics? will be open and available to students.
Thereafter, each module will open on Mondays at 08.00a
Eastern Standard Time in the U.S. (New York time). Once
opened, every module will remain open until the course is
completed on 24 February.
Weekly assignments are all "due" on Sunday evenings at
11.00 pm (23.00 hrs) New York time. However, for this
course "due" dates are suggested and not fixed. You can
always complete and submit an assignment later than the
"due" date.
Discussion Forums
We will use the Canvas Discussion tool throughout the
course on a variety of different topics. These will be
identified within each week's Module list.
We also have three "pinned" Discussions, meaning they will
be available from now through the duration of the course.
Introduce yourself to the class.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
2 of 68
Ongoing Course Discussion - for questions or comments about the course content.
About Canvas, miscellaneous questions, etc. - for questions or comments about Canvas, administration of the
course, or anything else not directly related to the course content.
Personal Journal
Canvas doesn't provide a Journal feature, but we've created an assignment that can function as your personal journal
for making notes, jotting down questions, etc. You can always edit and resubmit the assignment to save your
comments.
Chat
The Canvas Chat tool is a simple, always on way to connect with people in the course who happen to be online at the
same time. There is only one Chat "room," so within Canvas there isn't a way to conduct a private chat. Throughout
the course we will be scheduling one-hour open chats at different times. Watch your Announcements for specific
dates and times. Please note: Chat posts cannot be deleted.
Video Tour of the Course

Instructor Responsibilities
The three of us (Mary, Greg, Steve) will share responsibilities for leading the course. Since Steve knows Canvas (it's
part of his day job), he functions as the course designer and will handle everything related to Canvas. We have
organized the course materials such that (other than Week 6) each of us will serve as the lead instructor for a specific
week's module. Our intent is that this approach will provide you with three different perspectives on General
Semantics with consistency within each module.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
3 of 68
We will be monitoring the Discussions and commenting as we feel necessary or desirable. Please don't feel offended
or slighted if one of us doesn't comment or praise your post - we're going to be pretty busy keeping up with all the
aspects of the course. We will do our best to provide affirmation or corrective clarification as warranted so that
appropriate statements are reinforced and questionable interpretations are challenged. However, due to the nature of
GS there is some merit to individuals figuring out things for themselves in terms of how they evaluate certain
statements, judgments, and opinions.
Also regarding the nature of GS ... we may express sentiments or address issues that you may strongly disagree with
or even take offense with. Please know that our intention is solely educational and in no way do we want to demean
or insult any individual or group. However, we cannot deal with matters of evaluation (a cornerstone of GS) without
also dealing with presenting examples of misevaluations. So while we may indeed analyze and judge a certain
reaction or response, we do so only to offer illustrative and relevant examples.
Teaching Assistants (TAs)

Because of the number of registrants in this course (more than 700) and the number of countries represented ( at least
25), we have asked several of our colleagues around the world to serve in the role of Teaching Assistant (TA).
from the United States: Andrea Johnson, Nora Miller, and Frank Nason
from Argentina: Laura Bertone
from France: Isabelle Aubert
from India: Jung Pravesh and Devkumar Trivedi
They will help us monitor and facilitate the discussions and chats, as well as answer your questions. We greatly
appreciate their willingness to help out and add to your learning experience.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
4 of 68
Student Responsibilities
Your responsibilities in this online course are highlighted below.
You have no responsibilities.
You are taking this course to fulfill whatever curiosities or motivations drive you. You can spend as much or as little
time here as you want. You are under no obligation to do anything in this course other than what you are moved to do.
This online course experience is probably as close as we can all get to the notion of learning for the sake of learning.
We (Mary, Greg, Steve) believe the material we will cover is important, relevant, and beneficial. We're happy to do
this. We aren't getting paid, just as you aren't paying for it. So let's have fun in the pursuit of own time-binding
learning experiences. (Details on what that means later.)
As in most things we experience in life, what you get out of the course will be a function of what you put into it.
We're looking forward to working with you to encourage your inputs and facilitate your takeaways.
That said ...
The Announcements tool (in the left course navigation panel) will be very important for keeping you on track. Please
make sure you have opted to receive Announcements immediately or daily in your Notification Preferences (click on
your name in the Canvas header, then select Notifications in the left course navigation. Each week, you should plan
to:
1. Complete the readings and videos assigned for the topic area.
2. Complete the assigned activities (discussions, assignments, quizzes).
3. Participate in the discussions and engage with your fellow students (and instructors and TAs) with courtesy,
respect, and a mutual interest in learning.
Please introduce yourself, guided by the questions listed below.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How would you like to be addressed?

Where are you from?
Where are you now? Why?
How do you spend your time?
If you could have a front row seat to observe any past, present, or future event,
what would it be? (Think sporting event, concert, historical event or period,
artist's studio, conversation, museum, venue or place, etc.)
Click in the "Reply" block immediately below to type your answers, then make sure you click on the blue Post
Reply button at the bottom right of the editing area.
Or, to really make an entrance to the course, try posting a video introduction using the Canvas Media Comment Tool.
Here's how.
Note: you won't be able to see the other introductions until you post your own. After you post your reply, pat yourself
on the back for completing the Getting Started Module and proceed to the Week 1 module when you're ready.
Note2: If you're wondering why your Grades don't reflect the points you've earned with your posted Introduction ... so
are we. We have an inquiry into Canvas as to why the points aren't automatically entered into Grades. :(
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
5 of 68
Module Map: What is General Semantics?

In this first module, we'll provide a broad introduction
to the field of study called General Semantics (GS).
Steve is the lead instructor this week.
As depicted in the module list, this week we're going to
introduce you to GS in this sequence:
PRELIMINARIES
Point of View Survey We begin with a
20-question Point of View survey. The survey
results and significance will be presented and
discussed in Week 5.
Defining and Describing General Semantics
Several different viewpoints on how to briefly
characterize GS.
Basic Understandings A first-pass
explanation, to be developed further throughout
the course.
KORZYBSKI AND GENERAL SEMANTICS
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) A short
biography of the man who "wrote the book" and
(perhaps unfortunately) coined the label,
"General Semantics."
Korzybski's Quest Three questions guided
Korzybski's work.
Map|Territory: Foundational Premises
Three premises underlie the GS theory or
methodology, each an aspect of the
Artwork by Alice Webb Art
Map|Territory analogy.
Abstracting-EvaluatingIntegral to General Semantics is an understanding of the neurological processes
Korzybski termed abstracting (or evaluating). As we will see, while his label has not be embraced by the
medical sciences, his description of the processes and their implications was on the mark.
Discussion Assignment We'll ask you to share your own example that illustrates the abstracting process,
worth 30 points.
Two Worlds A consequence of the brain's abstracting process is the realization that we live in "two worlds."
As reflected in current neuroscience understanding, our brain actively mediates, or constructs, what we
experience as the "real world."
Language(s) as Map(s) Some of the implications and consequences of the Map|Territory analogy relate to
our language habits and bahaviors.
Consciousness of Abstracting A comparison of behaviors that reflect a consciousness (or awareness) of
one's abstracting and evaluating processes, vs. unawareness.
ILLUSTRATIONS AND EXAMPLES
A variety of demonstrations we hope will make the notions of abstracting and evaluating more meaningful, at
least in terms of vision and hearing.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
6 of 68
MODULE COMPLETION
Review and Reflection A summary of key takeaways and highlights of Module 1.
Optional Activities Readings, viewings, and other activities that you may find beneficial and interesting.
Discussion We ask you to participate in a Discussion and share your reactions to the material presented in
this module, worth 50 points.
Quiz We ask you to complete a 50-point Quiz which has been structured to facilitate and confirm learning,
also worth 50 points.
References
Completion Checklist To make sure you haven't missed anything.
This module is designed to be completed in sequence. As you complete each page or activity, you'll see navigation
buttons at the bottom to either return to the Previous page or advance to the Next page. You can always skip around
if you prefer or if you need to review specific pages.
At the bottom of most pages, you'll see links for the Ongoing Course Discussion and Your Personal journal. We
encourage you to regularly jot down notes and thoughts in your journal and participate in the ongoing course
discussion. Your Personal Journal is worth a total of 20 points.
Module Learning Objectives

After successfully completing this module, students will be able to:
Summarize the story of Alfred Korzybski and he came to develop the discipline of General Semantics.
Explain the abstracting process and its significance.
Explain the significance of the map|territory distinction.
Identify key differences between facts (or descriptions of observations) and inferences (or opinions, judgments,
assumptions).
Explain how Korzybski's 1933 understanding of how the nervous system works has been validated by
21st-century neuroscience.
Demonstrate familiarity with the GS vocabulary.
Demonstrate self-awareness of ineffective, unproductive, or self-defeating language habits and behaviors.
Offer your own explanation in response to the question, "what is General Semantics about?"
Concerning Expectations
Please watch this 9-minute video that addresses a few items regarding expectations. (You can click on the "CC" on
the video player control bar to see the closed captions.)
Below the video we will maintain an updated list of the countries represented in the course and the chart of
enrollment growth.
Countries represented in the course

If yours isn't listed, please let us know. Updated 20 January.
1. Algeria
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
7 of 68
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Argentina
Australia
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Dubai
Ecuador
Egypt
France
Germany
Greece
Grenada
Hungary
Iceland
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Malaysia
Mexico
Moldova
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philipines
Poland
Puerto Rico
Romania
Russia
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
8 of 68
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tasmania
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
U.K. (England, Wales, and Scotland included)
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
U.S.
Vanuatu
Venezuela
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
9 of 68
10
Point of View Survey

This survey contains 20 statements that you've probably heard. In fact, you've probably
heard them a lot since most of them can be considered as aphorisms or cliches. For
each of the statements, indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with the
sentiment expressed. Go with your first impression. Once you've marked your
response and advanced, you can't go back.
Disregard the terminology used ("question" and "correct answer") since this ungraded
survey uses the same format as a quiz. There are no correct answers, but we had to
identify "correct" answers in order to award points for completion.
The survey results will be aggregated at the class level and discussed during Week 5.
NOTE: These statements may not be recognized by students who are not so familiar
with American culture. However, these kinds of aphorisms or cliches or truisms probably exist in all cultures. If you
don't recognize the significance of one of the statements, see if you can think of an appropriate substitute that you are
familiar with.
No
Strong
Disagree
Disagree
Opinion
Agree
Strong
Agree
1. You're either for something or against it.

2. You can't change human nature.
3. Everything happens for a reason.
4. The will of the majority should always be respected.
5. Expect a miracle.
6. Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus.
7. To thine own self be true.
8. It's all good.
9. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never
hurt me.
10. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
11. Clothes make the man.
12. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.
13. Everybody has one true soul mate.
14. Time heals all wounds.
15. In the end, people get what they deserve.
16. The pen is mightier than the sword.
17. It is what it is.
18. Image is everything.
19. You get what you expect.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Defining and Describing General Semantics
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
10 of 68
11
What is General Semantics?

You might think such a simple question would have a simple answer. Unfortunately, in this case there isn't a simple
answer. Just like there's really no simple answer to the question, "What is chaos theory?"
In the course description there's a phrase that could serve as a beginning definition of General Semantics:
General Semanticsthe study of how we transform our life experiences into language and thought.
The definition I used in my eBook, Here's Something About General Semantics (download the pdf), provides a
broader view:
General Semantics deals with the process of how we perceive, construct, evaluate, and respond to our life
experiences. Our language-behaviors represent one aspect of these responses (Stockdale, 2009, p. 21).
Following are several different approaches to describe General Semantics. From these, you might begin to sketch a
picture for yourself of what GS is about.
Books
You can get an idea of the scope and domain of General Semantics from the titles of some of the prominent books in
the field. (These are all listed in the Module 1 References.)
Science and Sanity (Korzybski)
Language Habits in Humans Affairs (Lee)
Language in Thought and Action (Hayakawa)
People in Quandaries (W. Johnson)
Your Most Enchanted Listener (W. Johnson)
The Art of Awareness (Bois)
Levels of Knowing and Existence (Weinberg)
Symbols, Status, and Personality (Hayakawa)
Drive Yourself Sane (Kodish & Kodish)
Communication and Organizational Behavior: Text and Cases (Haney)
The Speech Personality (Murray)
The Language of Wisdom and Folly (Lee)
The Tyranny of Words (Chase)
Making Sense (Potter)
Culture, Language and Behavior (Russell)
Mathsemantics (MacNeal)
Nothing Never Happens (K. Johnson and others)
Explorations in Awareness (Bois)
from Wendell Johnson

Wendell Johnson was one of the most important and distinguished of the "early adopters" of General Semantics. A
clinical professor at the University of Iowa (see the Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center), Johnson wrote two
wonderful books centered around GS, People in Quandaries and Your Most Enchanted Listener. The following
excerpt comes from his first lecture of the Fall 1956 semester, which was broadcast over the campus radio station and
recorded.
[General Semantics is concerned with the role] ... our use of words, designs symbols of all kinds tends to
play in the development of our individual personalities, our institutions, and our human societies. So we shall be
concerned in the course with the disorders of our symbolic processes, which is to say the language of
maladjustment the language which reflects maladjustment and which tends to produce maladjustment. We
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
11 of 68
12
shall be even more concerned with the kinds of language which we are able to develop or cultivate which tend to
be very effective, which tend to be conducive, to what we call "normal adjustment."
... I do not mean by adjustment some kind of self-satisfaction, some sort of blind acceptance of things as they are,
but something much, much more dynamic and helpful than that. I mean by adjustment, by healthful adjustment,
something that we might call the "realization of our own individual potentials for development." I don't mean
being like somebody else, like the average man, or like the mold, but being oneself as fully as possible.
Well, there is a way to use language which tends to encourage this sort of development. Then there is a way to
use language there are probably many, many ways to use language which tend to make it difficult to
develop one's full potential, and so we will be concerned with these kinds of language. This means we're going to
be concerned with things like speaking, writing, listening, reading, designing, and figuring with the pictures we
make in our heads. We'll be concerned with the talking we do to ourselves that we recognize as thinking, and
feeling, and imagining, and wishing, and regretting, and so forth.
We're going to be concerned especially with the language we use for talking ourselves into trouble, and that
which we use for talking ourselves out of trouble. We are going to be concerned with the language that is
effective for the solving of problems and for the realization of potential selfdevelopment. We're going to be
especially concerned with language in its most effective forms for the purpose of solving problems. This means
we will be especially interested in the language used by scientific research workers, and also by others
outstanding novelists, poets, any of the users of language who are very effective in the solving of human
problems (Johnson, 1957).
from Irving J. Lee

Along with Wendell Johnson and S.I. Hayakawa, Irving J. Lee, professor of speech at Northwestern University,
earned a place among the handful of most influential early proponents of General Semantics. The following 4:46 clip
comes from a 1952 series of lectures on General Semantics called "Talking Sense" broadcast in Chicago as part of the
"Of Men and Ideas" program.
Several excerpts from this series will be used througout the course. Note that some of Professor Lee's terminology is a
reflection of his time - e.g., "men" rather than "people" or "men and women" - but the content of his presentations
remain relevant.
from Dr. Russell Meyers

Dr. Russell Meyers also taught at the University of Iowa, but in the medical school as a neurosurgeon. He held
leadership positions in the two GS organizations in the 1940s and was a principle lecturer at Institute of General
Semantics seminars throughout the 1950s.
There are two premises we must operate on whenever we try to communicate. First, we must expect to be
misunderstood. Second, we must expect to misunderstand. This may seem "obvious" but too few human beings
act as if it were true. We are striving to minimize misunderstanding, not to eliminate it. This is true not only of
inter-personal but intra-personal communication.
Communication can be competent or incompetent; it can lead to improvement or to destruction.
General Semantics is less interested in answers to examination questions than in personal behavior in day-to-day
situations. It grew out of a comparison of the kinds of behavior that have led to adaptation and the kinds that
have led to mis-adaptation.
Most of GS is unspeakable. It must be experienced and practiced over a period of time. Concepts basic to
General Semantics:
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
12 of 68
13
Scientific method (generalized)

Communication
Evaluation
Creativity
Alfred Korzybski compared the efficient communication behavior of scientists to the inefficient behavior of
"mental" cases. He then took those kinds of adaptive behavior that could be identified and taught and generalized
them for everyday use.
The aim of GS is robust psychological health, not merely correcting or preventing maladjustment (Meyers,
1957).
from J. Samuel Bois

In The Art of Awareness, J. Samuel Bois describes a hypothetical situation to illustrate the scope of what General
Semantics is concerned with. I've paraphrased it.
Imagine a scene in a hospital examining room. Theres a doctor, a patient, and the patients wife. A lab technician
knocks on the door and enters, carrying a medical folder with the patients charts. He hands the folder to the
doctor, nods to the patient and the wife, and leaves the room. The doctor silently looks through the pages of the
chart. She takes a deep breath, gathers herself, and turns to the husband to say, The tests confirm that youve got
cancer.
From a strictly semantic standpoint, or in terms of how the word cancer is defined in a dictionary, there is probably
little ambiguity or lack of understanding among the three participants in this imaginary scene. They each share a
common understanding that cancer refers to a medical diagnosis of cellular growths that may, or may not, be treated
in certain ways, that may result in certain health outcomes for the patient. However, the common understanding of the
definition of what the word cancer refers to is not at all the same as the emotional and physiological response of each
individual person in the room upon hearing the utterance, youve got cancer.
In other words, what hearing youve got cancer means to the doctor who articulates the words is something entirely
different to what it means to the patient who hears the words. And what it means to the patient is something
qualitatively different from his wifes response.
According to Bois, the study and understanding of such individual in-the-moment reactions, or happenings-meanings,
"is the field of General Semantics" (Bois, 1966, p. 32).
Alfred Korzybski
The analysis of ... living reactions is the sole object of general semantics ... (Korzybski, 1994, p. xli).
Throughout this module we will concentrate on the work of Alfred Korzybski and his development of General
Semantics.
Basic Understandings of General Semantics
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
13 of 68
14
Used with permission of Institute of General Semantics
Since 1998, I've used a framework of five major topics as a way to structure a curriculum to introduce General
Semantics. This page presents an high-level overview of the inter-related components that comprise the system or
methodology of General Semantics, originated by Alfred Korzybski. These components will be expanded upon and
developed further throughout the course, as suggested by the outward spiral in the image below.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
14 of 68
15
Time-binding
Through our use of languages and symbol systems such as music, math, art, etc., we can facilitate learning among our
fellow planet dwellers. But we also have access to the accumulated knowledge that has been learned, documented,
improved upon, and passed along from generation to generation. This unique capability to transfer and build upon
knowledge has resulted in ever-expanding human progress.
We can also, however, use such symbol systems to perpetuate atavistic feuds, myths, superstitions, prejudices, etc.,
that result in conflict, suffering and death. What accounts for the difference in our ability to progress technologically
and inability to progress sociologically?
Only humans have demonstrated the capability to build on the knowledge of prior generations. Alfred
Korzybski referred to this capability as time-binding. We bind time when we use language and symbols to
organize and pass along knowledge from one generation to the next, as well as within a generation.
Language serves as the primary tool that facilitates time-binding, and language is enabled and powered by the
astounding capabilities of the human cortex.
Time-binding forms the basis for an ethical standard by which to evaluate human behavior: to what degree does
the action or behavior promote, or retard, time-binding?
Acknowledging our time-binding inheritance dispels us of the self-made notion and encourages us to bind
time for the benefit of those who follow.
Scientific Orientation
The methods of science that have resulted in four centuries of advancement in medicine, engineering, physics, etc.,
have application for us in our daily lives. From our day-to-day experiences, we gather information, form opinions and
beliefs, gather more information, form more opinions and beliefs, etc. Does the information we gather from our daily
experiences support our beliefs and opinions? Do we modify those beliefs and opinions when the facts of our
experiences warrant? Do we apply what we know about ourselves and the world around us in our daily living?
Our ability to time-bind is most evident when we apply a scientific approach, method or attitude in our
evaluations and judgments.
A scientific approach involves the process of continually testing assumptions and beliefs, gathering as many
facts and as much data as possible, revising assumptions and beliefs as appropriate, and holding conclusions
and judgments tentatively.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
15 of 68
16
Hidden, or unstated assumptions guide our behavior to some degree; therefore we ought to make a special
effort to become more aware of them.
Even if testing confirms the hypothesis, continue to make observations, collect data, and check to see if the
hypothesis remains valid or should be revised.
We live in a process-oriented universe in which everything changes all the time. The changes may not be
readily apparent to us if they occur on microscopic, or even sub-microscopic, levels.
We should remember that there is always more going on than we can sense or experience.
One test is worth a thousand expert opinions. Anonymous
Abstracting-Evaluating
Our day-to-day experiences are partial and incomplete abstractions of all that we could possibly see, hear, touch, taste
or smell. Therefore the opinions and beliefs (or evaluations) we derive from those experiences ought to be tempered
with some degree of tentativeness, uncertainty, and to-me-ness.
As humans, we have limits as to what we can experience through our senses. Given these limitations, we can
never experience all of whats out there to experience. We abstract only a portion of whats out there.
Our awareness of what goes on outside of our skin, is not what is going on; our awareness of our experience
is not the silent, first-order, neurological experience.
Given our ever-changing environment (which includes ourselves, and our awareness of ourselves), we never
experience the same person, event, situation, thing, experience, etc., more than once.
To the degree that our evaluative reactions and responses to all forms of stimuli are automatic, or conditioned,
we copy animals, like Pavlovs dog. To the degree that these evaluations are more controlled, delayed, or
conditional to the given situation, we exhibit our uniquely-human capabilities.
We each experience whats out there uniquely, according to our individual sensory capabilities, integrating
our past experiences and expectations. We ought to maintain an attitude of to-me-ness in our evaluations of
our own behavior, as well as in our evaluations of others behavior.
We see the world as we are, not as it is; because it is the I behind the eye that does the seeing.
Anais Nin
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
16 of 68
17
We see what we see because we miss the finer details (Korzybski, 1994, p.376).
Verbal Awareness
Language facilitates time-binding, for advancing progress within societies and cultures, as well as enabling
individuals to adjust, adapt, survive and thrive within an increasingly chaotic verbal environment. We are, for the
most part, unaware of the effects of our verbal environment on how we react to our daily experiences. How often do
we react to words, labels, symbols and signs as if they were the real things represented? Do we use language, or are
we used by language? Who rules our symbols?
We can think of language as the unique capability that allows humans to time-bind, or build our learning, from
generation to generation, as well as within generations.
However, language has evolved with structural flaws in that much of the language we use does not properly
reflect the structure of the world we experience out there.
Among the mistakes we perhaps unknowingly commit:
confusing the word or symbol with whatever the word or symbol stands for;
acting as if the meaning of the words we use is contained solely in the word, without considering the
context and the individuals;
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
17 of 68
18
confusing facts with our inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.;

not accounting for the many shades of gray, simplistically looking at things as if they were black or
white, right or wrong, good or bad, etc.;
using language to separate that which in the actual world cannot be separated, such as space from time,
mind from body, thinking from feeling.
Revising our language habits by using these devices will help us become more aware and more deliberate in
our everyday talking and listening. These five techniques were advocated by Korzybski and referred to as the
extensional devices:
indexing : Muslim(1) is not Muslim(2); Feminist(1) is not Feminist(2);. Remember to look for the
differences even among a group or category that presume similarities.
dating : Steve(2013) is not Steve(1968); Steves-views-on-global-warming(2013) are not Steves-viewson-global-warming(1988). Remember that each person and each thing we experience changes over time,
even though the changes may not be apparent to us.
quotes : truth, reality, mind, pure. Use quotes around terms as a caution to indicate youre aware
that there is an opportunity for misunderstanding if the term is particularly subject to interpretation, or if
youre being sarcastic, ironic, or facetious.
hyphen : mind-body, thinking-feeling. Use to join terms that we can separate in language, but cant
actually separate in the real world. Remember that we can talk in terms that dont accurately reflect the
world out there.
etc.: Remember that our knowledge and awareness of anything is limited. We cant sense or experience
or talk about all of something, so we should maintain an awareness of the etc., that more could be said.
Additional devices or techniques designed to address ineffective language habits include:
E-Prime: eliminate or reduce forms of the to be verbs (is, are, were, am, being, etc.). In particular, reduce
those that we consider is of identity (ex. John is a liberal) and is of predication (ex. The rose is red.)
Download and read To Be or Not To Be: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking (PDF, 12 pages) by D.
David Bourland, Jr (Bourland, 2004).
English Minus Absolutisms (EMA): eliminate or reduce inappropriate generalizations or expressions
that imply allness or absolute attitudes. Examples include: all, none, every, totally, absolutely, perfect,
without a doubt, certain, completely. Download and read Allen Walker Read's Language Revision by
Deletion of Absolutisms (PDF, 7 pages) (Read, 2004).
To-me-ness: Used by Wendell Johnson as a convenience to convey a consciousness of projection, as
otherwise expressed by phrases such as "it seems to me," "apparently," "from my point of view," and "as
I see it" (Johnson, 1946, p. 61).
Sensory Awareness
You could say that we live in two worlds: our verbal world of words (and thoughts, opinions, beliefs, doubts, etc.),
and the non-verbal world of our actual sensory experiences. We experience the world on the non-verbal levels, but
many times our verbal pre-occupations preclude us from appreciating what we experience on a moment-to-moment,
here-and-now, non-verbal basis. To what degree do we project our verbal world of expectations onto our non-verbal
sensory experiences? Do we experience what is going on in the moment, or do we see what were looking for, or
hear what we expect to hear? Are we aware of ourselves, our non-verbal experiencing, and our limitations?
We experience our daily living on the silent, non-verbal levels; in other words, on a physiologicalneurological level different from our verbal awareness.
Our ability to experience the world is relative, unique to our own individual sensing capabilities.
Our language habits can affect our physiological behavior; we can allow what we see, hear, say, etc., to affect
our blood pressure, pulse, rate of breathing, etc.
As we become more aware of our own non-verbal behaviors, we can practice techniques to achieve greater
degrees of relaxation, less stress, greater sense of our environment, etc.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
18 of 68
19
Charlotte Schuchardt Read

Charlotte Schuchardt Read began working for Korzybski as his literary secretary in 1939. A dance student, she
became increasingly interested in what Korzybski called semantic relaxation, a guided practice of silencing one's
inner dialogue and striving for silence on the objective level. Charlotte expanded Korzybski's methods through her
work with Charlotte Selver and the Sensory Awareness Foundation.
In this clip from a 1999 interview recording by the Sensory Awareness Foundation, Charlotte explains how the
non-verbal, or sensory, practices are an integral part of General Semantics (Read, 1999).
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950)

Alfred Korzybski (pronounced kore-ZHIB-ski) was born in
1879 to a land-owning family in Poland. He was raised by
servants from four different countries who spoke four
different languages, growing up with a working knowledge
of Polish, Russian, German, and French. In this type of
multilingual environment, it came naturally to Korzybski
to disassociate the word, or symbol, from the thing that the
word or symbol represented.
Photo used with permission of Institute of General Semantics
As a student he studied engineering, mathematics, and

chemistry. When the first World War erupted in 1914, he
was enlisted into the Russian cavalry. Not only was he
severely wounded, but he witnessed first hand the
devastating effects of all the new weapons of war that
debuted during this war to end all wars ... airplanes,
armored tanks, rapid-fire machine guns, poison gas.
He was sent to North America toward the end of the war when he could no longer serve on the battlefield. He
supported artillery testing in Canada before transferring to the U.S. where he traveled the country speaking to groups
and selling war bonds. After the war, he remained in the U.S. and married Mira Edgerly, a miniature portrait artist
from Chicago.
He was haunted by his war experiences. As an engineer, he pondered this question: How is it that humans have
progressed so far and so rapidly in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences, yet we still fight wars and kill each
other? Or in his own words:
At present I am chiefly concerned to drive home the fact that it is the great disparity between the rapid
progress of the natural and technological sciences on the one hand and the slow progress of the
metaphysical, so-called social "sciences" on the other hand, that sooner or later so disturbs the equilibrium
of human affairs as to result periodically in those social cataclysms which we call insurrections,
revolutions, and wars (Korzybski, 1993, p. 22).
He devoted the rest of his life to this 'fact,' its implications, and consequences. In 1921 he published his first book,
Manhood of Humanity: The Art and Science of Human Engineering. Then in 1933, he wrote the source book for the
field of study we know as General SemanticsScience and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
19 of 68
20
General Semantics.
Because our language-behaviors are so integral to human cooperation, as well as human conflict, much (not all) of
Korzybski's General Semantics directly addresses the role of language and language habits in human behavior.
Language Matters
To underscore how deeply language is ingrained as a human behavior, consider:
With language we can:
And with language we can also:
speak, write, read, and listen;

think and express our feelings;
analyze and solve problems;
establish rules, regulations, laws, policies,
procedures, ordinances, and standards;
reach compromises, agreements, settlements,
resolutions and contracts;
understand, to be understood, and to pass on
our understandings to others;
dream, imagine, contemplate, cogitate,
deliberate, create, innovate and ponder.
mislead, misinform, and misunderstand;

deny, suppress, inhibit, prohibit and limit what
others do and say;
rule, dictate, terrorize, intimidate, indoctrinate and
alienate;
generalize, categorize, stereotype, pigeonhole and
profile;
lie, cheat, steal, quibble, libel, slander, sue and
defraud;
perpetuate myths, superstitions, prejudices, feuds,
and atavistic traditions;
create and exacerbate fear, anxiety, regret, guilt,
jealousy, paranoia, suspicion, and hate.
(Stockdale, 2009, p. 24)
Language plays a tremendous role in human affairs. It serves as a means of cooperation and as a weapon of
conflict. With it, men can solve problems, erect the towering structures of science and poetry and talk
themselves into insanity and social confusion (Lee, 1958, p.60).
Korzybski's Quest
I think it's helpful to consider Korzybski's work from 1920 to 1950 in the context of three broad concerns that shaped
the arc of his personal "quest" (my term, not his).
1. What makes the human species human? In other words, what are the similarities among humans that
differentiate us from other species, that distinguish the organism named Smith from his canine best friend
named Fido?
2. What accounts for the vast differences in behaviors that are exhibited among humans such that, within one
generation, we can produce Gandhi, Hitler, Einstein, and Stalin?
3. Is it possible to characterize these vast differences such that we can more rapidly increase behaviors that
advance and progress humanity, while minimizing the atavistic behaviors that retard or regress humanity?
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
20 of 68
21
The task of engineering science is not only to know but to know how (Korzybski, 1993, p. 11).
1. What makes humans human? Time-binding

Alfred Korzybski's education focused on the sciences, especially chemistry and engineering. He had a deep curiosity
about how things worked. Therefore in considering this first question, Korzybski sought an operational definition of
humans not merely a verbal definition. What did humans do that was different from non-human forms of life?
Plants as Chemistry-binders
First Korzybski considered plants. What do plants do? Plants absorb, or bind, specific chemicals in their immediate
environment nutrients from the soil and water and together with the effects of sunlight (for above-ground
plants), reproduce cells and produce growth. Plant growth and reproduction are influenced by other environmental
factors such as climate, gravity, and (of course) plant-eating animals and pollinating insects, just to name a few.
Korzybski therefore distinguished plants by their ability to bind together the elements of their environment within and
to their own organisms in order to produce and sustain life. He referred to them as chemistry-binders.
Animals as Space-binders
Turning to the animal kingdom (including birds and fish), Korzybski determined that, operationally, what animals do
includes everything that plants do with one crucial difference. Animals possess (to varying degrees) the ability to
move about in their environment. If the source of its food or water depletes, an animal can move to another place. The
ability to move about in space also provides animals with defensive, and offensive, capabilities in their relations with
other animals.
Based on this defining characteristic of being able to move about throughout their spacial environment, Korzybski
referred to animals as space-binders in that they 'binded' the spaces within their living territory.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
21 of 68
22
Humans as Time-binders
In assessing what humans do, over and above the capabilities of animals, Korzybski
determined that the most critical difference is the ability to create, manipulate, record, and
transform symbols. For him, however, the consequence of this uniquely-human capability
was much more than just being able to think and communicate with symbols, words, signs,
icons, etc.
Korzybski did not regard the human language capability itself as the defining characteristic
of humans, but as the tool that enabled the capability that most differentiated humans from
animals the ability to transfer knowledge from human to human, within and across
generations. Languages and other symbol systems, powered by the brain's neo-cortex
(Korzybski, 1993, p. 149) provide humans with the means to document experiences,
observations, tips, descriptions, etc., which means that a child can pick up from where the
parent leaves off. Knowledge among the human species can therefore accumulate and advance as a body, not simply
as random lessons taught and learned by copying, mimicing, or experience.
As a plant binds its chemical environment to reproduce and grow, and as an animal binds space to survive, humans
are able to bind time such that a school girl in 2014 can learn physics from Isaac Newton, dance to an 18th-century
waltz, become entranced by the words of a sacred ancient text, and try to keep with Facebook's ever-changing privacy
settings. Like the plants that 'bind' chemicals directly into the living cells of their own organisms, and the animals that
'bind' their movements within their environments, humans bind time by the activities and changes of their individual
brains.
Korzybski coined the term time-binding to denote this defining capability of human time-binders, first described in
his 1921 book, Manhood of Humanity. He wrote:
We know that time-binding capacity the capacity for accumulating racial [of the human race]
experience, enlarging it, and transmitting it for future expansion is the peculiar power, the characteristic
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
22 of 68
23
energy, the definitive nature, the defining mark, of man; ... to make improvement to do greater things by
help of things already done are of the very nature of the time-binding capacity which makes humans
human (Korzybski, 1993, pp. 174-175).
All human achievements are cumulative; no one of us can claim any achievement exclusively as his own;
we all must use consciously or unconsciously the achievements of others, some of them living but most of
them dead (Korzybski, 1990a, p. 13).
2. What accounts for the differences in human behavior? Evaluating

While Korzybski defined time-binding as a characteristic human capacity (or capability), he knew from first-hand
experience in World War I that human behavior did not always result in "improvement" or "greater things." Therefore
he contemplated how it was that some humans sought to advance and progress "human weal" (Korzybski, 1993, p. 1)
while others sought to murder, steal, and subjugate other humans for their own selfish weal.
As we will emphasize throughout the course, Korzybski drew a sharp distinction between what we experience in our
lives, and our reactions to those experiences. What our nervous system can sense and experience is but an abstraction
of the total possible experience, and our reactions to what happens are yet another abstraction.
Because people can expect to experience the 'same' event or situation differently, their reactions to the experience will
inevitably be different. Influenced by his understanding of the tropism effect from biology (plant growth results from
the effects of external stimulation from light, moisture, gravity, etc.), Korzybski initially coined the term semantic
reaction to refer to the total response of a human to a meaningful event or experience. However, in his later work he
came to use the more general evaluational reaction or simply evaluation to denote human behavioral reactions as the
collective or cumulative impact of one's abstractions. Evaluations would therefore include activities we label as
judgments, conclusions, opinions, beliefs, ideologies, etc. Here is a table of terms that could be considered under the
umbrella term of evaluating.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
23 of 68
24
So in assessing the differences in human behaviors, Korzybski theorized that these differences were matters of
evaluation, due to the different meanings that individuals attached to events and experiences, based on their own
individual values.
In Week 5, we'll address the "big picture" implications of his theories about the complex inter-relationships among
evaluations, meanings, and values. Here are some examples that may give you a feel for what Korzybski was getting
at:
The European Union is divided over the ongoing financial crises in Greece and other countries. Generalizing
and simplifying ... the citizens in Greece evaluate the crisis differently than German citizens because the
austerity that is being forced on Greece means something very different to the Greek than it means to the
German. The Greek and the German evaluate the situation differently because the situation means something
different because they hold different values.
The Tea Party in the United States evaluates the significance of U.S. debt and government spending levels
differently from other political groups because of the meaning that Tea Partiers give to government debt based
on their values.
People around the world hold different evaluations about global warming/climate change based what the
phenomenon means to them and what values they hold. To the citizen of the Maldives, the threat of rising
oceans bears meaningful consequences because they value their way of life (not to mention their actual lives),
so they evaluate the evidence and forecasts about global warming one way. The owner/operator/customers of a
coal-burning electricity plant in the remote southwest U.S., they evalute the issue differently because their
economic and political values are affected in different meaningful ways.
The ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan can be considered in terms of different evaluations based on
conflicting values and meanings.
3. How to characterize a method or system that can be taught, learned, and applied?
Korzybski published his time-binding theory in Manhood of Humanity in 1921. Throughout the 1920s, he worked
through the implications of his theory, including his detailed analysis and description of the abstracting process that
produced individual evaluations.
For two years he observed patients at St. Elizabeth's mental hospital in Washinton, D.C. He
carefully noted the language of the mentally ill, specifically how in many instances their
language (maps) did not match the 'real' world (territory), which reflected pathological cases
of misevaluation.
In contrast to the extremes of such inappropriate language behavior resulting from
misevaluations, Korzybski studied the effective and productive language behaviors of
scientists, mathematicians, engineers, artists, writers, etc. He worked diligently to analyze
and understand the language behaviors at both ends of these two extremes. He specifically
sought a way to articulate and communicate how a misevaluation differed operationally
from an appropriate evaluation.
The result of Korzybski's investigations and contemplations were published in 1933 in the
source book for General Semantics, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General
Semantics. In it, Korzybski:
1. describes the biological and neurological basis for his work,
2. offers a detailed diagnosis of the many varieties of mistakes, errors, and misevaluations that humans
consistently manifest,
3. proffers prescriptions for recognizing, minimizing, and avoiding the causes of these misevaluations, and
4. explains methods of teaching and learning these prescriptions.
For more on the life of Alfred Korzybski, check out Bruce Kodish's thorough and worthwhile Korzybski: A
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
24 of 68
25
Biography (link to Amazon.com listing).
Map|Territory: Foundational Premises
Alfred Korzybski used the Map|Territory analogy to illustrate three foundational premises of his General Semantics.
The Map|Territory Analogy

1. The map is not the territory.
A map depicts only limited aspects of the territory it represents or symbolizes. For a map to be useful, it must
accurately reflect the relative structure or relationships of the key features of the territory. Similarly, our language
behaviors can be thought of as maps of our actual life experiences. These verbal expressions of how and what we
think, feel, react, judge, assume, etc., should be in accordance with the 'territory' of our lived experiences. And on a
pre-verbal level, we can use the metaphor to remember that even our lived experiences what we see, hear, feel,
smell, taste, etc. are neurological constructs ('maps') of whatever it is in the 'real' world outside ourselves that we
are seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting.
Of course, "the map is not the territory!"
It's rather easy to dismiss this statement of the obvious. Got it! Let's move on.
But let's not be so quick to take these six words for granted. Arguably, the whole of General Semantics derives from
this six-word premise and the consequences which follow. So let's spend a few minutes considering the implications
for Korzybski's General Semantics.
The map is not the territory. What does this mean to you? Perhaps something like ...
The word is not the thing.
The symbol is not the thing symbolized.
The name is not the thing named.
The referent is not the thing referenced.
In other words, a particular type of distinction is expressed: one thing is not the same thing as another thing which the
one thing is represented by. More generally, an abstraction is not that from which the abstraction is abstracted. The
map (an abstraction) is not the territory ( whatever is not an abstraction; but hold that thought until the summary of
this page).
In the four examples above, the abstractions are characterized in terms easily recognizable as abstract terms
words, symbols, names, referents.
However, in Korzybski's General Semantics the pre-eminent, or foundational, map|territory distinction involves two
seemingly non-abstract entities.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
25 of 68
26
2. The map cannot show all of the territory.

Maps are limited in size and detail. They can only depict selected items of interest or importance. Similarly, our
language behaviors our talking, listening, writing, thinking are limited and cannot include or comprehend all of
whatever we are trying to describe or understand. And on a pre-verbal level, the maps of what we are seeing, hearing,
feeling, tasting, and smelling account for only a fraction of what exists in the territory of the 'real' world.
So in Korzybski's term, we can think of a map as an abstraction of the territory it symbolizes; the words we use to
express ourselves as an abstraction of the thoughts and feelings we experience; and even those thoughts and feelings
as abstractions of whatever stimulates our sensory experiences with the 'real' world.
3. A map is self-reflexive and made by a map-maker.
Maps, like money, don't grow on trees. They don't spring forth from the earth or rain down from the heavens. Maps
are constructed by their makers. A human being makes a map. An individual decides the purpose of the map, the size,
the scale, the features to be included, how many copies will be made, who will use it, the colors, etc. In deciding all
those details, the human map maker must also determine which features will not be included, which might be
exaggerated or emphasized for importance, what descriptive annotations might be helpful. And if the map-maker
were constructing a map of the territory which surrounded the map-maker herself, then a theoretically-complete map
would include both the map itself and the map-maker.
In terms of our language behaviors, we can remember that whatever we "reduce to language," or whatever thoughts
and feelings we abstract from our experiences, are human constructions reflecting evaluations. We are making our
own maps (evaluations) of our experiences, and we can also then evaluate our evaluations. In language, since we can
almost endlessly talk about our talking, we are in a sense making maps of maps of maps, etc.
Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if
correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. If the map could be
ideally correct, it would include, in a reduced scale, the map of the map; the map of the map, of the map;
and so on, endlessly, a fact first noticed by [Josiah] Royce (Korzybski, 1994, p. 58).
Abstracting-Evaluating
Abstracting, in the context of Korzybskis model, refers to physio-neurological processes
that occur on non-verbal and verbal levels. From the world of energy stimulations that
envelope us, our nervous systems abstract (or select, choose, pay attention to, etc.) only a
fraction. From these partial, incomplete, and fleeting sensations, the nervous system must
construct our conscious or aware experiences by matching patterns of stimuli with the
brain's 'database' of previous experiences.
Evaluating is used in much the same way as abstracting, although I consider it a higherlevel, more generalized term in that we can cognitively evaluate the abstractions that result
from our abstracting. Here is a table of terms that could be considered under the umbrella term of evaluating.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
26 of 68
27
... we take for granted that all "perceptual processes" involve abstracting by our nervous system at different
levels of complexity. Neurological evidence shows the selective character of the organism's responses to
total situations ... that the mechanisms of "perception" lie in the ability of our nervous system to abstract
and to project.
Abstracting by necessity involves evaluating, whether conscious or not, and so the process of abstracting
may be considered as a process of evaluating stimuli, whether it be a "toothache," "an attack of migraine,"
or the reading of a "philosophical treatise." A great many factors enter into "perceiving" ... (Korzybski,
1990b, pp. 686-687).
Structural Differential
Alfred Korzybski developed this diagram in the 1920s as a means to
visualize the abstracting process. Originally a three-dimensional,
free-standing model (for which he applied for and received a U.S. patent;
imagine a colander, or strainer, in place of the ragged parabola at the top),
this printed version appeared in his source book for general semantics,
Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems.
The parabola represents an environment (the world around us) consisting of
innumerable characteristics or events, depicted by the holes, or dots
(activities, people, things, etc., including what occurs on microscopic and
sub-microscopic levels (Event level).
Only some of these characteristics (the hanging strings) can be detected by
human senses. Those which connect to the circle (Object level) represent a
specific object sensed by a specific nervous system, which has abstracted a
particular set of characteristics (those connective strings) from all possible
characteristics occurring in the parabola.
These initial sensory data are further abstracted and transformed as the
nervous system/brain recognizes and associates the data with a word or
label. The tag below the circle represents the Descriptive (verbal) level of
abstracting.
From the descriptive level, the verbal abstracting process proceeds with the
Inference levels that can continue indefinitely (implied by the ragged
bottom tag). In other words, from our descriptions of events we form
inferences, assumptions, opinions, beliefs, etc., by generalizing this
experience with our past experiences.
And we can continue, indefinitely, to form inferences from inferences, which may then be subsequently recalled in
future experiences, noted by the arrow and dotted line to the right.
As we become aware of these sensory experiences, we can talk about them, describe them, express how we feel, what
they mean, etc.
Throughout this abstracting process, we need to remember that what we talk about is not the same thing that our brain
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
27 of 68
28
registers as an experience, which is also not the same as our initial sensing, which in turn is not the same as the actual
stimulus or event.
Abstracting is something that your body-brain-nervous-system does continually, regardless of whether youre aware
of it.
The differential in structural differential refers to a functional difference between humans and animals. An animals
ability to abstract, depicted by the circle to the left ("Fido"), is limited; a human can continue to abstract and make
inferences indefinitely, whereas animals are limited in their abilities to make inferences.
The different levels that Korzybski defines in the model refer to aspects of the overall process which seem to consist
of clearly differentiated orders, or types, of activity from perception, to nervous system construction of the
experience, to cognitive evaluation, to our response or reaction.
Here's an edited video review of the Structural Differential as explained by Korzybski. (2:48)
Significance of Abstracting
So what? is a reasonable question to ask at this point. What practical
difference can this differential make? Let's look at an illustrated example
using my own simplified version of Korzybskis structural differential
model.
E The parabola represents the Event level, the what is going on
(WIGO) in the world around us. Each dot, figure, and line stands for an
aspect or characteristic of the sub-microscopic process level that comprises
WIGO.
O The circle labeled for Object represents a human nervous system
(lets assume mine) interacting with WIGO. Through my sensing organs
and brain, I construct the sights, sounds, smells, etc., that result in my
experiences. My experiences are incomplete and unique to my nervous
system.
D The first verbal level in the abstracting process is labeled as
Descriptive. What I say, think, etc., at this level about my experience
should be limited, as much as possible, to just the facts as I experienced
them.
I The I tags represent the multiple levels of Inferences I might construct
from my experience. These inferences will determine what meaning or
significance I draw from this experience. As indicated, I can generate as
many inferences, beliefs, theories, judgments, conclusions, etc., as I might
care to.
Its important to remember how time, order, or sequence plays into this
model. Each level of the abstracting process occurs in a given order, i.e.:
Something happens (Event);
I sense what happens (Object);
I recognize what happens (Description);
I generate meanings for what happens. (Inferences)
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
28 of 68
29
We can depict a succession of these abstracting processes over time, one after the other, for every moment of our
lives. In this case, with successive abstracting processes, we can see how the inferences (or meanings) we generate
from every experience can factor into later experiences.
In terms of differentiation, we should note that:

1.
2.
3.
4.
What happens (Event) is NOT ...

What I sense non-verbally within my nervous system (Object), which is NOT ...
What I can describe verbally about my sensing (Description), which is NOT ...
The meaning(s) I generate based on what happened; etc. (Inferences)
Similarly, our experience/inference/meaning at Time(3) is not the same experience/ inference/meaning at Time(1) but
due to projection and memory, what we experience at Time(1) may well affect our Time(3) experience and what that
experience means.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
29 of 68
30
Example of the Abstracting Process

Lets take a situation in which a friend call her Emily relates with some anger an experience she just had while
driving to the store ... somebody cut me off! We can use the Structural Differential to deconstruct her experience and
emphasize the different levels between what she experienced and what she evaluated.
Event What is Going On? Street, traffic, trees, rain, wipers ... plus
microscopic and sub-microscopic particles and activities that we cannot
observe, but which we infer based on current science.
Object Emilys eyes capture (some of the) reflected light from (some of
the) images in her (limited) field of view; the light is transformed
(abstracted) by her visual system into nervous system signals that travel to
her brain; neurons in her brain process the electrical/chemical signals and
cause her to see ...
Description I was driving about 25 miles per hour, perhaps 50 feet from
the car ahead. A dark vehicle driven by a middle-aged man emerged from
my right field of view. He was going faster than me. His car suddenly
accelerated and veered into the lane directly in front of me, reducing my
following distance to no more than 10 feet, which meant ...
Inference(1) This guys a rude jerk because ...
Inference(2) He cut me off and almost made me have a wreck!
Inference(x) Im too upset to go to work. I need to go home and relax
with my dog.
Can you see that he cut me off is not what happened? Can you see that
Emilys reaction to what happened is not the same as a description of what
happened?
One of the powerful lessons of general semantics, illustrated by the use of
this type of model to analyze the abstracting process, is that we can better
train ourselves to respond conditionally to what happens to us.
We humans dont have to react with a conditioned response like Pavlovs
dog, reacting to a substitute stimulus as if it were real but we often do.
Our language helps confuse us, because we tend to say things like, Ooh, it made me so mad! We allow the it the
event, the what happens, the stimulus to determine our response. You need to remember that between the stimulus
and your response, there is a YOU who, to some degree, can control your response:
STIMULUS -----> YOU -----> RESPONSE
Time(1) -------> Time(2)-------> Time(3)
Again, time is an important aspect of our conditional responses. Remember the old adage encouraging you to count
to 10 before getting mad? Theres a lot of merit to be gained by practicing your ability to consciously conditionally
delay your responses.
Summary of Abstracting
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
30 of 68
31
Abstracting refers to ongoing physio-neurological processes that occur on non-verbal levels.

We can verbally differentiate certain phases, or levels or orders, of the abstracting process to analyze our
behaviors and reactions: EVENT is not OBJECT is not DESCRIPTION is not INFERENCE, etc.
We can acknowledge that our abstracting occurs at different times ... we should expect different results,
reactions, responses, etc., from different experiences occurring at different times.
We have human limitations that constrain all of our experiences we never experience all of what happens.
Similarly, we can never say all or describe all about our experiences; more could always be said. Etc.
What we experience is, to some degree, a function of our past experiences (feedback, projection, etc.).
What we experience is a function of the unique capabilities and limitations of our own individual nervous
system.
We should therefore expect not only to see things differently, we should expect to evaluate and react to things
differently.
When we delay our responses and react conditionally, we tend to behave more sanely, more rationally, more
appropriately to the facts of the situation and our experience.
When we react immediately when our responses are conditioned and controlled by the stimulus (the thing) we
behave like Pavlovs dog and subject ourselves to control by others. You can use this model and process whenever
you want to analyze the behavior, responses, reactions, etc., of a particular individual in a specific situation.
(Personally, I find this type of analysis works best when the particular individual happens to be my ownself.)
Remember that the structural differential model, or any similar model, represents the process of abstracting.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
31 of 68
32
The more you apply this process to analyze your own abstracting, evaluating, inference-making, belief-generating,
etc.:
you will become more aware and conscious of your own abstracting;
you will better differentiate between: 1) what happens; 2) what you sense of what happens; 3) what you
describe of what your senses sense; and 4) what you infer from what youve described;
you will respond more conditionally to what happens in your life;
you will experience less conditioned responses (less like Pavlovs dog);
you will delay more of your responses, leap to fewer conclusions, snap to fewer judgments, and make fewer
inappropriate assumptions;
you will ____________ (fill in your own benefit).
Here's another clip of Irving J. Lee talking about abstracting and evaluating.
You've finished the article that explains the Structural Differential and the abstractingevaluating process. In that article, I use the example of Emily and her "somebody cut
me off" story to illustrate how her statement that somebody cut me off did not
accurately map the territory of her actual experience while driving.
For 30 points, share a story from your own experiences, or make up a story, that could
be used to illustrate the process by which we abstract from an event, to an experience,
to a description, to inferences. Please keep your stories short, no more than 200 words.
After you've posted your story, feel free to comment on other stories.
Two Worlds
As a consequence of our abstracting-evaluating processes, you can say we live in two worlds the world that exists
out there beyond our skin, and the world in here within our skin. What each of us knows about the world out there is
constructed by our in here nervous systems based on our individual sensory interactions with the world out there.
As early as the 1920s, Korzybski extended the mathematical and linguistic notions of abstraction to refer to the
biological and neurological functions by which our senses-brains-nervous-systems abstract (or construct) our
experience of the world "out there."
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
32 of 68
33
In this video (created using silent movie footage and separate audio recording), Korzybski emphasized the role of
abstraction in how our internal nervous system makes sense of our external world.
Although these recordings are from the1940s, Korzybski had worked through the premise and consequences of
abstracting by 1923 (Korzybski, 1990, p. 33). In a series of lectures at Olivet College in 1937, Korzybski explained:
I showed you that disc that was made up of rotating bladesit was really rotating blades, not a disc. That
disc did not actually exist. Your nervous system manufactured it inside your heads. This applies to all
'matter.' All you see is a nervous construct that you have made up. It is a process. Anything you see is made
up of rotating electrons. What you feel is not what you see. It turns out that anything we can see is only a
stimulus to our nervous system and therefore the 'object' we see had 'reality' only within us, although the
outside electronic image has independent reality (Korzybski, 2002, p. 122).
And yet, the 'fact' that humans construct or abstract their experiences of the external world of 'reality' has still not
been absorbed by most educated adults. As evidence, following are four attempts by 21st-century neuroscience
authorites to educate the public about this specific distinction that Korzybski matter-of-factly recognized 90 years
ago.
1) Christof Koch
Formerly the head of the Koch Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology and currently the Chief Scientific
Officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, Christof Koch is the author of The Quest for Consciousness: A
Neurobiological Approach (Koch, 2004). In 2005, he delivered the the annual J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial
Lecture in Los Alamos, NM, where he presented several visual demonstrations.
In the 2:27 clip below (which I have edited for instructional purposes; the effect is shown twice, then the audio is
repeated a third time with on-screen captions) he illustrated the visual effect known as afterimage. Following the
demonstration, he summarized the significance of the effect:
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
33 of 68
34
It belies the simple notion there's a one-to-one relationship between the outside world and my inner mental
experiences. ... So clearly this naive, realistic view that there's a world, there's my head and this simple
mapping, it can't be true. (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2005)
Koch later expands on this distinction between the "outer world" and our "inner mental experiences" and underscores
the fact that our brains construct our perceptions:
Conscious perception is, in a sense, a con job of the brain. It suggests there's a stable world out there and
there's a very simple relationship between what's out there in the world and what's inside our head but in
fact it's a very complicated relationship. It [conscious perception] is actively constructed by our brain.
We're now beginning to understand that what I see in my head is actually constructed by my head, by
my neurons (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2005).
2) Jeff Hawkins
Jeff Hawkins invented the Palm Pilot personal digital assistant (PDA), co-founded Palm Computing, and later
founded the Redwood Neuroscience Institute which became the Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience (now
associated with the University of California at Berkeley). In 2004, he co-authored with Sandra Blakeslee the
best-selling book, On Intelligence (Hawkins & Blakeslee, 2004).
In 2009, he delivered the J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Lecture to the affluent, well-educated audience of Los
Alamos, NM. His address was titled, "Why can't a computer be more like a brain?" He ended his presentation with a
question period. In response to the final question, Hawkins felt it necessary to reiterate this important, "hard to
believe," out there | in here distinction.
(referring to the continual firing of neurons in the cortex and the brain's recognition of patterns) That is the
currency of the brain. That's it. That's what your brain works on. And believe it or not, I said this in the
beginning and I'll say it again, your perception of the world is not ... it's really a fabrication of your model
of the world. You don't really see light or sound. You perceive it because your model says this is how the
world is, and those patterns invoke the model. It's hard to believe, but it really is true (J. Robert
Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2009).
Here's the video clip (1:48).

In their book, Hawkins and Blakeslee expand on the point:
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
34 of 68
35
All our knowledge of the world is a model based on patterns. ... This is not to say that the people or objects
aren't really there. They are really there. But our certainty of the world's existence is based on the
consistency of patterns and how we interpret them. There is no such thing as direct perception.
Can we trust that the world is as it seems? Yes. The world really does exist in an absolute form very close
to how we perceive it. However, our brains can't know about the absolute world directly.
The brain knows about the world through a set of senses, which can only detect parts of the absolute world.
The senses create patterns that are sent to the cortex, and processed by the same cortical algorithms to
create a model of the world. ... Through these patterns the cortex constructs a model of the world that is
close to the real thing, and then, remarkably, holds it in memory (Hawkins & Blakeslee, 2004, pp. 63-64).
3) Eric Kandel
Dr. Eric Kandel won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his study of memory. Beginning in the fall
of 2009, he co-hosted a special series of interviews with Charlie Rose on the brain. As of October 2013, more than 25
episodes have aired ranging from the anatomy of the brain to consciousness to emotions to diseases to creativity. Here
is a linked listing of all the episodes with video excerpts and synopses for each episode.
In the second episode of the series (Da Cunha, 2009b) that focused on the human visual system, Dr. Kandel felt this
notion that the brain "re-constructs" (Kandel's term) our sense of the world was worth emphasizing both at the
beginning and end of the interview. Without using Korzybski's terminology, Kandel2009 provides a succinct, updated
description of abstracting1923. Here's the 1:13 excerpt.
4) Stephen Macknik and Susanna Martinez-Conde

Neuroscience researchers and co-authors of Sleights of Mind: What the neuroscience of magic reveals about our
everyday deceptions, put it this way:
The spooky truth is that your brain constructs reality, visual and otherwise. What you see, hear, feel, and
think is based on what you expect to see, hear, feel, and think. In turn, your expectations are based on all
your prior experiences and memories.
Magicians understand at a deeply intuitive level that you alone create your experiences of reality ... they
exploit the fact that your brain does a staggering amount of outright confabulation in order to construct the
mental stimulation of reality known as "consciousness." This is not to say that objective reality isn't "out
there" in a very real sense. But all you get to experience is a simulation. The fact that consciousness feels
like a solid, robust, fact-rich transcript of reality is just one of the illusions your brain creates for itself.
Think about it. The same neural machinery that interprets actual sensory inputs is also responsible for your
dreams, delusions, and failings of memory. The real and the imagined share a physical source in your brain
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
35 of 68
36
(Macknik & Martinez-Conde, 2010, pp. 8-9).
Catching up with Korzybski?

Even though Koch, Hawkins, Kandel, Macknik, and Martinez-Conde don't refer to abstracting or evaluating, their
descriptions of the process by which we create or re-construct our sense of the outside world validate Korzybski's
foundational premises. Amazingly, what Korzybski grasped almost instinctively or intuitively 90 years ago has been
verified, confirmed, and now accepted by neuroscientists ... and yet they themselves still feel it necessary to use
phrases like:
"It's hard to believe but it really is true."
"We're now beginning to understand that what I see in my head is actually constructed by my head, by my
neurons."
"It makes us realize how magical the brain is."
"The spooky truth is that your brain constructs reality ..."
Summarizing
A. We need to acknowledge and take into account the characteristics of these two worlds.
B. We need to understand that even our most basic sense experiences of the out-there world are created by our brains.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
36 of 68
37
C. We need to maintain awareness, and take responsibility, for the neurological fact of this foundational distinction
what we experience in here is not what's out there to be experienced.
In Korzybski's terminology, we need to maintain a consciousness of abstracting, beginning with the understanding
that everything we experience represents an abstraction of something else. In a very real sense, all we can 'know' are
abstractions and associated neurological constructions.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
37 of 68
38
... we used and still use a terminology of 'objective' and 'subjective', both extremely confusing, as the
so-called 'objective' must be considered a construct made by our nervous system, and what we call
'subjective' may also be considered 'objective' for the same reasons (Korzybski, 1990c, p.650).
Language(s) as Map(s)
The Importance of Constructing Proper 'Maps'
Humans can build on the knowledge of prior generations.
Alfred Korzybski referred to this capability as time-binding.
Language serves as the principle tool that facilitates
time-binding. Language also serves as a guiding influence
in shaping our world view and life experiences.
We can apply the map-territory analogy to evaluate our
language habits and behaviors. As a map represents a
territory, so our language symbolizes our thoughts,
emotions, ideas, opinions, and experiences. To the degree
that the maps we construct accurately portray the structural
relationships of the territory, they serve us well.
If, however, the maps we construct inaccurately depict the
relationships among the territory of our experiences, they
can result in trouble. To best serve our own time-binding
interests, our verbal 'maps' ought to be congruent and
consistent with the realities of our non-verbal 'territories'.
On the previous page, we learned that current brain
scientists agree that what we have naively believed were
direct experiences of reality we are instead experiences
that we construct within each of our own brains, minds, and
nervous systems.
How does this knowledge affect our language habits and
behaviors?
We ought to easily recognize, then, that ancient notions such as objective or absolute reality do not
accurately reflect the limitations of our nervous systems as they interact with the outside world. Therefore
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
38 of 68
39
language structures, patterns, or terms that rely on this false-to-fact notion that what I experience (or say)
"is" the same as what exists "out there" in the world misrepresent, mislead, and misinform. The fact of the
matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group
... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our
community predispose certain choices of interpretation. Edward Sapir (Carroll, 1956, p. 134)
Language Misbehaviors
No language is perfect. Every language, being man-made and not inherent or inerrant, has structural flaws and cannot
properly reflect the structure of the world we uniquely sense and experience. If we accept the view that language(s)
shape, influence, affect, etc., how a given culture constructs the 'realities' of that culture's experiences, behavioral
norms, world view, etc. (Ramachandran, Sapir, and others), then it behooves us as individuals and societies to
acknowledge these flaws and revise our language habits and behaviors accordingly.
In addition to these structural flaws, individuals are prone to commit errors that result from lack of awareness of the
abstracting/ evaluating process, conventional language habits and usages, or careless inattention.
Some of the symptoms of language misbehaviors include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
We uncritically accept our perceptions of the world 'out there' as complete, accurate, and "the way it is."
We fail to consider the perceptions and perspectives of others who see "the way it is" differently than we do.
We confuse the word itself with what the word stands for.
We act as if words have 'meanings' on their own, without respect to individuals and context.
We mistake or confuse facts with inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.
We simplistically consider issues in terms of either-or, black or white, right or wrong, good or bad; we do not
account for "shades of gray."
7. We tend to look for and recognize similarities more than differences, which results in mistaken generalizations,
stereotypes, biases, etc.
8. We forget or overlook the fact that every person and every thing changes over time.
9. We use language to verbally 'separate' what cannot be separated in the real world (ex. mind from body, thoughts
from feelings, style from content, form from function, "pure" reason or emotion, etc.).
Developing New Language Behaviors and Attitudes

Our language habits can affect our physiological behavior; we can allow what we see, hear, say, etc., to affect our
blood pressure, pulse, rate of breathing, etc. As we become more aware of our verbal and non-verbal behaviors, we
can practice techniques to achieve greater degrees of relaxation, less stress, greater sense of our environment, etc.
When we respond automatically, without exercising control over our response, we allow the stimulus to condition or
determine our response. In other words, we behave more like Pavlov's dog than an aware human being when we let
someone or something "push our emotional hot buttons."
Korzybski referred to two aspects of these behavioral implications of our internal language habits. He continually
stressed the importance of what he called "cortico-thalamic" integration (Korzybski, 1994, p. xxvi). By this he meant
that there needed to be a balanced integration of the new brain (the cortex) and the old or reptilian brain (which in the
terminology of the time he referred to generally as the thalamus - what we now understand to be the amygdala). In
other words, he described how, with proper awareness, one could use the capabilities of the cortex to temper, dampen,
or even override the emotional or reactive responses of the thalamus/amygdala.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
39 of 68
40
He emphasized that aware humans have the ability to respond conditionally to both non-verbal and symbolic stimuli.
In other words, we have some degree of control over our response to a specific stimulus.
This is the gist of what current neuroscientists and psychologists now refer to with new terms, as evidenced in this
excerpt of four clips from the PBS series "This Emotional Life" with Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert (Sweet &
Gilbert, 2010).
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimation of it;
and this you have the power to revoke at any moment. Marcus Aurelius
We cannot command the wind, but we can adjust our sails. Anonymous
Our ability to achieve "maximum humanness" and evolve to our human potential is a function of how accurately our
language behaviors (what we do) reflect and are consistent with what we know. Therefore can evaluate our language
behaviors according to criteria such as how well we:
maintain an ongoing attitude of "to-me-ness;"
hold our opinions, judgments, beliefs, and assumptions with a degree of tentativeness and willingness to change
if new information or experiences warrant;
live comfortably with uncertainty;
exercise a healthy degree of skepticism and inquisitiveness;
strive for more description and less opinion, as approriate to the occasion;
strive for more unique and personal observations in our pronouncements, and fewer cliches, stock phrases,
aphorisms, and conventional wisdoms;
look for differences among similarities, as well as recognize similarities among differences, seeing both the
forest and the trees, depending on the circumstances; and
maintain a deserved sense of humility and minimize know-it-all attitudes.
Consciousness of Abstracting
One of the expressed goals in General Semantics is what Korzybski referred to as "consciousness of abstracting." In
other words, the objective of learning anything is to apply it in some way to one's own circumstances, and one way to
apply GS is to maintain an ongoing awareness of the abstracting process.
That's all well and good, but then one can ask, "what is it exactly that I'm supposed to be conscious or aware of?"
After all, abstracting, as you may have observed thus far in the course, can be a rather ... abstract ... notion to grasp.
Therefore the following table may help summarize some of the key differences between maintaining an awareness of
your own abstracting processes, compared to remaining unaware of abstracting.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
40 of 68
Presumption of Allness, what is experienced or

sensed is exactly what is there to be experienced.
Aware of the abstracting process and limitations of

the nervous system, recognition that one can never
know or experience all about anything.
Conditioned responses, jump to conclusions, make

snap judgments.
Bypassing - presuming that meanings are in words,
that listeners presume speakers should use words the
same way the listener uses them.
Two-valued, either-or, right-wrong, good-evil
thinking.
Conditional responses, delayed reactions.
Meanings are found in individuals and how they use

words; ask what does the speaker mean? Definitions
in dictionaries, meanings in people.
Multi-valued thinking, acknowledging shades of
grey.
Talking is prone to absolutisms, certainty, closedmindedness.
Confusion between facts and

inferences/observations, low standard for what is
treated as fact. Prone to treat inference statements as
if they were factual statements.
Assumptions are bad and should be avoided.
41
Talking recognizes limitations of abstracting

process, open-minded, tentative, acknowledges
degrees of uncertainty.
Aware of differences between facts and inferences,
sets a high bar for facts: 1) must have already
occurred; 2) must be personally
observed/experienced; 3) as close to certainty as
humanly possible.
Assumptions are inevitable and useful for
time-binding, but need to be acknowledged and
brought to awareness as much as possible.
Seeing (Visual Abstracting)

On this and the following pages, we present a variety of images, media files, and articles that illustrate different
aspects of abstracting and evaluating.
Take care to note your reactions to the images and videos seen below in your Personal journal or in the Ongoing
Course Discussion.
1. Visualizing Abstracting
Used/published with permission of the artist, Paul Dennithorne Johnston.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
41 of 68
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
42
42 of 68
43
2. Benham Disc
This 3-minute video has no sound.
3. Vision Explained
From the Charlie Rose Brain Series (Da Cunha, 2009a), Dr. Eric Kandel and the panel explain how the visual system
works, without using the word abstracting, but they summarize in detail the abstracting process that Korzybski
articulated.
4. Vision Confusion
Also from the Charlie Rose Brain Series ((Da Cunha, 2009a), these examples illustrate how our eyes-brain-visualsystem is not a perfect recorder of how we convert our "out there" sensations into "in here" sensory experiences.
In some cases, our brains have been trained to interpret certain visual stimuli in very specific, and sometimes
misleading, ways. In other cases we can recognize certain images (such as faces) with very sketchy and ambiguous
inputs.
In other words, the result of what we abstract is not the same as the object of what we are abstracting.
5. Seeing what's not there

Too often we tend to think of the abstracting process only in terms of a reducing filter, selecting and rejecting the
sensory stimuli. We forget or overlook a key part of the process - even at the neurological level, our brains have to
make inferences and guesses as they try to make sense of what we sense. As demonstrated with the Benham disc,
sometimes what the brain constructs and reports is only a rough approximation of the 'territory.'
Here is another example. Can you count the black dots in this image?
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
43 of 68
44
Dimples and Bumps

As one illustration of these visual abstracing principles, look at the following image. This image includes what might
be considered as dimples which appear to recede into the image, and bumps which appear to come out of the
image. How many dimples and how many bumps do you see?
Now rotate it 180 degrees. How many "dimples" and how many "bumps" do you see from this perspective? (It's the
same image, just turned upside-down.)
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
44 of 68
45
Dimples and Bumps in the 'Real World'

The two photographs below were grabbed from this story on CNET.com. Each depicts a satellite image as it was
shown in the article, paired with the same photo rotated 180 degrees. What differences do you see, based on the
orientation of the photo, with respect to relative height? Is the Citadel of Aleppo on a hill or in a crater? Is the
Colorado River elevated above its surrounding terrain or at the bottom of a canyon?
Citadel of Aleppo, Syria
Colorado River, United States
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
45 of 68
Contribute to Ongoing Course Discussion
46
Add to your Personal Journal
Hearing (Auditory Abstracting)

Take care to note your reactions to what you hear below in your Personal journal or in the Ongoing Course
Discussion.
1. Hearing Explained
From the Charlie Rose Brain Series (Da Cunha, 2013c), Dr. David Corey explains the hearing process. Again, he
doesn't use the term abstracting, but he describes the process that Korzybski highlighted 90 years ago.
2. A Listening Demonstration
This video illustrates that sometimes we need pointers to direct our sensing.
3. My Tinnitus
About four years ago, experiencing the quiet and stillness of a full moon and
late night in the high desert south of Santa Fe, NM, I noticed that it wasn't
quite as quiet as I expected. I was hearing something ... something like a
high-frequency buzzing in my left ear.
After extensive testing at the nearby veteran's hospital (including an MRI), it
was clear I was experiencing tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, a fairly
common affliction associated with aging. My hearing wasn't degraded in
any way, it's just that I have this continual whine in my left ear,
predominantly, which isn't really noticeable unless it's quiet.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
46 of 68
47
The medical community have a variety of theories about what causes

tinnitus, but nothing conclusive. The only real treatment is to wear
something that looks like a hearing aid that emits a masking tone (not dissimilar from noise-canceling headphones),
but even that has mixed results.
It's very strange. I hear something, but what I'm hearing isn't "out there" ... it's something that my own brain is
creating. And it's not like hearing some other audible internal process like when your stomach growls, or ... well, I
won't list other internal bodily processes that you hear on occasion. But it's a very personal reminder to me that my
brain is creating everything I experience - even when it's self-created.
Touch
3 Buckets
Consider this demonstration in terms of differentiating between what happens on non-verbal levels as compared to
what can be verbalized. What do the results of this activity suggest about verbal constructs such as absolute and
relative?
If you have access to three buckets or large bowls, water and five minutes, you can gain some insights to the relative
nature of your conditioning by doing this exercise.
Put cold water in one bucket, or bowl, placed to your left, comfortably hot water in a
bowl to your right, and lukewarm ("just right") water in a middle bowl. Place your left
hand in the cold water and your right hand in the comfortably hot water. Keep your
hands submerged in the water for about a minute. Then raise both hands and place them
in the middle bowl.
What do your senses tell you about the water temperature in the middle bowl?
You're probably sharp enough to speculate what happens. (But go ahead and do it for yourself anyway.) Your left
hand, conditioned by the cold water, tells you that the middle water is "warmer"; while your right hand, conditioned
by the comfortably hot water tells you the middle water is "cooler." You have only one stimulus the middle bowl of
water but you have two different sensory responses. Which one is "right" or "true"?
Just like the left and right hands in the experiment, we are each 'conditioned' by our past. Each of us has lived through
our own unique, no-two-the-same life experiences. To every new situation or experience, we bring our own unique
perspectives and attitudes resulting from our past experiences. We therefore cant help but experience each situation
uniquely from anyone else. If we fail to recognize this if we expect others to see or feel or smell or otherwise
experience something exactly the same as we do then we forget the lesson of the three water buckets:
This (warmer water to the left hand) is not that (cooler water to the right hand); or
This (high school experience of a student from Harwood Junior High) is not that (high school experience of a
student from Euless Junior High);
This (what I find pretty) is not that (what you find ugly).
This (what I find funny) is not that (what you find revolting).
This (what I find offensive) is not that (what you find satirical).
Etc.
Identification
In General Semantics, the behavior we label identification is normally to be avoided, or at least recognized. We talk
about it as a misevaluation in that when we identify, we confuse or mistake our impression or reaction to something as
the something itself. Put another way, we allow the stimulus to determine our response, without deliberately or
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
47 of 68
48
conditionally evaluating the stimulus (like Pavlov's dog). Examples of identification include:
Mistaking the word as the thing, or the map as the territory. With a map in hand, some people will presume the
map is correct and the land around them "should" be like the map. An extreme example would be someone
eating a menu because the pictures of the food look so tasty.
Have you ever been disappointed when you arrived at a hotel by your Deluxe accommodations?
I read a product review recently on Amazon.com recently in which an outraged reader wrote a negative review
of a plastic product made by a company called Steelmaster. This, even though the reader acknowledged the
product was described as being made of plastic.
Imagine someone who is allergic to something, like a flower. If you gave that person a very real-looking silk
flower, and the person had an allergic reaction, that would be identification.
Someone who eats an unfamiliar food, then later has a rather upsetting reaction when informed what the food
was, isn't reacting to the food. The person is reacting to the sound of the name of the food. The verbalized name
is associated (identified) with a previous or imagined terrible experience and that drives the reaction.
Can you recall or imagine other examples of identification? Feel free to share them in the Ongoing Course
Discussion.
Phantom Limb Pain

Following, however, is an example of identification that resulted in a positive and therapeutic result for someone
experiencing "phantom limb" pain. This features Dr. V.S. Ramachandran from the 2001 PBS documentary, "Secrets
of the Mind."
The Marshmallow Experiment

Dr. Walter Mischel's famous "Marshmallow Experiment" relates to his study of children's ability to delay
gratification. However, one of the secondary findings, according to Mischel, is that this identification mechanism can
be manipulated to increase, or decrease, a child's ability to delay gratification.
In this clip from The Charlie Rose Brain Series, Dr. Mischel explains the experiment and its findings. The discussion
about the experiment begins at the 2:00 point. The description of identification (he doesn't use Korzybski's term)
begins at 7:40 mark.
Maps without Territories

In his Your Most Enchanted Listener (Johnson, 1956b), Wendell Johnson explores the special kind of talking we do
with ourselves. He called this "inner speech" and observed that, "The worlds we manage to get inside our heads are
mostly worlds of words."
As we have emphasized throughout this first module, we can evaluate our language behaviors in the way we can
judge the effectiveness of a map - do our behaviors properly and appropriately reflect the 'territories' of our lived
experiences?
Johnson's observation begs the question, what happens when all we put into our heads are words? When those
words/maps have no corresponding experience/territory, what then?
The examples on this page illustrate that we are prone to certain kinds of evaluations and behaviors in the absence of
any "out there" stimuli.
1. Higher levels of abstracting
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
48 of 68
49
From the PBS Series "The Human Spark" (Lipworth & Chedd, 2010) narrated by Alan Alda featuring Daniel
Povinelli discussing differences between humans and chips to evaluate highly-abstract thoughts and concepts ... like
"heavy" and "light."
2. Inventing the unobservable

From the same documentary, Povinelli discusses one difference between humans and chimps that may not always be
productive. Can you think of some examples?
3. Attention hijacking
Daniel Goleman, in a radio interview with Diane Rehm on National Public Radio, describes one example of how we
can let the words in our heads, in partnership with our brain's older structures, create worlds of their own.
from the online transcript:
GOLEMAN: Well, here's the problem. The way the brain was designed worked very well in ancient days when
we lived in jungles, and we, you know, there was a Saber-tooth tiger and we had to have this radar for threats
called the amygdala on watch all the time because you never know when that rustle in the leaves is going to
mean you better run if you're going to survive. Today that same brain mechanism is looking for threat constantly,
and it reacts to symbolic threats as though they were real biological ones.
REHM: Give me an example.
GOLEMAN: For example, someone doesn't answer your email. You're expecting something right away and you
start obsessing about it, and in fact you start to review everything that's happened in the relationship for the last
week and what you may have done wrong that made them mad at you. In other words, you make the assumption
that there's an emotional emergency and what happens is the amygdala can hijack your attention so that you're
thinking about that instead of, you know, the work you're supposed to be doing or the person you're with,
whatever it is. But that's the way our brain is wired.
Questions to ponder:
1. Is there a difference between Goleman saying "the way the brain was designed," as opposed to him saying, "the
way the brain has evolved"?
2. What are the limitations of using the metaphor that our brains are "wired"?
3. Can you think of examples that illustrate this ability to create highly abstract evaluations can reflect both the
best, and the worst, of human thinking?
4. Do the above comments of Daniel Goleman support or refute the sentiments in the clips from This Emotional
Life that you saw on the Language(s) as Map(s) page? (re-posted below)
What is a 'weapon'? (the perils of zero-tolerance thinking)

As maps are not the same as territories, so are words
not the same as the objects, things, or life events they
represent. When we act as though the words have
priority over the things the words stand for, we often
cause problems for ourselves, or others.
In 2002, a 16-year-old high school honor student at
L.D. Bell High School in Hurst, TX, was expelled
from school for a year and sentenced to the Tarrant
County Juvenile Justice Alternative Education
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
49 of 68
50
Program.
His offense? He had helped his parents move his
grandmothers belongings on a Sunday afternoon.
The next Monday, while his pickup truck was parked
in the school parking lot, a security guard found a
bread knife in the bed of the truck.
Local newspapers reported that the school district administration insisted that the young student had been expelled for
bringing a weapon onto campus. In the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School murders in Colorado, a Texas
Education Code statute mandated a zero tolerance one-year expulsion from school. The law explicitly defined by
statute what constituted a weapon. The bread knife, the common tableware type of knife, met the statutes definition
of a weapon. Therefore, by the school districts interpretation of the state statute, the student brought a weapon
onto campus.
Not only did the student bring a weapon (by definition) onto campus, but according to one school district official,
by the very act of bringing the weapon onto campus (in the bed of his truck in the student parking lot), I do feel he
put students at risk, whether he knowingly did that or not. Of course this benign bread knife, hiding in the bed of a
pickup truck in the far reaches of the sophomore parking lot, posed a threat to campus students by definition.
Perhaps so in the verbal world of carefully scripted legislated words written on papers collected in notebooks stacked
on shelves in offices in the state capitol. But in the real world of real weapons, real threats, and real harmful
intentions, this benign bread knife posed no threat ... other than to the future education and life for a 16-year-old
honor student. Read the news account (pdf).
1. Do "zero-tolerance" laws and regulations serve a productive purpose in societies?
2. In the case of a law such as this one, is it better to leave "weapon" undefined, or to explicitly define it as
specifically and descriptively as possible?
3. Do you agree with the evaluation of the school district official that Taylor, whether he intended to or not, did
"put students at risk"?
Was Uncle Bruce a Nazi? (or, the meaning of symbols)

A second uncle of my great-grandfather became a graphic artist and moved to New York City as a young man. While
perusing my family mementos, photos, and scrapbooks one day, I found a handmade Christmas card that Uncle
Bruce mailed to my great-grandparents in 1924.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
50 of 68
51
The card features a silhouette of a family in their decorated home, seen through the grill of a frosted window.
Hanging in the window frame are several different seasonal ornaments and symbols. Featured prominently in the
center of the window, I was taken aback to see an unmistakable ... swastika!
Was Uncle Bruce a Nazi?

Well, no. After just a few minutes of online research, I discovered that, prior to Hitlers
German National Socialists party appropriating the swastika symbol for its own
branding, the symbol had been used as an expressive symbol for good fortune, good
luck, good wishes, etc., for centuries.
In fact, Rudyard Kipling featured the symbol prominently on the front covers and title
pages of several early editions of his books, at least through the 1920s. Was Kipling a
Nazi? Even before there were Nazis?
We need to remember that every symbol every word, sign, icon, code, etc. was created by humans. Just as there
is no, to my knowledge, piece of music or art that spontaneously emanated with inherent (and inerrant) meaning,
there exists no symbol with inherent and inerrant meaning. As the American pragmatist philosopher Charles
Sanders Peirce is attributed with saying: You don't get meaning; you respond with meaning.
While traveling in India in 2007, I learned there is a neighborhood
known as Swastik in the ancient city of Ahmedabad, home of
Gandhis Ashram. From a professor at a city university I heard a story
that the swastika symbol, according to Indian tradition of more than
three thousand years, depicted the life-sustaining image of a water
wheel.
From my standpoint, Im not particularly interested in where or when
the symbol originated. I find it important to remember that the symbol
we recognize and call a swastika can convey or, perhaps more
appropriately, can evoke different meanings among different people
in different contexts. The symbol itself carries no inherent meaning or
sense of goodness or evil or luck.
As George Carlin said of dirty words ... theyre innocent! Its the people who use the words or symbols that you
have to worry about (Carlin, 1990).
1. Can you think of any examples of words or symbols whose meanings have evolved over the years?
2. Can you predict what current word or symbol usages might change over the next 20-30 years?
Contribute to Ongoing Course Discussion
Add to your Personal Journal
Driving with an old map

In 1999, I drove from Texas to Chicago. While passing
through St. Louis, I called some friends to meet for
lunch. They gave me directions to a particular
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
51 of 68
52
expressway intersection. I looked at my road atlas

the atlas I had owned for 20 years, the one that Id used
to drive all over the western United States.
The atlas of highway maps that had all kinds of notes
and mileage and phone numbers scribbled on it.
The one I would never even think about leaving at
home when I traveled.
But there was a problem. The expressway intersection
to which I had been directed by my friends wasnt on
my map. One of the expressways did not exist when my
map was published it had only recently been
constructed. My map was out of date. The freeway
system (or territory) had changed, but my map hadnt. I
needed a new map if I wanted to meet my friends for lunch.
Too often we rely on static, outdated maps that dont fit the current situations, circumstances, conditions, or
ever-changing territories of our daily lives.
1. Do any of your 'maps' need to be updated?
2. What kinds of attitudinal maps have you changed over the years?
Module Review and Reflection

Dare to be naive (Fuller, 1975, p. xix).
Foundational Premises of General Semantics
Any language, to be most effective, must incorporate what we know (from scientific investigations) about the world
around us and what we understand about ourselves. Therefore it's important to discern the world "out there" (beyond
our skin) from the world "in here" (within our skin).
Our awareness of 'what goes on' outside of our skin is not the same as 'what goes on.'
Our ability to experience the world is relative, unique to our own individual sensing capabilities (or sensory
acuities), past experiences, and expectations.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
52 of 68
53
Every person abstracts and evaluates their life experiences differently, based on their prior experiences,
genetics, their their environments.
Our environment, the world around us (including ourselves), is ever-changing. We never experience the 'same'
person, event, situation, or thing more than once.
We have limits (due to evolution, genes, physics, etc.) as to what we can experience.
We can never experience all of what's to experience. We abstract only a portion of what we can sense. We
experience incompletely on all levels (macroscopic, microscopic, sub-microscopic, cosmologic, etc.).
We sense and experience on silent, non-verbal levels, from which we speak, think, infer, etc.
What Happens What I Sense How I Respond What It Means
These facts lead to the inevitable conclusion that, for our language behaviors to be most effective, they must
reflect our knowledge about ourselves and our world. We must apply all of our knowledge to our language
habits, evaluations, and how we view ourselves in our world.
Scientific Orientation
I want to emphasize that the the system or methods of General Systems, including the language habits and behaviors
which are espoused in this course, are not random tips, hints, secrets, or common sense aphorisms. These methods
and recommendations flow from the premises and logical consequences that are consistent and integrated throughout
General Semantics. Again, we want to reiterate that GS begins with a scientific orientation.
The application of a scientific approach or method has proven to be the most effective problem-solving process yet
created by humans. Therefore it makes sense to apply a scientific approach in our evaluations and judgments about
ourselves and our experiences.
This means that we should continually test our assumptions and beliefs; continually gather new facts, data, and
observations; revise our beliefs and assumptions as appropriate; and then hold our conclusions and judgments
tentatively, in accordance with our own experiences, pending the possibility that new data, new experiences, might
necessitate new theories or new assumptions to be tested.
Unstated or hidden assumptions of which we are unaware can often drive our behaviors and attitudes. One of the
oft-repeated "conventional wisdoms" we hear is the admonition to avoid making assumptions. The joke goes, "You
know what happens when you assume, right? You make an ASS out of U and ME!"
This aphorism is problematic from my GS perspective, in addition to just being lame humor. Making assumptions and
inferences is not only unavoidable, but a vitally-important human capability. Some of our most intelligent and
productive human behaviors depend on our ability to intuit, correlate with past experiences, match patterns, and
dozens of other activities akin to "making assumptions." In short, we cannot NOT make assumptions.
The key takeaway is here that rather than trying to avoid assumptions, we need to make a special effort to recognize
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
53 of 68
54
and become more aware of our assumptions, inferences, beliefs, etc. An activity to highlight how much we
unknowingly infer about simple situations is the uncritical inference test.
GS as an Overlay to Evaluating
General Semantics itself can be considered a special type of map.
As the man-made invention of latitude and longitude enabled predictable navigation across (and above) the earth
possible, you can think of GS as providing an overlay to guide one's evaluating processes.
Map of Latitudes and Longitudes provided by World Atlas with permission.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
54 of 68
55
In other words, you can apply the GS principles to:

1. making better verbal maps;
2. evaluating the maps that others make;
3. evaluating your own evaluations.
Neil Postman on Korzybski

Neil Postman held the position of Paulette Goddard Professor of Media Ecology at New York University's Steinhardt
School of Education, and former Chair of the Department of Culture and Communication. He authored 17 books on
education and culture, such as Amusing Ourselves to Death, Teaching as a Subversive Activity with co-author
Charles Weingartener, and Conscientious Objections: Stirring up trouble about language, technology, and
education.
Less well-known about Postman is that he edited the quarterly journal, ETC: A Review of General Semantics, from
1976-1986. During his tenure, I think it's fair to say that his views about Korzybski changed. From an initial
ambivalence about Korzybski, Postman came to appreciate and even admire him by the time he wrote the
following.
Like psychoanalysis, general semantics lends itself, too easily, to the predilections
and idiosyncrasies of its practitioners, and there has been no firm consensus about
the path it should follow. Moreover, general semantics is not easy to fit into
conventional academic territories. It is simply too broad in its scope to be
contained within a single discipline, for it is part philosophy, part epistemology,
part psychology, part linguistics, and several other "parts," all of which when
taken together comprise the university curriculum. In a world of specialists,
general semantics appears too diffuse, too divergent, too holistic to suit the
modern style of academic thought. In a word, to study and teach it is not likely to
further one's chances for tenure.
And yet, although [Alfred] Korzybski's name is relatively obscure at the moment,
his impact has been felt. Some of his terminology and many of his insights have
found their way into semiotics, psycholinguistics, educational psychology, media
studies, and, of course, semantics. Many people in the nonacademic world - in
business, government, social work, psychotherapy - employ Korzybski's methods
with great effectiveness and freely acknowledge their debt to him. But beyond all this, it is indisputable that
together with such figures as C .S. Pierce, William James, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and I.A. Richards, Alfred
Korzybski helped to heighten our awareness of the role of language in making us what we are and in preventing
us from becoming what we ought to be but are not yet (Postman, 1988, p. 146).
Steve Stockdale
This 6-minute excerpt is from a 56-minute lecture I presented at the University of Nevada Las Vegas in 2004
(Stockdale, 2004). Note: adjust your volume lower, this recording is pretty loud.
General Semantics
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
55 of 68
56
Optional Activities
Depending on your interests and curiosities, you may find some of these additional
readings, videos, and activities worth investigating.
Media
Difference between Facts and Inteferences
This 27-minute lecture is one of six episodes of "Talking Sense," a series presented by Northwestern University
professor Irving J. Lee in 1952 on Chicago television. This lecture provides wonderful insight into Lee's high
standard for differentiating facts from inferences with several excellent examples.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
56 of 68
57
2006 General Semantics Course Review

An edited 25-minute Powerpoint presentation by Steve Stockdale to review the Fall 2006 General Semantics course
at Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth, Texas. The video summary, in three parts, was necessary after the
final class of the semester was canceled due to inclement weather.
General Semantics Overview

A General Semantics Perspective
This 9-minute narrated Powerpoint presentation by Steve Stockdale is excerpted from the 50-minute presentation,
"Lay Off My Persuade Shoes (external link)," to the American Advertising Federation chapter in Amarillo, Texas, in
2009. The script follows the video.
Script
Lets look at the author of Perspective #2, Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski was born in 1879 to a land-owning family in
Poland. He was raised by servants from four different countries who spoke four different languages. So he grew up
with a working knowledge of Polish, Russian, German, and French. In this type of multi-lingual environment, it came
naturally to Korzybski to disassociate the word, or symbol, from the thing that the word or symbol represented.
As a student he studied engineering, mathematics, and chemistry. When the first World War erupted in 1914, he was
enlisted into the Russian cavalry. Not only was he severely wounded, but he witnessed first hand the devastating
effects of all the new weapons of war that debuted during this war to end all wars airplanes, armored tanks,
rapid-fire machine guns, poison gas.
He was sent to North America toward the end of the war when he could no longer serve on the battlefield. He
supported artillery testing in Canada before transferring to the U.S. where he traveled the country speaking to groups
and selling war bonds. After the war, he remained in the U.S. and married a woman from Chicago.
He was haunted by his experiences during the war. As an engineer, he pondered this question: How is it that humans
have progressed so far and so rapidly in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences, yet we still fight wars and kill
each other?
He devoted the rest of his life obsessed with this problem. In 1921 he published his first book, Manhood of Humanity.
Then in 1933, he wrote what became the source book for the field of study we know as General Semantics .
Science and Sanity.
Now, I realize that the focus of this presentation is not General Semantics.
But since Ive taught the subject for the past four years to mass
communications practitioners Id like to say a few words about it because it
does represent a perspective that I think is important.
The definition Ive come to use with my university students is this: General
semantics deals with the study of how we perceive, construct, evaluate and
then express our life experiences through our language-behaviors.
Note that Ive connected language and behavior with a hyphen and refer to
language-behavior. I think most people usually talk in terms of language
AND behavior as though the two are separated and not associated. But in General Semantics we consider language as
something that humans, something that you and I as individuals, do its a part of our behavior just as much as our
breathing, our eating, our laughing, our crying, our working or playing.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
57 of 68
58
We do language. And because our language-behaviors are so integral to human cooperation, as well as human
conflict, Korzybski spent his life observing, understanding, and documenting this process of perceiving, constructing,
evaluating and then responding.
He developed a model or a diagram for visualizing and understanding what he referred to as the abstracting process.
But as a way to introduce that, I want to first show you a similar model that you might already be familiar with.
I learned this as the Information Theory model. Its simply a pyramid divided into four sections:
The largest section on the bottom is labeled data. Above that is a smaller section labeled information. Then a
smaller section labeled knowledge, and then a top section labeled wisdom. (Sometimes the wisdom section
isnt included, and other labels could be substituted for it.)
But the point of the model is to show the relationships that: from much data, we derive (or to use Korzybskis term,
we abstract) usable information, from which we can further abstract what we call knowledge and then wisdom.
So its as though we filter out the data that doesnt concern us, we keep and use what does, and from that we construct
information that we find meaningful. Then we further filter what weve labeled as information that results in what
we label knowledge.
Heres a quick example. Take everything that Im saying as a part of this presentation, as well as every slide and
media clip. Every word and every image can be considered a single item of data. As you observe and listen, some of
the words and images will amount to nothing more than noise but some of it (I hope, a lot of it) will register with
you as something thats relevant or meaningful as information. And when its over, perhaps youll say that you
learned something and feel more knowledgeable.
Now lets look at Korzybskis model as similar to this Information model, after weve turned it upside down. Each
level compares generally to its corresponding level in the Information model.
Remember that this GS model is diagramming or mapping the process of
how we perceive, construct, evaluate, and respond to our life experiences.
The first step in this process of experiencing is that well, theres some
kind of an experience. Something Happens. Its important for us to realize
and be aware that, as humans with finite sensory abilities, we cannot know
or experience everything that happens. There are limits to what we can see,
hear, smell, touch and taste. So theres a lot more that happens theres a
lot a more DATA than what we can experience.
Secondly, through our senses we interact with our environment. Within the
limits of our sensing capabilities, we detect whatever is happening. But its important to remember that not only can
we not sense everything, but what we do sense is to some degree unique to our individual sensory abilities. We each
have a different sensory acuity when it comes to our vision, our hearing, our taste discrimination.
And its also important to remember that what we sense is not what happened our sense experience is an
imperfect abstraction of what happened thats been filtered, you could say, or constructed by the nervous system.
The next part of the process, labeled as evaluation, represents the first verbal level in which we can describe, or
cognitively recognize, what our senses tell us about the experience. But again, what we can say or think or write
about the experience, is NOT the experience itself.
The fourth level then, after the descriptive phase, is labeled as meaning what the experience means is something
more or different than just how we describe it.
So to summarize this process of abstracting:
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
58 of 68
59
What we can sense is NOT what actually happens.

What we can describe is something other than what we actually sense.
What an experience means is something more than just what we can describe. What an experience means is the
result of this filtering, or abstracting process in which each stage represents a different activity of a
physiological process.
As an example, lets consider again whats going on in this room. The goings on or things that are happening are
experienced by each one of you as different individuals. Each of you sees and hears what goes on slightly differently
than anyone else.In the diagram, you see four individuals experiencing the same happening. But we start to see
differences in their individual abstracting processes at the evaluation stage, or the third level of describing what they
experienced. Lets say they were each asked to write a simple report of what happened during todays meeting.
Jane may give a detailed summation of each part of the meeting, as if she were preparing the minutes. John might
comment only on the business that was conducted and simply state there followed a program. Elvis might describe
what he selected from the lunch buffet in detail, skip over the business matters, and summarize points from my
presentation. So each individuals report might be colored or flavored differently.
But then in the final step of the process we can really see the differences between each our hypothetical observers.
What they individually got out of this meeting, or what the meeting meant to them, varies a great deal.
In this case, You enjoyed it, without any reaction one way or the other. Jane, however, loved it. John didnt really
care for it and lost interest, but while his thoughts drifted to a problem he has at work he had a brainstorm he cant
wait to go back to implement. Elvis was left wondering about how any of this related to shoes.
So thats a basic introduction to the abstracting process thats central to the GS understanding of how we perceive,
construct, evaluate, and respond to our life experiences.
Historical Note on the Structural Differential
A mash-up by Steve Stockdale that adds images to audio excerpts from Alfred Korzybski's recorded explanation of
how he was inspired to create the structural differential as a means to visually represent the abstracting process.
On the "Power of Words"
Do Word Actually Possess Power? Four short video clips that illustrate different considerations of the question.
The Tyranny of Categories
During their reporting on Hurricane Ike in 2008, the Weather Channel's on-air presenters and remote reporters faced a
peculiar linguistic dilemma.
They, and their viewing audience, have been trained to communicate about the power of a hurricane based on a
system of five categories. The sole, and arbitrary, basis of the five categories is sustained wind velocity.
Watch what happens when Ike's sustained winds persist at the 110 miles/hour (177 km/hour) reading, which happens
to be the arbitrary dividing line between Category 2 and Category 3.
Does it really matter to the audience whether or not the storm is Category 2 or 3?
Does it matter to the hurricane?
Can you see how these human-created categories (or labels, genres, classes, etc.) can sometimes take on a life
of their own in terms of how humans react to them?
You may want to turn your volume down for this one, it's pretty loud.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
59 of 68
60
Readings
Chapter 1: General Semantics, from Awareness and Action (page) The opening chapter from Mary Lahman's
textbook provides a different overview of GS.
Chapter 2: Abstraction, from Awareness and Action (page) The second chapter from Mary Lahman's
textbook with a different approach to describing the abstracting process.
ETC: Across the Curriculum (PDF download, 1.3mb) A PDF download of the 2004 special issue of ETC: A
Review of General Semantics with 40 articles from the archives that cover the breadth of GS applications
Across the Curriculum. Available courtesy of the Institute of General Semantics.
ETC: General Semantics in India (PDF download, 11 mb) A PDF download of the 2008 special issue of
ETC: A Review of General Semantics devoted to GS in India following the 2007 visit of Andrea Johnson and
Steve Stockdale. Available courtesy of the Institute of General Semantics.
The Role of Language in the Perceptual Processes (page) Korzybski's last paper, written in 1949/50. He died
on March 1, 1950, as he was finalizing the paper for presentation at Robert Blake's Clinical Psychology
Symposium on Perception at the University of Texas. The paper was later published in Perception: An
Approach to Personality, in 1951. This version was edited by Steve Stockdale for viewing on a web page.
Available courtesy of the Institute of General Semantics.
Uncritical Inference Tests

These two uncriticial inference tests are based on the work of William V. Haney. Carefully read the brief story which
follows. Assume that all of the information presented in the story is definitely accurate and true. Next, read the
statements following the story. If the statement is definitely true based on the information presented in the story, check
the TRUE column. If the statement is definitely false based on the information presented, mark it FALSE. If the true
or false answer cannot be determined based on the information presented, check NOT SURE. You may refer back to
the story whenever you wish. But you must answer the questions in order, and once answered, you can't go back and
make changes.
Stephanie's CD (by Steve Stockdale)
Stephanie and her friend walked into the music store after lunch. Stephanie wanted to buy the new CD by
the group, "No Girls Allowed". There was only one other person in the store when Stephanie and her friend
arrived. Stephanie asked, "How much is this CD?" Stephanie's friend said, "Here, let me see it. I don't think
he heard you. This tag says it costs $11.99."
TRUE FALSE NOT SURE

1. Stephanie wanted to buy a CD.
2. Stephanie and her friend ate lunch together.
3. Stephanie owns a CD player.
4. There was only one boy in the store.
5. Two girls walked into a music store.
6. There are no boys in the "No Girls Allowed" group.
7. Stephanie and her friend are teenagers.
8. The store's owner didn't hear Stephanie because the music was too loud.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
60 of 68
61
9. Stephanie had enough money to buy the CD.

10. The "No Girls Allowed" CD cost $11.99.
11. The owner of the store is a woman.
12. Stephanie wanted to buy a CD as a gift.
13. One of the CDs costs $11.99.
14. There were two boys in the store.
15. The clerk was hard of hearing.
Hospital Grand Opening (by Andrea Johnson)
It was the grand opening for Saudi Arabia-Mayo Hospital when AJ Jones entered the administration office.
Jones walked from desk to desk pleasantly greeting the new employees. One person sat at her desk with
her back turned to Jones. She didnt acknowledge the greeting; in fact she kept her eyes cast downward.
Jones looked at her desk nameplate, which said Raheena, frowned and walked briskly out of the office.
TRUE FALSE NOT SURE

1. Jones is the new hospital administrator.
2. Raheena doesn't speak English.
3. The new hospital is connected to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.
4. Jones greeted new employees as he walked from desk to desk.
5. AJ Jones entered the administrator's office.
6. It was the grand opening for Saudi Arabia-Mayo Hospital.
7. Raheena hates Americans.
8. Raheena is shy and a little hard of hearing.
9. Raheena did not acknowledge Jones's greeting.
10. Jones made an inference about the woman who did not acknowledge his greeting.
Pretty easy? Did you notice how you projected information into these simple stories that wasn't stated as 'fact'? In
every encounter or situation we face, we bring our past experiences to it in the form of unstated, usually unconscious
assumptions and premises. We draw inferences based on these assumptions about the situation as if they were fact.
Many times we cause problems for ourselves and others when we confuse our inferences with the 'facts', and when
we don't recognize our projections as projections.
Review and Reflection

Now that you've been introduced to general semantics, participate in this Discussion topic. Provide a short answer (no
more than 2 sentences) to these questions.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
61 of 68
1.
2.
3.
4.
62
What is the most surprising or unexpected thing you learned this week?
What is the most significant or meaningful thing you will take away from this week's material?
What material or information are you skeptical about or just don't accept as valid?
After you post this reply, read the responses from your classmates and reply to at least two of them - one that
you like or agree with, and another that you disagree with. Each comment should be limited to one complete
sentence.
Module 1 Quiz
1. Which of the following statements is most relevant to General Semantics?
a.
b.
c.
d.
The territory is always a figment of the map maker's imagination.

A map is not required to be structurally similar to the territory.
A map cannot depict all of the territory.
A map can be an exact replica of the territory.
2. Korzybski was inspired by his experiences in which war?

a.
b.
c.
d.
Spanish Civil War

Spanish American War
World War II
World War I
3. Which statement best reflects the notion of abstracting as Korzybski used the term?
a.
b.
c.
d.
What we see is not all of what's there to be seen.

Our thoughts, words, and deeds are always different from what we intend.
Everything is abstract, nothing is concrete.
The world is an illusion; nothing is real, everything is imagined.
4. Which statement supports the contention that there is a difference between the "out there" world and our "in here"
experience of that world?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
All of these statements support the contention.

"The spooky truth is that your brain constructs reality, visual and otherwise."
"Your perception of the world is ... really a fabrication of your model of the world."
"The eye is not a camera."
There is not a "one-to-one relationship between the outside world and my inner mental experiences."
5. Which statement comes closest to expressing the gist of Korzybski's theory of time-binding?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Unbounded by time constraints, animals will eventually become symbol manipulators.

Time is a man-made construct, but we have become bound by it.
Because of our symbol manipulating capabilities, humans can build on the knowledge of previous generations.
Time heals all wounds, so eventually time will address all human problems and conflicts.
6. Which of the following statements is most correct regarding the scientific method?
a. Even if your test results support your hypothesis, that doesn't mean the hypothesis is true or proved.
b. If your test results support the hypothesis, by definition the hypothesis is true and becomes a fact.
c. Even if your test results don't support your hypothesis, you might still be able to design a better test that would
support what you're trying to prove.
d. The most important aspect of an experiment is to believe strongly in your hypothesis.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
62 of 68
63
7. The significance of recognizing that we live in a "process-oriented universe" is best stated by which of the
following statements?
a. Everything is changing all the time, even if we cannot see the changes, therefore we should hold our
evaluations tentatively.
b. The universe is predictable once humans use time-binding to discover all of the true processes that underlie the
physical and metaphysical worlds we live in.
c. Everything is changing all the time, even if we cannot see the changes, therefore we should cling tightly to our
beliefs and never doubt our certainty.
d. Everything we experience happens according to a pre-defined process, therefore there is no such thing as "free
will."
8. If you and I observe the same stimulus at the same time, what might account for any differences we report in our
descriptions of the stimulus?
a.
b.
c.
d.
We're observing from different perspectives.

We may have different sensory capabilities or acuities.
Our prior experiences may lead to different observations and evaluations.
All of these statements are correct.
9. The extensional device of indexing uses ______________ to remind us that _______________.

a.
b.
c.
d.
subscripts or index numbers; individuals within a group, class, or label are each unique
quote marks; we should be careful not to judge others prematurely
quote marks; we should recognize that every label lies a little
subscripts or index numbers; individuals within a group, class, or label are the same and indistinguishable from
each other.
10. The extensional device of dating uses ______________ to remind us that _______________.
a. etc.; it's okay to change our minds over time
b. dating: regardless of when their life experiences happen, time-binders will maintain unchanging beliefs and
evaluations
c. dates; we should strive to not change
d. dates; the same person or thing will change over time
11. The extensional device of etc. uses ______________ to remind us that _______________.
a.
b.
c.
d.
etc.; there is always more that could be said or experienced.

subscripts; there are always other members of the group of category to consider.
quote marks; we should be careful about ending a statement prematurely.
dates; it's okay to change your mind at a later time.
12. Why might you want to avoid using absolutisms?

a. By definition, absolutisms are absolutely true in all cases so they should NOT be avoided.
b. If you want your language to reflect the tentativeness and uncertainties that are inevitable aspects of your
evaluating processes.
c. We should always avoid using words that end in "ism".
d. Because the fewer words said, the better.
13. _____________ serves as the primary tool that enables _______________.
a. E-prime; humans to avoid absolutisms
b. Time-binding; humans to continually re-invent the wheel
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
63 of 68
64
c. Language; time-binding
d. Chemistry-binding; humans to move through space
14. Ricardo was supposed to pick up Suri at 8:00pm for dinner. By 8:20pm, the normally punctual Ricardo had still
not arrived. Rather than become overly worried, angry, or upset with Ricardo's tardiness, Suri patiently waits. From a
GS-perspective, Suri's evaluative response can be best attributed to her:
a.
b.
c.
d.
consciousness of abstracting and limiting her inferences.

passive personality and not wanting to let Ricardo know she was worried.
date-timing her reaction and inferring that it's not unusual for dates to be late.
ambivalence about Ricardo because she didn't care much for artists.
15. Recognizing that we each individually evaluate events from our own unique perspectives and according to our
own personal histories and sensory abilities, can be referred to as:
a.
b.
c.
d.
to-me-ness
emotional intelligence
individual truthiness
theory of intensional relativity
16. We should avoid making assumptions, inferences, or judgments, because we all know what happens when you
ASSUME anything.
a. True
b. False
17. "You're either with us or against us" is an example of a multi-valued orientation.
a. True
b. False
18. Alfred Korzybski was a communist because he fought for Russia in World War I.
a. True
b. False
19. A primary objective of GS is that you should strive for absolute precision in your language behavior and always
use the right word according to the most recent dictionary.
a. True
b. False
20. The best way to practice the principles of General Semantics is to concentrate on spotting errors in other people's
evaluations and language behavior.
a. True
b. False
Module 1 References
Bois, J.S. (1957). Explorations in awareness. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Bois, J.S. (1966). The art of awareness. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers,
Dubuque, Iowa.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
64 of 68
65
Bontrager, O.R. (1957). Notes by Kenneth Johnson from the 1957 summer seminarworkshop. Institute of General Semantics Archives, Fort Worth, TX.
Bourland, D.D. (2004). To be or not to be: E-prime as a tool for critical thinking. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 61-4, 546-557.
Carlin, G. (1990). Doin' It Again. HBO Comedy.
Carroll, J.B., ed. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA.
Chase, S. (1938). The tyranny of words. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009a) Episode 1 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Great Mysteries of the Brain. In
Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY.
Charlie Rose LLC.
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009b) Episode 2 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: Visual Perception. In Rose, C. ( Host
and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose
LLC.
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2013c) Episode 27 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Acting Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host
and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose
LLC.
Fairchild, D. (1938). The world was my garden: Travels of a plant explorer. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Fuller, B. (1975). Synergetics. New York: MacMillan.
Haney, W.V. (1973). Communication and organizational behavior: Text and cases (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc.
Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2004). On intelligence: How a new understanding of the brain will lead to the creation
of truly intelligent machines. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Hayakawa, S.I. (1949). Language in thought and action (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Hayakawa, S.I. (1963). Symbol, status and personality. New York: Harvest/HBJ.
J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2005) Consciousness: a neurobiological approach (Christof
Koch). Available from http://jromc.org
J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2009) Why cant a computer be more like a brain? (Jeff
Hawkins). Available from http://jromc.org
Johnson, K.G., Senatore, J.J., Liebig, M.C., and Minor, G. (1974). Nothing never happens. Beverly Hills, CA:
Glencoe Press.
Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Johnson, W. (1956a). General Semantics course lecture, recording of radio broadcast by WSUI, Iowa City, IA.
Institute of General Semantics Archives, Fort Worth, TX.
Johnson, W. (1956b). Your most enchanted listener. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Incorporated.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
65 of 68
66
Koch, C. (2004). The Quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Englewood, CO: Roberts & Company
Publishers.
Kodish, B.I. (2011). Korzybski: A biography. Pasadena, CA: Extensional Publishing.
Kodish, S.P. & Kodish, B.I. (2001). Drive yourself sane: Using the uncommon sense of general semantics (2nd ed.).
Pasadena, CA: Extensional Publishing.
Korzybski, A. (1990a). Fate and freedom. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (p. 13
). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Korzybski, A. (1990b). The role of language in the perceptual processes. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski
Collected Writings 1920-1950 (pp. 685-720). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Korzybski, A. (1990c). What I believe. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (pp.
645-662). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Korzybski, A. (1990a). Article Title. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (pp. ).
Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Korzybski, A. (1993). Manhood of humanity (2nd ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th
ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Korzybski, A. (2002). General semantics seminar 1937: Olivet College lectures (3rd ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Institute of
General Semantics.
Lee, I.J. (1941). Language habits in human affairs. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Lee, I.J. (1952). Talking Sense video series. Purchased from Institute of General Semantics.
Lee, I.J. (1949). The language of wisdom and folly. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Lee, I.J. (1958). On language and general semantics. General Semantics Bulletin, 22-23, 59-60.
Lipworth, J. & Chedd, G. (Executive Producers). (2010). The human spark. Thirteen/WNET, New York.
MacNeal, E. (1994). Mathsemantics: Making numbers talk sense. New York: Viking.
Macknik, S.L. & Martinez-Conde, S. (2010). Sleights of Mind: What the neuroscience of magic reveals about our
everyday deceptions. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Maslow, A.H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Meyers, R. (1957). Notes by Kenneth Johnson from the 1957 summer seminar-workshop. Institute of General
Semantics Archives, Fort Worth, TX.
Murray, E. (1944). The speech personality. Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott Company.
Postman, N. (1988). Conscientious objections: Stirring up trouble about language, technology, and education. New
York: Vintage Books.
Potter, R.R. (1974). Making sense: Exploring semantics and critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Globe Book
Company, Inc.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
66 of 68
67
Ramachandran, V.S. (2004). A brief tour of human consciousness: From impostor poodles to purple numbers. New
York: Pi Press.
Read, A.W. (2004). Language revision by deletion of absolutisms. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 61-4,
456-462.
Read, C.S. (1999). Video interviewed available from the Sensory Awareness Foundation.
Russell, C.G. (2004). Culture, language and behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Institute of General Semantics.
Stockdale, S.E. (2009). Here's something about general semantics: A primer for making sense of your world. Santa
Fe, NM: Steve Stockdale.
Stockdale, S.E. (2004, October). An overview of general semantics. Retrieved November, 2013, from
Sweet, J. & Gilbert, D. (Writers). (2010). In J. Sweet, S. Streeter and A. Bloom's This emotional life. PBS NOVA.
Weinberg, H.L. (1991). Levels of knowing and existence (3rd printing). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General
Semantics.
More References and Resources

The following references and resources provide more opportunies to learn about General Semantics beyond this
course.
Institute of General Semantics

Website
Lecture Notes on Teaching General Semanticsby Lance Strate, Ph.D.
A Continuing Education Guide to Teaching General Semanticsby Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D.
Awareness & Action: A General Semantics Approach to Effective Language Behaviorby Mary P.
Lahman, Ph.D.
Twelve General Semantics Lessons for Middle School Studentsby Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D.
Cognitive Evaluation and Communication: A K-12 Experiential Communication Curriculum Built upon
General Semantic Conceptsby Frank Gastner, et al.
GS Seminar-Workshop Participant Notebook
Module Completion Checklist

Sorry, clicking in the box still doesn't do anything it's just an image.
1. Did you complete the Point of View Survey? (20 points)
2. Did you complete all the assigned readings?
3. Did you view all of the videos?
4. Did you take a look at any of the Optional Activities?
5. Did you contribute to your Personal Journal and the Ongoing Course Discussion?
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
67 of 68
68
6. Did you contribute to the Abstracting-Evaluating Discussion assignment? (30 points)

7. Did you contribute to the Module Discussion assignment? (50 points)
8. Did you successfully complete the Module Quiz? (50 points)
Wunderbar!
You're ready to move on to Module 2: Awareness and Action - Allness.
2/20/14, 6:28 AM
68 of 68
69
Map for Module 2: Awareness and Action - Allness

In Module 1 we addressed the question, "What is General
Semantics?" During the next two weeks, we will focus on
applying what we learned about GS to produce more
effective language behaviors.
Mary will lead this module based on excerpts from her PDF
textbook, Awareness and Action. These excerpts can be read
within the Canvas pages so it's not necessary to download
the PDF textbook. Because minor changes have been made
to accommodate the online format and module numbering,
we prefer and recommend you read the pages from within
Canvas to complete the assignments. But you are welcome
to download and read the complete Awareness and Action
textbook.
Introduction
As a communication studies professor who is also a parent, I
often advise my children, Change your perception and
you change your world. As a researcher with interests in
general semantics and appreciative inquirya method
for organizational change that involves stakeholders
focusing on what is going wellI recently updated my
advice to include, Words create worlds so choose wisely (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2010, p. 52). Regardless of
the contexts in which we find ourselves, we might communicate more effectively if we explore our daily language
behavior. A general semantics methodology provides the opportunity to do so.
I first learned about general semantics in a 1982 Language and Thought class taught by Paul Keller at Manchester.
Professor Keller studied general semantics with Irving Lee at Northwestern University. Since 1996, I have taught a
number of courses using books by William Haney (1992), Susan and Bruce Kodish (2001), and Steve Stockdale
(2009a). I credit these authors for the various sections of Awareness and Action:
1. Stockdale (2009a) outlined a structured system of formulations to explain general semantics, and I address
two of its premises, scientific orientation and time-binding, in Chapter 1, leaving abstraction, nonverbal
awareness, and verbal awareness for Chapter 2.
2. Kodish and Kodish (2001) operationalized nonverbal awareness with student-friendly exercises that I include
in Chapter 2.
3. Haney (1992) explained contributing factors and correctives for patterns of miscommunication that occur
when we are not aware of the abstraction process. I introduce several of these patterns in the following four
chapters: Allness, InferenceObservation Confusion, Bypassing, and Differentiation Failures. For each
pattern, I include case studies developed by former students.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
1 of 22
70
In short, Awareness and Action shows how general semantics can be used as a systematic inquiry into language
behavior, followed by an application of these formulations. I use case studies to engage readers in all four phases
of Kolbs (1984) experiential learning cycle:
1. When discussing the abstractions of characters in the cases, we work with accommodative knowledge: the
transformation of the intuitive aspects of experience through active experimentation."
2. When applying the contributing factors needed to address characters faulty language behaviors, we develop
divergent knowledge: the transformation of the intuitive aspects of the experience through reflection.
3. When working together to evaluate how one corrective is better than another for each character in a case, we
acquire assimilative knowledge by deciding on the best solution.
4. When role playing a case with appropriate correctives for each character to address faulty language
behaviors, we create convergent knowledge by presenting an implementation plan (as cited in Kreber, 2001,
p. 224).
General semantics is not just a theory but a practical approach to delay the way that humans automatically respond: it
is something we must do. The case studies approach ensures that we practice applying the formulations, taking action
with our newfound awareness of faulty language behavior.

After successfully completing this module, students will be able to:
Identify the GS premise that explains allness.
Explain the contributing factors to allness.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
2 of 22
71
Use the structural differential to explain why we neglect to distinguish between a group and individuals within
the group.
Identify the correctives needed to combat allness.
Explain why we are closed to new and different ideas as we grow older.
Module Activities
This week we will learn how the GS principle of allness applies to our language behaviors. You will:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Read the excerpt from Chapter 3: Allness of Awareness and Action.

Analyze character behaviors from a sample Case Study (Case 3.1).
Participate in a Discussion related to allness.
Choose one other Case Study for further analysis (from Cases 3.2, 3.3, or 3.4).
Complete the module quiz.
ALLNESS
Discovering It is not Possible to Know Everything about Anything
Allness occurs because we forget that we are abstracting, overlooking the premise that "a map cannot cover all of its
territory, so any map is only a part of the territory." Haney (1992) advocated for an awareness of abstraction to
combat allness.
Use the following questions to guide your reading of the material below (excerpted from Chapter 3 of Allness in
Awareness and Action, pp. 21-25).
1. Compare and contrast allness and abstraction.
2. Why don't we remember that others abstract different details than we do?
3. Use the structural differential to explain how it is possible to neglect to to distinguish between a group and
individuals within the group.
4. Why are we closed to new and different ideas as we grow older?
In Korzybski's view, knowledge and uncertainty belong together . . . to live with both required
couragethe courage to act despite imperfect knowledge and the courage to self-reflect and self-correct
when needed, i.e., with frequency. Bruce Kodish (2011, p. 8)
DEFINITION: ALLNESS
When prompted to think of a know-it-all, we often envision other people and rarely see how our language may
appear indisputable to others. We might agree with Haney (1992) that is it impossible to know and say everything
about something or that what we say includes all that is important about the subject (p. 321), but our language
choices often include words of certainty, tones of finality, and absolutes (e.g., always, never, all, and none).
Haney (1992) named this pattern of miscommunication allness, defining it as follows: The attitude of those who are
unaware that they are abstracting and thus assume that what they say or know is absolute, definitive, complete,
certain, all-inclusive, positive, finaland all there is (or at least all there is that is important or relevant) to say or
know about the subject (p. 323).
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
3 of 22
72
Even though we are now aware of how we inescapably abstract, reducing people, places, and things to
one-word descriptors, how many of us will remember to introduce family members with more than a job
title? Will we distinguish colleagues from their political and religious affiliations? We easily forget that we
might be focusing-on-some-details-while-neglecting-the-rest, thus making it easier to act as if what we
know is all that we really need to know (Haney, 1992, p. 323).
Allness occurs because we forget the general semantics premise that a map cannot cover all of its territory, so any
map is only part of the territory. Korzybski (2000) demonstrated this principle by asking students to tell
everything or all about the object [an apple] in question (p. 471). When he had collected all of the students
responses and exhausted their patience, he would cut the apple into pieces, eventually using a magnifying glass to
demonstrate that they did not tell us all about the apple (p. 472). For instance, how many of us know that when
cutting an apple in half around the middle, we will discover a star formed by the core and seeds? As the following
contributing factors to allness demonstrate, even if we monitor our language choices, we often act as if what we are
saying, writing, or thinking includes all that is important about a subject, person, and event at that moment. The
correctives will help us to remember that our maps (words) do not account for all of the territorythat is, all that is
going on in the empirical world.
You may want to refer back to the Consciousness of Abstracting-Evaluating page in Module 1 to review allness in the
context of other behaviors to be aware of.
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: ALLNESS

One of the contributing factors to allness is an unawareness of abstraction that results in an assumption that we have
covered it all. Kodish and Kodish (2011) explained why this unawareness might happen: The scientific object is
not the object as you or we experience it but seems to consist of events, processes, changing relations at the level of
the very small, smaller than we can view even with a microscope (p. 60). For instance, we might remember learning
about the submicroscopic proton, electrons, and quarks in a high school classroom, but we rarely remember that
language is an abstraction of an event, which, itself, is an abstraction of all that is happening in this submicroscopic
world. To communicate more effectively with others, we must be conscious of how we abstract to delay acting on
limited details gathered by our nervous systems.
We also abstract different details than others do, leading us to assume that what we know is what others know. How
many of us have been guilty of arguing a point (e.g., who is to blame for a missing item) only to find out later that we
did not know important details? Haney (1992) contended that the consequence of engaging in such behavior is the
rigid drawing of lines and unintelligent, destructive conflict (p. 325). Perhaps we need to listen for understanding
first. Covey (2004) argued for seeking first to understand, then to be understood when we listen with the intent to
understand others (p. 153). Listening to understand means identifying how we abstracted different details, not who
is right and who is to blame.
Another contributing factor of allness occurs when we act on the assumption that our experience with one or a few
members holds for all (Haney, 1992, p. 327). We evaluate a group based on limited interactions with individuals
from that group. That assumption has particularly dangerous consequences when we assign stereotypes to people
solely on the basis of the political party or religious community with which they associate. We often forget to
distinguish between the group and the individuals within that group. How many of your friends and family members
who are registered Republicans or Democrats identify with all of the policies advocated by Republican or Democratic
candidates?
Haney (1992) suggested that as we age, we may become closed to the new or different (p. 329). Even though we
often accuse parents and grandparents of being closed-minded, this indifference is not just a problem for older
generations. I often ask students to compare and contrast the insatiable curiosity of a kindergartner with the quiet
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
4 of 22
73
classroom demeanor of a college student. Students suggest that they have often censored curiosity because of concern
for peer and instructor evaluations. This high self-monitoring might keep them from learning new ideas.
Furthermore, Haney (1992) explained why people might be more afraid of change as they age:
As we grow older, more and more of what we learn is actually relearning. To learn something new or
especially something different may require we relinquish something we already holdthat we discard
certain accepted assumptions and cherished beliefs. This can be an unpleasant, uncomfortable experience.
But some people find it a distinctly threatening state of affairs. And when we are threatened we often resort
to some defense mechanism or another. Allness can be particularly effective bastion at such times. (p.330)
This rationale reminds us that we can delay automatic evaluation when encountering non-life-threatening
situations. We need courage to do so.
CORRECTIVES: ALLNESS
Because we know it is impossible not to abstract, Haney (1992) argued that the antidote for allness is not the
avoidance but the awareness of abstracting (p. 335). What follows are his suggestions for how to become more fully
aware of the abstraction process.
1. Develop a Genuine Humility
When we remember that abstraction inhibits our ability to cover everything, we find it easier to be humble. Haney
(1992) defined humility as a deep conviction that you can never know or say everything about anything (p. 335). I
like the humor he provided to help us remember these limits:
Bailiff: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Witness: Look, if I knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truthI would be God! (p. 335)
When I first learned about general semantics, Professor Keller suggested that we should expect to be proven wrong;
as Haney (1992) cited Disraeli, To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great first step toward knowledge (p.
335). Perhaps when we fully understand how little we really do know, we will be more curious and ask more
clarifying questions.
2. Add (or at Least Silently Acknowledging) Etcetera
Korzybski (2000) named etc. as one of five extensional devices to achieve an extensional orientation. Haney (1992)
summarized the use of etc. as follows: When you see a period in my writing or hear one in my talking, please
translate it as etcetera. It will remind both of us that I have not covered everything (p. 337). Consequently, adding
etc. to our thinking processes reminds us to be aware of abstraction. As rebuttals race through our minds, perhaps we
can pause long enough to remember that there is more we might not knowthe etcetera still waiting to be
discovered.
Haney (1992) warned that, when talking, we should not make a fetish of conspicuously etcetering every statement
(p. 337), as doing so may lead others to evaluate us as lacking understanding or having adequate support for our
conclusions. Adding etc. to our communication skill set is best tolerated, and perhaps most useful, when we apply it
first to our thoughts. For example, we can think to ourselves, There is more here than meets the eye, using the
familiar idiom to remind us to silently acknowledge the etcetera.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
5 of 22
74
3. Ask Yourself, Do I have an All-wall?

In addition to realizing that abstraction inhibits our ability to cover everything, Haney (1992) proposed exploring how
often we are closed to new and different ideas. For example, when we have a chance to hear a new perspective, do we
listen carefully and then paraphrase what we hear? Many of us rarely paraphrase because we have been preparing
rebuttals instead of listening. Morreale, Spitzberg, and Barge (2007) outlined various opportunities to withhold
judgment during the three stages of the listening process:
1. Receiving: postpone evaluation of the message
2. Constructing meaning: set aside bias and prejudice
3. Responding: clarify meaning by asking questions. (p. 149)
Monitoring how often we listen to new and differing viewpoints could help us to decide whether we have an
all-wall. Similarly, asking a close friend and family member about how well we listen might provide invaluable
insight. Who knows how much we will learn when we remember to postpone evaluation as we receive their messages
and set aside bias when constructing meaning about our interactions.
SUMMARY
Allness occurs because we forget that we are abstracting, overlooking the premise that a map cannot cover all of its
territory, so any map is only part of the territory. Because we are unaware that we abstract, we do not remember that
others abstract different details than we do. Furthermore, we neglect to distinguish between a group and the
individuals within the group, and we often are closed to new and different ideas as we grow older.
Haney (1992) advocated for an awareness of abstraction to combat allness. If we develop a genuine humility that we
cannot possibly know everything about anything, we will silently add etc. to our thinking and avoid acting as if we
have an all-wall. Furthermore, when we delay evaluations of messages as we listen to others and ask others questions
to clarify meaning, we are using specific behaviors that demonstrate an understanding of the general semantics
premise that a map cannot cover all its territory, so any map is only part of the territory.
REFLECTION AND ACTION

1. Document your reflections on these questions in your Personal Journal:
How might you teach the pitfalls of allness to a friend?
Compare and contrast allness and abstraction.
Which correctives for allness do you personally find most meaningful and relevant?
2. Throughout the week (and the duration of the course):
Discuss the topic of allness with a friend or family member. Observe the course of the conversation in terms of
their questions and reactions, as well as your explanations, examples, etc.
Consciously apply at least one of the allness correctives during your regular day-to-day activities.
3. Share your insights and experiences with others in the course by participating in the Allness Review discussion.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
6 of 22
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
75
7 of 22
76
Corey Anton's Corollaries

Korzybski (2000) proposed a mapterritory analogy to encourage daily exploration of verbal maps (words), noting
that these maps do not accurately describe what is happening in the territory (empirical world): A map is not the
territory it represents (p. 58). He used a familiar relationship, maps and territories, so that we would remember when
the territory (reality) changes, we need to update the map (language). More recently, Corey Anton (n.d.) proposed that
we are better served with the premise, there is no not territory (p. 11), because the territory (reality) consists of
many maps. He argued, Once we recognize how all maps, as part of the territory, are the means by which one part
selectively releases and appropriates another part at different levels of abstraction, we no longer need to postulate that
reality lies somehow behind and/or beyond our experiences and/or language (Anton, p. 1112).
In his second book, Science and Sanity, published in 1933, Korzybski (2000) proposed his formulations as a
non-Aristotelian system that promoted a complete and conscious elimination of identification (p. xcvii). For
Korzybski, a non-Aristotelian orientation meant illuminating the limitations of Aristotles law of identity, or the
is of identity (Pula, 2000, p. 2122). He argued that even though people, places and things have specific
characteristics, which Aristotle labeled as identity, these characteristics are constantly changing and are incomplete
representations of the empirical world.
For example, I am a professor, but if that is all you say about me then you are leaving out other important roles in my
lifefriend, wife, counselor, mother, church member, sister, and many more. This illustration provides evidence of
Korzybskis (2000) second premise of general semantics: No map represents all of its presumed territory (p. xvii).
Recognizing that each one of us plays many roles during a lifetime, we begin to understand how one or two language
labels are a static representation of a dynamic reality. Anton (n.d.) updated this premise of Korzybskis as well, Any
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
8 of 22
77
map is only part of the territory (p.11).

In the introduction to the second edition of Science and Sanity, published in 1941, Korzybski further delineated
general semantics as a new extensional discipline which explains and trains us how to use our nervous systems most
efficiently (p. xxxviii). In other words, if nature is constantly changingand we know it is when we see flowers
bloom from barren ground in the springthen peoples nervous systems detect, or abstract, only a small percentage
of these changes. Korzybski (2000) created a diagram of this abstraction process, called the structural differential
(p. 471), providing a visual reminder of how we leave out many characteristics when we sense objects and events. We
leave out even more details when we use language to explain what we sense.
The structural differential visually demonstrates how we omit numerous characteristics of an event, or reality, and
continue to use those inaccurate descriptions to make more inferences. This diagram of the abstraction process
depicts Korzybskis (2000) third premise of general semantics: Maps are self-reflexive (p. xvii). In order to account
for abstraction levels confusion within, as well as between levels, Anton (n.d.) reworked Korzybskis third premise:
maps is the word used to refer to parts of the territory becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of
abstraction (p. 11). For instance, if I state that I am angry that I got angry, then I am making an inference about my
behavior, confusing levels of abstraction and leaving out important characteristics about what angered me today.
Consequently, the ability to make maps of maps (the self-reflexive nature of maps) when the original map is
inaccurate, may confuse how we interpret events and mask what we share that with others. Unfortunately, if my
reasons for getting angry today include being passed over for a promotion because I am too old, then important
conversations about age discrimination may not take place.
In the 1948 preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity, Korzybski stressed the need to apply general semantics
formulations, arguing that when the methods of general semantics are applied, the results are usually beneficial,
whether in law, medicine, business, etc. . . . If they are not applied, but merely talked about, no results can be
expected (p. xxxi). Consequently, this course encourages actionapplying language behavior correctives rooted in
Antons (n.d.) new corollaries for general semantics premises:
1. The map is not the territory, and there is no not territory.
2. A map covers not all the territory, so any map is only part of the territory.
3. Maps refer to parts of the territory becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of abstraction. (p.11)
More Practice with the Structural Differential

To demonstrate how our nervous systems limit perceptions of reality,
Korzybski (2000) created a visual representation of the abstraction
processthe structural differential. He proposed that this diagram could be
used to explain semantic reactions, noting both intellectual and emotional
responses of human beings during abstraction. Moreover, the structural
differential explains how we think-feel-evaluate, leaving out characteristics as
we move from the event (WIGO) to object level (our senses), and even more
details as we use language in the descriptive and inference levels.
Because maps are self-reflexive, we can use language to talk about language,
often confusing descriptive and inference levels. Korzybski (2000) warned
about this false-to-fact is of identity: using an inaccurate map to make
further inferences. Consequently, he advocated using of the structural
differential to explain our experiences because we could involve several
senses and our kinesthetic centers when we state, this is not this, engaging
the ear, with the eye focused on the motion of the hands, indicating the big
distance between WIGO and inferences.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
9 of 22
78
Some people, however, seem to appreciate Stockdale's (2009a) abstracting model (Figure 2). They find the nonverbal
world easier to comprehend because of the five senses pictured and the phrase what I sense is not what happened
(p. 29). Additionally, students appreciate the explanation of the verbal levels: what we describe is not what we
sense and what it means is not what we describe (p. 29).
Structural Differential Worksheet

Use the following worksheet to analyze your abstraction process in a recent miscommunication with another person.
The worksheet has key terms from Steve Stockdale's "somebody cut me off" story, which you also read to complete
the Abstracting-Evaluating discussion in Module 1.
Once you have completed the worksheet, explain your abstraction process to a friend. Remember that Korzybski
proposed using the structural differential to explain abstracting would involve the whole body as one states, this is
not this, engaging the ear, with the eye focused on the motion of the hands, indicating the big distance between the
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
10 of 22
79
event, description, and inference levels.

Click to download a printable PDF version of the worksheet shown below.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
11 of 22
80
More Practice with Sensory Awareness

Kodish and Kodish (2011) proposed that nonverbal (sensory) awareness exercises help people explore how structures
and meaning emerge as a function of their senses.
In addition to using the structural differential to explain recent miscommunication events with others, explore using
Kodish and Kodish's (2011) sensory awareness exercises to become more aware of the nonverbal world. For
example, they suggest the following exercise to experience a world without words:
What are you doing right now? As you [hear] these words let yourself become aware of how you are sitting or
lying down or standing . . .
How can you allow yourself to feel the support of what holds you up?
How much do you need to hold yourself up?
Where do you feel unnecessary tensions?
Do you feel tension in your jaw?
In your face?
Where do you feel ease?
How clearly do you feel yourself breathing?
Many events are occurring inside and outside your skin right now. Can you allow yourself nonverbally to
experience these activities? When you focus unnecessarily on labeling and explaining, you may miss something
important going on in and around you. (Kodish & Kodish, p. 105106)
The following exercises (some of which are included below) help you focus on one sense at a time:
Day 1: Touch the cloth of your clothes. Notice the sensation in your finger, your hands. Allow the sensations to
travel where they will. Move to a different part of your clothes. Notice any differences in sensations.
Day 2: Listen to whatever sounds come to you right now . . . Do you find yourself labeling what you hear?
Listen again and this time if you begin to label sounds just notice that you are doing it and allow yourself to
come back to the sound again.
Day 3: Choose something to look at. Without words, take in what comes to your eyes. Continue looking: what
else come to you?
Day 4: Consider the sounds, sights, aromas around you as structures to explore. Pick an object such as a
stone or a pencil. Examine it closely, silently, for several minutes. Use all of your senses: see, hear, touch,
smell, taste, move it. How well can you do this without labeling or describing? (adapted from Kodish &
Kodish, 2011, p. 106)
After completing these exercises, answer the following two questions:
1. What structures emerge as a function of this sense?
2. What meanings do you discern?
Reflecting about "structures" leads to an awareness of abstraction: recognizing that our senses limit what we know
about WIGO. Discerning "meaning" reminds us that we can delay evaluation: revising meaning (maps) with more
exploration of the "territory."
Keep your answers from each exercise, noting progress, or lack thereof, toward experiencing the nonverbal world.
Many of us in the United States struggle with such exercises because we have not been taught to be silent, let alone to
find value in silence. However, these exercises encourage semantic relaxation, making us more aware of ourselves
as map makers (Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 104).
Korzybski (2000) believed that because both affective, or emotional, responses and blood pressure are
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
12 of 22
81
neurologically closely connected, [then] it is fundamental for emotional balance to have normal blood pressure,
and vice versa (p. lix). Much like the relaxation techniques you might have learned in a yoga or exercise class,
Korzybski worked with students to relax tensions, to be more open to their experiences, better able to take in and
evaluate information (as cited in Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 104).
In addition to the nonverbal awareness exercises focused on our five senses, Kodish and Kodish (2011) recommended
the means whereby to focus on the how (p. 108) we move through the world. I have students practice getting up
and sitting down, and walking around a building, trying to focus on how they move. We find this nearly impossible
to do, as our senses focus on the weather, others movements, and the terrains across which we traverse.
Ultimately, these experiential approaches help us practice what Korzybski meant by an extensional orientation:
giving priority to facts or nonverbal happenings rather than verbal definitions and labels, and maintaining our
consciousness of abstracting (Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 98).
Nonverbal Awareness Exercises

Listen and Reflect
Answer the following in a journal or notebook after listening to and viewing the files below.
1. What structures emerge as a function of this sense? (Awareness of abstraction)

2. What meanings do you discern? (Delay evaluation)
Audio File 1
Audio File 2
Audio File 3 (with instructions on screen)
Audio-Visual File
This exercise is not just about watching "a sunset," but it's watching "the sun set" and becoming more aware not only
of a visual scene, but a sense of how much change is possible in just 6 minutes.
All 5 Senses
Find an apple. Write down all of the characteristics of the apple. Push yourself to describe all of the characteristics
you can observe. (The more you dislike the term the better according to Korzybski)
Cut into the apples and use a magnifying glass. Now write down all of the characteristics that were not previously
observable.
Eat the apple. Use all of your senses: see, hear, touch, smell, & taste it.
Allness - Sample Case Analysis

Instructions
We can use hypothetical cases to study characters who are unaware of their allness behaviors. The cases that follow
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
13 of 22
82
were developed by students who were familiar with the contributing factors of allness, and they created characters
with such faulty language habits.
After reading the Allness Sample Case below, Phonathon, explore how Georgina and Chris were exhibiting allness
behaviors: abstracting different details and unawareness of abstraction. You can find the contributing factors defined
and explained in the second column of Table 2.1. Similarly, you can see how each character can use an allness
corrective.
Allness Sample Case: Phonathon

Georgina, a senior business major, started working as a supervisor for the college phonathon team at the beginning
of fall semester. After being a team member for 2 years, she looked forward to her new role. Her duties included
creating mailing labels, training new callers, and ensuring that experienced callers stay on task.
On her first day at work, Georginas boss, Chris, told her to train callers how to properly fill out the pledge cards.
Alumni received these pledge cards after agreeing to donate. Georginas speech included directions to always add an
ID number and never turn in a pledge card without a note on the back. That night, she showed callers how to fill
out a pledge card and asked them to start calling.
Alice, a new team member, worked that first Monday night. After hearing Georginas instructions, Alice promptly
began calling. On the first pledge card, Alice felt confident that it was filled out correctly. Unfortunately, she forgot a
vital section of the pledge card: the ID number. Alice continued this way for every pledge that she received that night.
The next day, Chris had to locate every ID number for Alices pledge, and he was frustrated that he had to add this
tedious task to his normal workload.
Confident that Wednesday evening would go better, Chris reminded Georgina to instruct callers about the correct way
to complete pledge cards. That night, after Georgina gave her training speech, callers asked a number of questions.
Phil, a second-year team member, called Georgina over to ask questions about each pledge card; other experienced
callers asked a number of questions as well. Consequently, the team members did not make many calls. The following
day, Chris wondered if Georgina was having difficulty explaining the pledge-card procedure when he saw how few
calls had been completed.
Thursday night was the end of the calling week for the team. When Georgina asked if there were any questions, no
one raised a hand. She felt that Thursday night went smoothly because callers remained on task and did not ask any
questions. She did not realize, however, that the room was full of new callers who were afraid to ask questions. When
Chris saw the pledge cards the next day, he was livid, as they had even more missing ID numbers than on Monday
night. He needed to get to the bottom of this right away and scheduled a meeting with Georgina for later that
afternoon.
Character Analysis
The following format will help you identify, define, and explain contributing factors for each character. It can be used
to define and explain how to demonstrate correctives. The following table illustrates how you might analyze the
behaviors of Georgina and Chris in terms of contributing factors and correctives.
Table 2.1: Character Analysis for Sample Allness Case
Character
Georgina
Contributing Factor (define, explain)

Definition: Abstract different details I
assume that what I know is what you know.
Explanation: When Georgina uses always and
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
Correctives (demonstrate, define, explain)

Definition: Develop a genuine humility I
am aware that I omit details because of my
nervous system.
14 of 22
83
never, she assumes that callers will then use IDs

Explanation: Georgina recognizes that she
and include notes, like she does.
might leave out information, so she asks
individuals to restate her directions and
encourages them to ask questions.
Chris
Definition: Unawareness of abstractionI

have limited details due to my nervous system.
Definition: Adding eceteraI will add an

etc. when I hear or see a period.
Explanation: Chris is unaware that he has

limited details about Georgina and the callers.
Many things are happening outside the
detection of his nervous system (e.g., callers not
listening and cards not printed clearly).
Explanation: Chris recognizes that there is

much to be discovered about phonathon
activities, so he brainstorms with Georgina
about other factors, the ecetera that may be
affecting the callers (e.g., fatigue, long calls
with alumni, and why IDs are needed).
Now it is your turn to analyze a character from another allness case. Choose a character from one of the cases found
on the next page: Case 2.1: Exams; Case 2.2: Student IDs; and Case 2.3: Paperless policy.
Allness Case Assignment Instructions

Carefully read these three cases. Pay particular attention to the characters whose names are in bold. Following the
third case is a list of six characters from the cases. From this list, click on the link for ONE character who will serve
as the basis for your next assignment - to recognize contributing factors and offer corrective actions for that
character's allness behavior.
Allness Case 2.1: Exams

Sue walked into Professor Smiths classroom looking like she just rolled out of bed. She moped over to her seat
wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. Sue, a senior English major and good student, did not have a good morning. She
stayed up late finishing a paper, overslept, and nearly missed Professor Smith's Colonial History class that morning.
Similarly, Professor Smith could not contain his foul mood. During his previous class, students whispered throughout
the lecture and then asked questions about material that he just had covered. Not only did they not pay attention to
his lecture but they got angry when he handed back an examination. He did not feel like dealing with difficult
students today, especially when they wanted to argue about the exams that he spent hours developing and grading. If
the students just paid attention, they would not get bad grades, he thought to himself.
As he returned the exams, he explained, If you feel you have a right answer and I marked it wrong, you may explain
your answer to receive partial credit.
Sue raised her hand because even though she only missed one question, she was sure that she had the right answer.
When Professor Smith called on her, she asked, Could we discuss question 5?
Sure. How can I help?
The question is What shape is the Earth? I answered that it is flat and you marked it wrong.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
15 of 22
84
That is the wrong answer.

To me, the question did not give enough detail, so I thought you wanted the answer from the colonists point of view
because this is a Colonial History class.
I provided feedback about why you missed points. Please read those comments and come see me during office
hours.
Having already read the feedback, Sue was angry that they could not finish their discussion. She slammed her paper
down and stormed out of the room.
Later that day, Sue had another class where the professor returned exams and asked if anyone had questions regarding
exam scores. Sue had a question, but remembering how Professor Smith had embarrassed her the class period
before, she decided not to ask it. She returned her exam and decided that she needed to go for a run immediately
following class as running always helped her feel less stressed.
Allness Case 2.2: Student IDs

It was 1:00 am on a crisp fall morning. Nearly 20 students were studying in a library computer lab when Officer
Jones, a new campus security officer, was finishing his late night rounds. He first approached a group of four students
who were working on a project for their small group communication class; he requested that the students present their
university IDs. He knew that the student handbook stated that students should have their university IDs with them at
all times, so he was sure his checking for IDs would be no problem.
I need to see each persons ID, please Officer Jones said calmly.
Excuse me? Shane asked. I have gone to this school for 4 years, and I have never had to show my ID in a
computer lab.
I'm sorry, Officer Jones explained. I'm going to need to see your ID, or I will have to escort you from the
premises.
Lets just listen to him, said Jessica, a freshman, who nervously tried to convince the others to obey the request. She
had heard a lot of stories about how campus security was very strict when enforcing the rules, even going so far as to
escort students off campus in handcuffs.
I dont understand this! exclaimed Eli, a sophomore international student. Why do campus employees think that
they have the right to take away student privileges? Eli had a run-in with the registrars office earlier that day.
They told him that it would take an extra year for him to finish his degree because he was missing several
requirements.
This policy is clearly stated in the student handbook. Please get your IDs out now, Officer Jones said. He was tired
of the students disrespecting his authority. Earlier in the week, he and the other security officers had to endure
criticism from students who had been drinking at a party. Because another officer had just quit, Officer Jones had to
pick up extra shifts around the campus, so he knew that his reputation was growing as the new guy.
I live off campus, so I dont have my ID. I have not had a reason to carry it, Molly, a junior student, explained. Its
really late and we are just trying to finish our project. Cant you let it go this one time?
I am afraid not, Officer Jones stated. He was tired of students disobeying the rules, so he sounded annoyed. Those
of you who cannot show me your ID need to exit the library now. If you would read the student handbook, this would
not be such an ordeal.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
16 of 22
85
I hate that students cant get anything done without adult interference! Eli protested angrily.
Lets all leave, Jessica stammered. I will finish the project from my room and e-mail it you.
Shane rolled his eyes and muttered, As a senior, I need to be in the library late to finish my senior projects. This
seems unfair because we are not bothering anyone.
Ill remember my ID the next time, Molly apologized as the three of them left the computer lab.
Officer Jones watched as the students exited the lab, and scanned the room for a friendly face to begin the next ID
check.
Allness Case 2.3: Paperless Policy

After surviving two difficult lectures, Amber made a beeline to the campus store where students retrieved packages
because she had a package waiting for her. As a college junior, she stills gets excited when there is a package waiting
because it means that somebody cares. She walked up to the counter and smiled as she requested her package.
Agatha, an experienced employee, explained, Did you read the e-mail we just sent? You cannot pick up your
package until 11:00 am.
But I have class at 11:00, and its 10:50, so may I have the package a little early? We used to get packages whenever
the campus store was open, so why did that that policy have to change?
Agatha tried again, You should have received an e-mail telling you this. Policies change.
Beth, a new supervisor, overheard the conversation and intervened, What seems to be the problem here?
I cannot get my package and I have class in 10 minutes! exclaimed Amber.
I told her the same thing that I tell all students: no one claims packages until 11:00, Agatha emphasized, aggravated
by college students who do not read e-mail.
Beth sensed the frustration and explained, I created this paperless policy. Do you know how long it took us to create
all those yellow slips of paper? Now we send you an e-mail in the morning and you retrieve your package at lunch
time.
Amber, clearly taken aback by how much trouble a mere package was causing, sadly thought to herself how much she
will miss receiving the golden slips of paper in the mail, which reminded her of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
Factory movie. On a more practical note, she wished that the policy would not have to change because some students
did not have time for lunch. Unfortunately, she did not have time to discuss this matter any further today or she
would be late to class.
Analysis Assignment
After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Allness
Sample Case Analysis, now it's your turn to analyze a character.
Six of the characters from the three Allness cases are listed below. Select one of them by clicking on the name. You
will then be taken to a discussion forum for that character. Then post your character analysis as a Reply. Your analysis
should include:
1. a contributing factor to the character's allness behavior;
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
17 of 22
86
2. an explanation as to how the character exhibited the contributing factor;

3. a corrective action specific to that character;
4. an explanation regarding how the character could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in
the case.
Now select a character and proceed to the discussion for that character:
NOTE: ON THIS PAGE, DO NOT FOLLOW THE NEXT BUTTON. CLICK ON ONE OF THE SIX
CHARACTER LINKS.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS - SUE

After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Allness
Sample Case Analysis, now it's your turn to analyze a character. You have selected to analyze Sue.
Re-read the Exams case below, then post your character analysis of Sue as a Reply to this topic. Your analysis should
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
a contributing factor to Sue's allness behavior;

an explanation as to how Sue exhibited the contributing factor;
a corrective specific to Sue;
an explanation regarding how Sue could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in the case.
The case is copied below for reference. Remember that you will not see others' responses until you post yours.
Sue walked into Professor Smiths classroom looking like she just rolled out of bed. She moped over to her seat
wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. Sue, a senior English major and good student, did not have a good morning. She
stayed up late finishing a paper, overslept, and nearly missed Professor Smith's Colonial History class that morning.
Similarly, Professor Smith could not contain his foul mood. During his previous class, students whispered throughout
the lecture and then asked questions about material that he just had covered. Not only did they not pay attention to
his lecture but they got angry when he handed back an examination. He did not feel like dealing with difficult
students today, especially when they wanted to argue about the exams that he spent hours developing and grading. If
the students just paid attention, they would not get bad grades, he thought to himself.
As he returned the exams, he explained, If you feel you have a right answer and I marked it wrong, you may explain
your answer to receive partial credit.
Sue raised her hand because even though she only missed one question, she was sure that she had the right answer.
When Professor Smith called on her, she asked, Could we discuss question 5?
Sure. How can I help?
The question is What shape is the Earth? I answered that it is flat and you marked it wrong.
That is the wrong answer.
To me, the question did not give enough detail, so I thought you wanted the answer from the colonists point of view
because this is a Colonial History class.
I provided feedback about why you missed points. Please read those comments and come see me during office
hours.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
18 of 22
87
Having already read the feedback, Sue was angry that they could not finish their discussion. She slammed her paper
down and stormed out of the room.
Later that day, Sue had another class where the professor returned exams and asked if anyone had questions regarding
exam scores. Sue had a question, but remembering how Professor Smith had embarrassed her the class period
before, she decided not to ask it. She returned her exam and decided that she needed to go for a run immediately
following class as running always helped her feel less stressed.
Review and Reflection about Allness

Irving J. Lee from "Talking Sense" on Allness
Irving J. Lee from "Talking Sense" on All Wall
Optional Activities
1. Allness Case Studies from Chapter 11 of William Haney's Communication and organizational behavior: Text
and cases.
2. Haney's original book, Communication: patterns and incidents (offsite).
3. Allness in Language and Politics a student paper published in ETC: A Review of General Semantics.
Quiz Instructions
This quiz includes four True/False questions, two multiple choice, and four matching questions. Each answer is worth
5 points. Select the best response to each question. There is no time limitation. You may take the quiz three times to
improve your score, but note that the score for your latest attempt will be recorded.
1. The antidote for allness is to avoid abstraction. (True/False)
2. Allness is acting as if what we say includes all that is important about the subject. (True/False)
3. Allness occurs because we forget the General Semantics premise that "maps refer to the parts of the territory
becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of abstraction." (True/False)
4. Allness is defined as the attitude of those who are unaware that they are abstracting and thus assume that what they
say or know is absolute, definitive, complete, and certain. (True/False)
5. When adamantly disagreeing with her mother, Jill remembers her General Semantics training for each of the three
stages of listening process. Which of the following is NOT one of the three stages?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Receiving: postpone evaluation of the message

Constructing meaning: set aside bias and prejudice
Responding: clarify meaning by asking questions
Evaluating: to argue for personal values
6. Which corrective to allness is defined as "remaining open"?

1.
2.
3.
4.
ask if I have an "all-wall"

develop a genuine humility
get more data
add etc.
7. Match the contributing factors for allness with the accurate definitions.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
19 of 22
88
A) I unconsciously assume that my experience with one or a few members holds for all. B) I have limited
details due to my nervous system. C) I assume that my way is the correct way. D) I assume that what I know is
what you know. a. abstracting different details b. closed to the new or different c. evaluating a group d.
unawareness of abstraction
References
Anton, C. (n.d.). A thumbnail sketch of General Semantics. Unpublished manuscript.
Bois, J. S. (1978). The art of awareness (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Bourland, D. D. (1989). To be or not to be: E-prime as a tool for critical thinking. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 46, 546557.
Chisholm, F. P. (1945). Introductory lectures on general semantics. Lakeville, CT: Institute of General
Semantics.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of
change, (2nd ed.). Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY:FranklinCovey.
Elson, L. G. (2010). Paradise lost: A cross-contextual definition of the levels of abstraction. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Haney, W. V. (1992). Communication & interpersonal relations: Texts and cases (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.
Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A.R. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Harcourt.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Institute of General Semantics Seminar. (July 2002). Milwaukee, WI: Author.
Johnson, K. G. (2004). General semantics: An outline survey (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Institute of General
Semantics.
Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries: The semantics of personal adjustment. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Kodish, B. (2011). Korzybski: A biography. Pasadena, CA: Extensional.
Kodish, S. P., & Kodish, B. I. (2011). Drive yourself sane: Using the uncommon sense of general semantics
(3rd ed.). Pasadena, CA: Extensional.
Korzybski, A. (2000). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics
(5th ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.
Kreber, C. (2001). Learning experientially through case studies? A conceptual approach. Teaching in Higher
Education, 6, 217228.
Lahman, M. P. (2011). Appreciative inquiry + general semantics IFD disease resistance. ETC: A Review of
General Semantics, 68, 395401.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
20 of 22
89
Lee, I. J. (1941). Language habits in human affairs: An introduction to General Semantics. New York, NY:
Harper & Brothers.
Lutz, W. (1989). Doublespeak. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2011). Experiencing intercultural communication: An introduction (4th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Meiers, A. (1952). Avoiding the dangers of semantic adolescence. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 9,
273277.
Morreale, S. P., Spitzberg, B. H., & Barge, J. K. (2007). Human communication: Motivation, knowledge, &
skills (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Murphy, C. (1992, February). To be in their bonnets. The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 1824.
Postman, N. (1976). Crazy talk, stupid talk. New York, NY: Random House.
Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York, NY: Vintage.
Pula, R. P. (2000). A general semantics glossary: Pulas guide for the perplexed. Concord, CA: International
Society for General Semantics.
Stockdale, S. (2009a). A brief explanation of Korzybskis structural differential. Retrieved from This is Not
That website: http://www.thisisnotthat.com.
Stockdale, S. (2009b). Here's something about General Semantics: A primer for making sense of your world.
Retrieved from This is Not That website: http://www.thisisnotthat.com.
Whitney, D., & Trosten- Bloom, A. (2010). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive
change (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
1. Did you complete the reading about Allness?

2. Did you complete the Reflection and Action activity at the bottom of the reading about Allness?
3. Did you contribute to the Module 2 Discussion? (50 points)
4. Did you contribute to one of the six case character discussions: Sue, Professor Smith, Officer Jones,
Shane, Amber, or Agatha? (50 points)
5. Did you view and reflect on the Irving J. Lee videos on allness?
6. Did you successfully complete the Module 2 Quiz? (50 points)
Terrific!
You're ready to move on to Module 3: Awareness and Action - Bypassing.
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
21 of 22
2/20/14, 6:29 AM
90
22 of 22
91
Map for Module 3: Awareness and Action - Bypassing

In Module 2 we discovered the contributing factors and
correctives for allness. In Module 3, we will continue to
apply what we have learned about General Semantics to
build more effective language behaviors.
Mary will lead this module based on excerpts from her PDF
textbook, Awareness and Action. These excerpts can be read
within the Canvas pages so it's not necessary to download
the PDF textbook. Because minor changes have been made
to accommodate the online format and module numbering,
we prefer and recommend you read the pages from within
Canvas to complete the assignments. But you are welcome
to download and read the complete Awareness and Action
textbook.

After successfully completing this module, students will be
able to:
Identify the GS premise that explains bypassing.
Explain the contributing factors to bypassing.
Explain why we why would we make the assumption
that words mean the same to us as they do to another.
Identify the correctives needed to combat bypassing.
Explain how we can become sensitive to the contexts in which others are using words.
Module Activities
This week we will learn how to use GS principles to avoid bypassing. You will:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Complete the module reading, excerpt from Chapter 5, Bypassing, from Awareness and Action.
Watch another Lee video in which he explains bypassing.
Review basic aspects of verbal awareness.
Watch an episode of the Twilight Zone series titled "Word Play."
Analyze character behaviors from a sample Case Study.
Participate in a Discussion related to bypassing.
Choose one other Case Study for further analysis (from Cases 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3).
Complete the module quiz.
Chapter 5: Bypassing
Missing Each Other With the Words that We Choose
In communicating with others, we often focus on the message instead of the person with whom we are interacting.
We focus on words because we believe meaning is in the word. We forget Korzybskis premise that a map is not the
territory (the word is not the thing). Moreover, we must learn specific language behaviors needed to address
bypassing, because as Anton proposed, there is no not territory.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
1 of 23
92
Use the following questions and slides to guide your reading (excerpted from Chapter 5 in Awareness and Action,
pages 47-52) and viewing of the Twilight Zone episode entitled Word Play, all on this page.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Why would we make the assumption that words mean the same to us as they do to another?
How can we become sensitive to the contexts in which others are using words?
Are there situations where doublespeak might be ethically defensible? Why?
What did you learn from watching the Twilight Zone episode entitled Word Play?
It is precisely because each of us sees and experiences the world differently that language becomes our
most important means for coming to some kind of agreement on our individual experiences, on how we see
the world. William Lutz (1989, p. 6)
DEFINITION: BYPASSING
The mapterritory analogy resonates because people know that any given map cannot represent all of its territory.
Additionally, we know that because maps are self-reflexive, we confuse levels of abstraction. Now, we will discover
that we still can miss each others meanings because we forget that a map is not the territory it represents: If we
reflect upon our languages, we find that at best they must be considered only as maps. A word is not the object it
represents (Korzybski, 2000, p. 58). The map represents the assumptions and experiences of the mapmaker. This
section explores what happens when people do not recognize that meaning is in the mapmaker (person), not the map
(word).
How many people can remember being sure that they understood what a teacher meant by summarize the article
but later discovered that our interpretation of summarize and the teachers interpretation were very different? Haney
(1992) explained this phenomenon as bypassing: the listener presumably heard the same words that the speaker said,
but the communicators seem to have talked past each other (p. 268). The listener and speaker act as if the words
mean the same thing to each person, but their interpretations are different. Similarly, communicators can use different
words to refer to the same thing: some call a soft drink soda, whereas others refer to it as pop.
Miscommunication often results because these assumptions are faulty and go unnoticed.
When I tell students that there will be a quiz during the next class period, I receive few inquiries concerning the
nature of the assessment. Students might ask what material will be included on the quiz, but rarely do they ask about
the number or type of questions, and how the score will impact their final course grade. Many times, because quizzes
are used to judge comprehension of material not mastery, there is little impact on final grades. We miss each others
meaning because we do not check the meaning each person intended, even if we are using the same words.
Consequently, we need to explore contributing factors that lead to bypassing. Once we discover why we do not
routinely inquire about others meanings, we will be challenged to build new habits, such as paraphrasing and
exploring contextual clues.
You may want to refer back to the Consciousness of Abstracting-Evaluating page in Module 1 to review bypassing in
the context of other behaviors to be aware of.
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: BYPASSING

Haney (1992) suggested that bypassing is caused by two assumptions: words have mono-usage and they have
meanings. First, we operate under the assumption that words have mono-usage when we forget that words have more
than one meaning. Haney (1992) advocated for learning about the prevalence of multiusage in our language . . . [so
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
2 of 23
93
we] will anticipate that words can readily be understood differently by different people (p. 274). He noted numerous
examples of word coinage, the invention of new word with acronyms, such as AIDS (p. 275), and of usage
coinage, the new use of existing words, such as high (p. 277).
Similarly, Haney (1992) challenged readers to find words that were used in only one way: for the 500 of the most
commonly used words in our language there is aggregate of over 14,000 dictionary definitions! (p. 274). Regional
variations and technical jargon encountered daily compound this conundrum. How many times have you been unable
to understand medical terminology used by a physician? Do conversations with a plumber and car mechanic make
any more sense? How many people can follow the political jargon used to debate the national debt?
With a better understanding of multiuse language, we recognize that the assumption, words have meaning, also is
inaccurate. We know from our understanding of general semantics that the map is not the territory, so there is no
not territory, so it follows that meaning in the person, not in the map (word). Similar to the inferenceobservation
confusion, people take an uncalculated risk when they assume understanding based on words and nonverbal cues.
Moreover, we must remember that each person is operates from a particular cultural context. According to Hofstede
(1984), cultures vary in how they manage power differences, are tolerant of ambiguity, value the individual or
collective, and emphasize assertiveness or nurturance. Therefore, we may miss each other with meaning because we
do not understand differences in attitudes and beliefs. As Morreale et al. (2007) explained:
In collectivist cultures, collective goals take priority over individual goals. People in collectivist cultures such as
Japan, China, and Korea may find it hard to speak up and offer their opinions in a group setting, especially if those
views are contrary to the groups majority opinion. Their sense of loyalty precludes them from voicing dissenting
opinions and disrupting the group. (p.64)
Finally, when people use language with intent to miscommunicate, they are guilty of deliberate bypassing (Haney,
1992, p. 286). Lutz (1989) called this phenomenon doublespeak: language that avoids or shifts responsibility . . .
that conceals or prevents thought (p. 1). Doublespeak is used to mislead and deceive. Lutz has written several books
and many articles about forms of doublespeak that are used by organizational and political leaders; in particular, he
identified four forms:
1. Euphemism: an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid a harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality
(p. 2).
2. Jargon: the specialized language of a trade, profession, or similar group" (p. 3).
3. Gobbledygook: a matter of piling on of words, of overwhelming the audience with words, the bigger the
words and the longer the sentences the better (p. 5).
4. Inflated language: designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary; to make everyday things seem
impressive; to give an importance to people, situations, or things that would not normally be considered
important; to make the simple seem complex (p. 6).
Unfortunately, we find many examples of doublespeak in politics, business, and education. For instance, when leaders
use collateral damage to describe civilians who die in warfare and re-engineering to describe layoffs,
they are employing euphemisms to mislead the public involved. Similarly, when administrators use jargon and long
sentences, they may be trying to obfuscate, not elaborate. These examples motivate us to confront bypassing in
personal and professional contexts.
CORRECTIVES: BYPASSING
Similar to the previous patterns of allness and inferenceobservation confusion, we recognize that we cannot fully
eliminate bypassing. However, the following correctives will prevent as much bypassing as possible. These actions
must become a habit, an immediate response during a communication event.
Be Person-minded, not Word-minded
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
3 of 23
94
Do you ever find yourself arguing with friends over silly questions? It might be that you are not at odds about the
facts involved but merely disagreeing about the label that each person gives those facts. For example, when you
consistently arrive 15 minutes late for family dinners, some members may interpret your behavior as disrespectful of
family time, whereas other family members think that it is fine to disregard a cultural norm of being punctual.
We often forget that words are meaningless symbols until someone attaches meaning to them. One of my favorite
ways to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of language is to watch the Twilight Zone episode, Wordplay, which can be
found on YouTube. In the Wordplay, Episode 1, the main character, Bill, quickly discovers that the words people
use do not make sense in the context in which the words are normally used. For example, as Bill leaves for work, the
neighbor refers to their dog, which just had puppies, as an encyclopedia. When Bill gets to work, a customer
discusses celebrating 17th wedding throw rug, meaning, of course, a 17th wedding anniversary. Later in the
episode, when a colleague and Bills wife both refer to lunch as dinosaur, Bill knows that he has entered the
twilight zone. As Wordplay, Episode 2 unfolds, however, Bill painstakingly communicates with his family by
focusing on the people and contexts, not the words being used.
In real life, people who are aware that meaning resides in the person are less concerned with dictionary definitions
and are more attuned to what senders mean in different contexts. If we clarify that we are using words in the same
way as those with whom we communicate, we are being person-minded. For example, imagine how it would feel to
interact with someone whose first priority is to understand what you mean by down time. Instead of assuming that
you want to read a magazine and then take a nap, he or she would understand that cleaning might energize you more
than reading and napping.
Query and Paraphrase
Curious people find it easy to be person-minded. Unlike those who are sure that they know what others
mean, inquisitive individuals are more worried about learning than whether others perceive them as being intelligent.
Many college professors and business managers agree with Haneys (1992) conclusion that asking thoughtful
questions will earn the respect of superiors because questions show interest and a sense of responsibility (p. 290).
Similarly, if we paraphraseusing our words to summarize a speakers message and to clarify the accuracy of our
interpretationswe are being person-minded. If you have tried to accurately summarize what another persons
directions, you know the time-consuming nature of this process. However, when you avoid getting lost because you
have paraphrased well, ultimately, you might save time and build supportive communication climates.
Be Approachable
In addition to remembering to query and paraphrase, we must do all we can to be receptive to others ideas and
behaviors. Haney (1992) recommended asking the following question each day: Am I genuinely receptive to
feedback, and do I continually communicate my receptivity to others? (p. 293). This means paying close attention to
messages that we might be unintentionally sending, both verbally and nonverbally. Researchers note the importance
of nonverbal cues for mutual understanding: we need culturally appropriate occulesics (use of eyes), proxemics (use
of personal space), and haptics (use of touch), in addition to effective vocalics (use of voice) and kinesics (use of
body) for the various settings in which we communicate (Morreale et al., 2007).
Perhaps by identifying what makes other people approachable in various contexts, we can incorporate such verbal and
nonverbal skills when interacting with others. Moreover, we could solicit feedback from those we trust. If someone
suggests that lack of eye contact makes us seem unapproachable, we could purposefully monitor our connections
with others, especially if we are living and working in the United States, where providing good eye contact is a sign
of caring and respect.
Be Sensitive to Contexts
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
4 of 23
95
Haney (1992) proposed that the surrounding words (verbal context) and the surrounding circumstance (situational
context) (p. 295) provide the clues needed to prevent bypassing. We know this to be true in educational contexts
when we discover the meaning of new concepts by noting how they are used in a sentence.
Many of us like the challenge of a good mystery, so we might enjoy being a language detective, discovering the
meaning in the person and the context. Postman (1976) coined the phrase stupid talk to refer to language used by
those who ignore contextual cues; it is talk that does not know what environment it is in (p. 20). He argued
that effective communication includes people and their purposes, in addition to general rules of the discourse by
which such purposes are usually achieved . . . [and that] particular talk actually being used in the situation (Postman,
p. 8). We need to explore whether our language is both appropriate and effective for the context.
Correctives for Bypassing

Be person-minded, not wordminded Disagree with the dictionary and agree with the persons
background.
Query & paraphrase Summarize a speaker and then ask clarifying questions.
Be approachable Be open to verbal and nonverbal feedback.
Be sensitive to contexts Be mindful of the situation in which the word was used.
SUMMARY
In communicating with others, we often focus on the message instead of the person with whom we are interacting.
We focus on words because we believe meaning is in the word. We rely on dictionaries and past experiences to find
meaning, instead of being curious about the contexts in which we find ourselves. Moreover, we forget that most of
our words have multiple meanings. We are unaware that people might use euphemisms and jargon to mislead.
To implement the premise that a map is not the territory, so there is no not territory, we must act as if we know
that meaning is in the person. We need to be sensitive to contexts in which a person is using a word, carefully
paraphrasing answers to clarifying questions. Throughout this text we have learned that additional inquiry can lead to
more effective message construction because we cannot possibly know everything about anything and because
language is self-reflexive. Even though paraphrasing might be time-consuming at the outset, it builds trust in a
relationship, which might save valuable time in the long run. Perhaps we might learn something new and become
more approachable in the process.
REFLECTION AND ACTION

1. Document your reflections on these questions in your Personal Journal:
How might you teach your supervisor at work about bypassing?
Why would we make the assumption that words mean the same to us as they do to another?
Are there situations where doublespeak might be ethically defensible?
2. Throughout the week (and the duration of the course):
Engage a supervisor, co-worker, or friend at work in a conversation in which you explain the significance of
understanding bypassing.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
5 of 23
96
3. Share your insights and experiences with others in the course by participating in the Module 3 Bypassing
discussion.
Remember, you won't be able to see others' responses until you've posted yours.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
6 of 23
97
Irving J. Lee from "Talking Sense" on Bypassing
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
7 of 23
98
If you have trouble viewing YouTube videos, try this as an alternative:

ML-edit-lee-bypass.mp4
The basic question is not, "What did a person say?" The question is, "Does what a person says fit the life facts."
Verbal Awareness
from Chapter 2 of Awareness and Action
Korzybski (2000) argued for a complete denial of identity, an elimination of identification, to help us match the
structure of our language to the nonverbal world it represents (p. 10). In other words, we need to challenge our
perceptions because, as we learned earlier, what we describe is not what we sense, and what we sense is not what
happened. Korzybski was concerned with humans confusing these levels of abstraction: When humans who are
engaged in abstracting identify (confuse) orders of abstracting they are identifying . . . [and] identification
[becomes] the primary mechanism of misevaluation (as cited in Pula, 2000, p. 23). Similarly, Chisholm (1945)
explained what happens when we confuse levels of abstraction:
What I say about it is what it is
My statement = truth about subject of the statement
WORDS=TRUTH
What I say about anything = what it is (p. 3)
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
8 of 23
99
Unfortunately, our nervous systems may prevent us from knowing what it is for sure but our language allows us to
operate as if words, or labels, represent reality. The need for structural changes in our language is apparent in the
following example:
If it is what I say it is, it is perfectly safe for me to guide myself entirely in terms of my verbal formulation. I
dont have to look out at the world again at all because I have in me some words which are equivalent to it.
But what is in the cans in a grocery store is more important than the labels wound around them: if a can
containing spinach is by mistake labeled pumpkin, no amount of looking at the label will make the pie of the
contents palatable pie for anyone but Popeye. Yet identification behavior equates label and thing labeled, and
assumes ican safely guide my reactions by the label. (Chisholm, 1945, p. 3)
Even if we laugh at this fuzzy logic, how many times do we react to labels on a daily basis? Labeling some people as
kind and others as rude, we move through our interactions without an awareness of how people change. This is
why some general semanticists advocate for elimination of the verb to be, proposing that we write in E-prime,
avoiding the is of identity (Bourland, 1989). Murphy (1992) explained that the verb is joins nouns at different
levels of abstraction [Mary is a woman] and joins a noun to an adjective that neither completely nor permanently
qualifies it [Mary is cold] (p. 20).
Write a paragraph about your best friend and then check it for forms of the verb to be. See how many times you use
the is of identity to link nouns as if they were identical, on the same level of abstraction (e.g., my friend is a
physician). Similarly, how often did you find the is of prediction, linking nouns with adjectives as if personality
characteristics remain constant (e.g., she is amazing)? Just because I am outgoing today does not mean that I will
act that way in a few days, let alone in a few years.
Murphy (1992) continued with more problems with the verb to be:
. . . the verb makes possible the widespread use of the passive voice, conditions us to accept detours around
crucial issues of causality (Mistakes were made). It makes possible the raising of unanswerable, because
hopelessly formulated, questions (What is truth?). It makes possible, too, the construction of a variety of
phrases (As is well known . . .) that casually sweep reasoning under a rug. One also finds the verb to be
pressed into service on behalf of stereotypical labeling (Scotsmen are stingy) and overbroad existential
generalization (I am just no good). These issues aside, semanticists say, the verb to be, broadly Yet
identification behavior equates label and thing labeled, and assumes ican safely guide my reactions by the label.
speaking , imputes an Aristotelian neatness, rigidity, and permanence to the world around us and to the
relationships among all things in itconditions that rarely have a basis in dynamic reality. (p. 20)
Such examples demonstrate the need to scrutinize the verb to be in our daily thinking, writing, and speaking.
Consequently, we can fully appreciate the need for verbal and nonverbal awareness in light of the
abstraction process. The following chapters of this text help us to put this general semantics methodology into daily
practice. Ultimately, we want to avoid being trapped at higher levels of abstraction and pursuing unattainable goals,
the result of which is well described by Wendell Johnson (1946):
In spite of all the prizes he captures, success eludes him! It eludes him for the remarkably obvious, but
persistently unnoticed, reason that it is merely a verbal mirage. What he seeks to escape is an absolute failure,
what he anxiously pursues is an absolute successand they do not exist outside his aching head. What he does
in fact achieve is a series of relative successes; and these are all that he, these are all that anyone, can ever
achieve. But in the midst of relative abundance, absolutistic idealists suffer the agonies of famine. (pp. 56)
Twilight Zone episode, "Word Play"
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
9 of 23
100
In order to understand the fallacy that words have meanings, that words are just meaningless variables until someone
fixes the variable and chooses to interpret the words in a particular way, watch the following Twilight Zone episode.
Why do people argue over silly questions? They think they are disputing facts, but they are disagreeing about what
name they will give to those facts.
If you have trouble viewing the embedded video below, click here to view the 18-minute episode on YouTube.
Multiple Meanings for "FAST" and "CALL"

Enjoy the following excerpt from William Haney's 6th edition of Communication and Interpersonal Relations: Texts
and Cases (1992, p. 274):
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
10 of 23
101
Miscommunication Worksheets
The following worksheets (one completed, one blank) can be used to help recognize patterns of miscommunication,
including Allness and Bypassing.
In Column 1, explain with detailed dialogue "who" said "what."
In Column 2, use the definitions for each contributing factor and then apply it specifically to the dialogue included.
In Column 3, use definitions for each corrective and then apply the correctives to your behavior (it is tempting to want
the other person to use the correctives, but they don't know the correctives like you do!)
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
11 of 23
102
Completed Worksheet for Bypassing

Download printable version (pdf)
Blank Miscommunication Worksheet

Download printable version (pdf)
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
12 of 23
103
Bypassing - Sample Case Analysis

Instructions
We can use hypothetical cases to study characters who are unaware of their bypassing behaviors. The cases that follow
were developed by students who were familiar with the contributing factors of bypassing, and they created characters
with such faulty language habits.
After reading the Allness Sample Case below, Phonathon, explore how Jenny and Professor Burch were exhibiting
bypassing behaviors. You can find the contributing factors defined and explained in the second column of Table 3.1
below. Similarly, you can see how each character can use a bypassing corrective.
Bypassing Sample Case: Soon

Jenny worked hard. She studied weeks before a test to make sure that she was prepared. She stuck to a strict schedule
to keep her assignments and classes in order; consequently, she liked to know how she was doing in a course, to see
which class needed more time. Professor Burch, her literature instructor, changed his syllabus, switched due dates,
and rarely returned assignments. These actions meant trouble for Jenny.
Professor Burch assigned long papers in all his classes; therefore, it often took him several days to return papers. This
literature class was one of four courses that he taught during a semester. He had assigned a 10-page paper about
Shakespeare in the class that Jenny was taking.
Jenny had stayed up for several nights to complete her work, so she was relieved to be turning in the paper during
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
13 of 23
104
Tuesdays class. Turning to Steve, she asked, Where is your paper?

He said he'd accept them by the end of the business day, so Ill finish mine and then run it to him later, Steve said.
Professor Burch usually does not stick to due dates unless he specifically says that he will.
Professor Burch told the class members that he would return their papers soon. Because he said that he would turn the
papers back to them soon, Jenny was confident that she would receive her paper the following week. She waited
patiently but soon realized that the professor was taking much longer than she anticipated.
[2 weeks later]
Full of nervous energy, Jenny walked into class and headed straight for the professors desk. Trying to sound as calm
as possible, Jenny asked, Professor, we still have not received our papers about Shakespeare. When are we going to
get the papers back?
Professor Burch replied, I am just finishing up the last few grades, so you will be getting them back soon.
Jenny found a seat next to Steve and grumbled, I cannot believe that he has not given our papers back.
Steve calmly replied, I really do not think it is a big deal. He said that he will give them back soon, so I am sure that
we will get them later this week.
Later that class period, Professor Burch assigned another paper that was longer and worth more points. Not knowing
what her grade was for the previous paper, Jenny was unsure how to begin the current one. She would have to go to
Professor Burchs office hours tomorrow. Perhaps he might even have her other paper graded by then.
Character Analysis
A character analysis helps you identify, define, and explain contributing factors for each character. It can be used to
define and explain how to demonstrate correctives. The following table illustrates how you might analyze the behaviors
of Jenny and Professor Burch in terms of contributing factors and correctives.
Table 3.1
Character
Jenny
Contributing Factor (define, explain)
Corrective (demonstrate, define, explain)
Definition: Word have meanings The false

assumption that meaning is in words, not
people.
Definition: query and paraphrase

Summarize a speaker and then ask clarifying
questions.
Explanation: Jenny assumes that she and

Professor Burch have the same meaning of the
word soon.
Explanation: Jenny realizes that the meaning

of soon depends on the person, so she asks
Professor Burch to estimate the date he hopes to
return papers.
Professor Burch Definition: Words have mono-usage The

false assumption that a word has only one
meaning.
Explanation: Professor Burch is unaware that
students have different meanings for soon.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
Definition: Be person-minded, not

word-minded Disagree with the dictionary
and agree with the person's background.
Explanation: Professor Burch recognizes that
Jenny is a student who diligently completes
assignments, so he gives her a specific date for
when he will be done with the grades.
14 of 23
105
Bypassing - 3 Case Studies

Carefully read these three cases. Pay particular attention to the characters whose names are in bold. Following the
third case is a list of six characters from the cases. From this list, click on the link for ONE character who will serve
as the basis for your next assignment - to recognize contributing factors and offer corrective actions for that
character's bypassing behavior.
Bypassing Case 3.1: Hard Work

Samantha, a junior volleyball player, headed to her weekly meeting with the head coach. Sometimes, these
meetings went well; other times, she was scared of what might happen. This coachs behaviors differed from what
Samantha usually expected of a head coach, the coach only interacted with players at individual meetings. Samantha
assumed that this weeks meetings would focus on the teams performance at the end of the season.
Good morning, Samantha. How do you feel about your performance in both games and practices this year? the
head coach asked.
I think that I worked hard during practice, but I rarely had the opportunity to play in the games."
I thought that the amount of time you played during games matched your performances during practice, answered
the coach. Do you think that you are going to play next season?
I have a heavy course load, and I may need to look for a job or an internship. More important, I believe that I
should be rewarded with more playing time for all my hard work.
"Well, your hard work is appreciated, explained the coach. Regardless of whether you play, I believe that the team
could use a good teammate and hard worker like you. You really show the rest of the team how to be a good sport and
have a good attitude. We would like to have you on the team, but either way, I wish you luck next year.
Meanwhile, Kendra, also a junior volleyball player, met with the assistant coach. Kendra did not care about
these evaluation meetings. Sometimes, she even skipped them simply because she knew that neither coach would
punish her. Because she was the best player on the team, she knew it did not matter whether she tried at practice, as
the coaches always played her and she started every game.
The assistant coach inquired, Kendra, how would you rate your effort in both games and practices?
Well, practices never seem important because I start every game. You have my statistics, so you know how hard I
work during games.
Do you think you will play next year? asked the assistant coach.
Of course I'm going to play. I am not sure that the team could win without me. I work the hardest out there, claimed
Kendra.
Well, those are all the questions I have for you. Keep your grades up and we will see you next season, the assistant
coach concluded. She sighed deeply as she headed to the next round of player meetings. Someday when she was a
head coach, she would definitely address players with bad attitudes.
In the hallway, Samantha and Kendra crossed paths outside of the coaches offices and discussed their individual
meetings. Samantha rarely enjoyed these interactions, but she decided to ask Kendra about meeting with the assistant
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
15 of 23
106
coach.
They want me to play next year. Those silly meetings never mean anything to me. I told the assistant coach that
practice was not important and she did not even get mad.
Coach told me they appreciate my hard work at practice. See you next season, Samantha finished, hoping she
would not cross paths with Kendra anytime soon.
Bypassing Case 3.2: Volume

Late one weeknight, Trey, a sophomore political science major, had music playing in his dorm room. The walls were
thin, so the music bothered his neighbors. The bass sound started to shake the floor, which meant that the ceiling in
the room below was vibrating. Treys resident assistant, a senior named Calvin, was studying for an important
400-level chemistry exam that he needed to complete successfully to get into graduate school. Another resident, Kyle,
had an 8:00 am class the next day and wanted to get some sleep.
Kyle went to Calvins room and asked, Can you have Trey turn his music down? Im trying to sleep and I have class
in the morning.
Calvin agreed to talk to Trey. Because the loud music was happening during quiet hours, Calvin ran upstairs and
asked Trey to turn his music down to respect the other residents.
This is your only warning for the night, Trey. There are other people on this floor besides you, Calvin reminded
Trey. Trey begrudgingly agreed to turn down the music.
On his way back to his room to study, Calvin told Kyle that Trey agreed to turn the music down. Kyle thanked Calvin
and went back to bed.
After a couple of minutes, Calvin realized that he could still hear the bass from Treys music. He trudged back to
Treys room and firmly stated, I thought I asked you to turn that music down. Now, I am going to have to write you
up.
I did turn it down a notch, Trey protested.
Calvin looked at the volume dial on Treys speakers. Perhaps Trey had turned down the volume since the previous
visit, but it was not enough.
Considering that your bass still is shaking the floor, you need to turn it way down. I really do not want to write you
up. At this hour, you should be the only one who can hear your music, Calvin concluded.
Trey sighed after Calvin left the room. As far as Trey was concerned, the volume was turned down. He slammed his
headphones over his ears. Within minutes, he was swaying to the music, forgetting the whole incident and focusing
on political science theory.
Bypassing Case 3.3: Light Mayo

On Sunday afternoon, Eliza, a 20-year-old university student, clocked in for her shift at a local restaurant.
Elizas manager, Olivia, approached Eliza when she arrived and asked, Eliza, can you do inventory later tonight?
Eliza nodded in agreement and started her normal shift as a waitress. She took orders, delivered food, refilled drinks,
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
16 of 23
107
and bused tables. Eliza knew Olivia expected assigned tasks, such as inventory, to be done before a shift was over.
Because it was a Sunday night, Eliza knew that there would be a lot of down time towards the end of her shift.
After the dinner crowd dwindled, Eliza started to head to the backroom to start inventory. Just then, Todd, a regular
customer, walked in, and asked, Hello, Eliza, may I have a chicken sandwich with light mayo?
Sure, chicken with light mayo? She repeated to confirm Todds order as she typed it into the computer. Ten minutes
later, Eliza served Todd his sandwich and headed for the back room.
Todd took a bite of his sandwich and called for Eliza to come back. Eliza, I said light mayo, right?
Yes, a chicken sandwich with light mayo, she replied.
I wanted a chicken sandwich with just a little bit of mayo. I cannot eat a sandwich with all of this mayo, Todd
complained as he pushed the plate across the table.
I am so sorry. I thought you wanted the brand of light mayonnaise that we use. I will have the cook make you
another one. She headed back to the kitchen to correct the mistake.
I sure wish that this one would have been right. I have so much work to finish tonight, Todd muttered. Have the
cook put it in a box for me to take home. Todd pulled out his phone to check for e-mails and waited.
When Eliza returned with Todds sandwich, he snatched it from her and left the restaurant without tipping. Upset
about the mistake, Eliza started scrubbing tables. Just then, Cindy, Elizas overdramatic friend, rushed into the
restaurant. Eliza could only imagine what had happened now. Cindy always had gossip to share, especially when
Eliza was at work.
We need to talk! Cindy said urgently.
Can it wait until later? I am work, remember? Eliza asked.
But there is no one in here! What do you have to do? Cindy questioned.
As Cindy was begging her friend to listen, Olivia came from the back of the restaurant and reminded, Eliza, Make
sure you get to that inventory soon.
See, Cindy, I have do work to do, Eliza argued.
But Olivia said to do that soon, not right now, Cindy protested. Cindy then took a seat at the nearest booth,
rambling on about her crisis du jour, unaware that Eliza had stopped listening and started taking inventory.
Assignment
After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Bypassing
Sample Case Analysis, now it's your turn to analyze a character.
Six of the characters from the three Bypassing cases are listed below. Select just one of them by clicking on the
name. You will then be taken to a discussion forum for that character. Re-read the case, then post your character
analysis as a Reply. Your analysis should include:
1. a contributing factor (words have mono-usage, words have meaning) to the character's bypassing behavior;
2. an explanation as to how the character exhibited the contributing factor;
3. a corrective (be person-minded, not word-minded: query & paraphrase: be approachable; be sensitive to
context ) specific to that character;
4. an explanation regarding how the character could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
17 of 23
108
the case.
Now select one character and proceed to the discussion for that character:
Case 3.1 (Hard Work): Samantha
Case 3.1 (Hard Work): Coach
Case 3.2 (Volume): Trey
Case 3.2 (Volume): Calvin
Case 3.3 (Light Mayo): Eliza
Case 3.3 (Light Mayo): Todd
NOTE: ON THIS PAGE, DO NOT FOLLOW THE NEXT BUTTON. CLICK ON ONE OF THE SIX
CHARACTER LINKS.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS - COACH

After understanding how to identify contributing factors and apply correctives as demonstrated in the Bypassing
Sample Case Analysis, now it's your turn to analyze a character. You have selected to analyze Coach.
Re-read the Hard Work case below, then post your character analysis of Coach as a Reply to this topic. Your analysis
should include:
1. a contributing factor (words have mono-usage, words have meaning) to Coach's bypassing behavior
2. an explanation as to how Coach exhibited the contributing factor
3. a corrective (be person-minded, not word-minded; query & paraphrase; be approachable; be sensitive to
context ) specific to Coach's bypassing behavior
4. an explanation regarding how Coach could use the corrective when interacting with other characters in the case.
The case is copied below for reference. Remember that you will not see others' responses until you post yours.
Samantha, a junior volleyball player, headed to her weekly meeting with the head Coach. Sometimes, these
meetings went well; other times, she was scared of what might happen. This coachs behaviors differed from what
Samantha usually expected of a head coach, the coach only interacted with players at individual meetings. Samantha
assumed that this weeks meetings would focus on the teams performance at the end of the season.
Good morning, Samantha. How do you feel about your performance in both games and practices this year? the
head coach asked.
I think that I worked hard during practice, but I rarely had the opportunity to play in the games."
I thought that the amount of time you played during games matched your performances during practice, answered
the coach. Do you think that you are going to play next season?
I have a heavy course load, and I may need to look for a job or an internship. More important, I believe that I
should be rewarded with more playing time for all my hard work.
"Well, your hard work is appreciated, explained the coach. Regardless of whether you play, I believe that the team
could use a good teammate and hard worker like you. You really show the rest of the team how to be a good sport and
have a good attitude. We would like to have you on the team, but either way, I wish you luck next year.
Meanwhile, Kendra, also a junior volleyball player, met with the assistant coach. Kendra did not care about
these evaluation meetings. Sometimes, she even skipped them simply because she knew that neither coach would
punish her. Because she was the best player on the team, she knew it did not matter whether she tried at practice, as
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
18 of 23
109
the coaches always played her and she started every game.
The assistant coach inquired, Kendra, how would you rate your effort in both games and practices?
Well, practices never seem important because I start every game. You have my statistics, so you know how hard I
work during games.
Do you think you will play next year? asked the assistant coach.
Of course I'm going to play. I am not sure that the team could win without me. I work the hardest out there, claimed
Kendra.
Well, those are all the questions I have for you. Keep your grades up and we will see you next season, the assistant
coach concluded. She sighed deeply as she headed to the next round of player meetings. Someday when she was a
head coach, she would definitely address players with bad attitudes.
In the hallway, Samantha and Kendra crossed paths outside of the coaches offices and discussed their individual
meetings. Samantha rarely enjoyed these interactions, but she decided to ask Kendra about meeting with the assistant
coach.
They want me to play next year. Those silly meetings never mean anything to me. I told the assistant coach that
practice was not important and she did not even get mad.
Coach told me they appreciate my hard work at practice. See you next season, Samantha finished, hoping she
would not cross paths with Kendra anytime soon.
Bypassing Review and Reflection

Write down any thoughts or comments you want to document in your Personal Journal.
William Lutz on Doublespeak

Watch this 1-hour interview with author William Lutz on doublespeak:
http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/10449-1/William+Lutz.aspx
Irving J. Lee from "Talking Sense" on Words
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
19 of 23
110
If you have trouble viewing YouTube videos, try this as an alternative:

ML-edit-lee-words.mp4
Optional Activities
1. Language, Appearance and Reality: Doublespeak in 1984 - by William D. Lutz, as published in ETC: A Review
of General Semantics.
2. The Science and Sanity of Listening - as published in ETC: A Review of General Semantics.
3. Try the New York Times Dialect Quiz.
Bypassing Discussion
Now that you've had some experience studying the contributing factors and correctives for the GS behavior known as
bypassing, please share your learning experiences with others in the course by discussing these two questions by
replying to this topic.
1. Explain how you taught bypassing to a friend or relative.
2. What did you learn about bypassing from this experience?
Remember, you won't be able to see others' responses until you've posted yours.
After reviewing others' responses, provide at least one insightful response to a classmate's post by building on his/her
ideas and encouraging further exploration. Avoid simple statements of agreement or disagreement, support or
criticsim.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
20 of 23
111
Question 1 5 pts
There are times when doublespeak can be ethically defensible.
There are times when doublespeak can be ethically defensible. True False Flag this Question Question 2 5 pts
The word is not the object it represents.
The word is not the object it represents. True False Flag this Question Question 3 5 pts
Cultural context, according to Hofstede, involves just 2 dimensions: power difference and tolerance of ambiguity.
Cultural context, according to Hofstede, involves just 2 dimensions: power difference and tolerance of ambiguity.
True False Flag this Question Question 4 5 pts
When we say "words have mono-usage," we are operating on the assumption that a word has only one meaning.
When we say "words have mono-usage," we are operating on the assumption that a word has only one meaning. True
False Flag this Question Question 5 5 pts
Bypassing resonates with which General Semantics premise?
Bypassing resonates with which General Semantics premise? None of these. The map is not the territory and there is
no "not" territory. Maps refer to parts of the territory becoming reflexive to other parts at different levels of
abstraction. A map covers not all the territory, so any map is only part of the territory. Flag this Question Question 6 5
pts
When you are trying to discover what a word means to another person, which of the suggestions below is NOT a
corrective for bypassing?
When you are trying to discover what a word means to another person, which of the suggestions below is NOT a
corrective for bypassing? Query and paraphrase Be person-minded, not word-minded Finding definitions in the
dictionary Be sensitive to contexts Flag this Question Question 7 20 pts
Match the following terms to their descriptions.
Match the following terms to their descriptions. Inoffensive or positive word/phrase used to avoid harsh, unpleasant,
or distateful reality A matter of piling on words or overwhelming the audience with words. Specialized language of a
trade, profession, or similar group. Designed to make ordinary seem extraordinary.
References
Anton, C. (n.d.). A thumbnail sketch of General Semantics. Unpublished manuscript.
Bois, J. S. (1978). The art of awareness (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Bourland, D. D. (1989). To be or not to be: E-prime as a tool for critical thinking. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 46, 546557.
Chisholm, F. P. (1945). Introductory lectures on general semantics. Lakeville, CT: Institute of General Semantics.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change,
(2nd ed.). Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York, NY:FranklinCovey.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
21 of 23
112
Elson, L. G. (2010). Paradise lost: A cross-contextual definition of the levels of abstraction. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Haney, W. V. (1992). Communication & interpersonal relations: Texts and cases (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin.
Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A.R. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Institute of General Semantics Seminar. (July 2002). Milwaukee, WI: Author.
Johnson, K. G. (2004). General semantics: An outline survey (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Institute of General
Semantics.
Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries: The semantics of personal adjustment. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Kodish, B. (2011). Korzybski: A biography. Pasadena, CA: Extensional.
Kodish, S. P., & Kodish, B. I. (2011). Drive yourself sane: Using the uncommon sense of general semantics (3rd ed.).
Pasadena, CA: Extensional.
Korzybski, A. (2000). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th
ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.
Kreber, C. (2001). Learning experientially through case studies? A conceptual approach. Teaching in Higher
Education, 6, 217228.
Lahman, M. P. (2011). Appreciative inquiry + general semantics IFD disease resistance. ETC: A Review of
General Semantics, 68, 395401.
Lee, I. J. (1941). Language habits in human affairs: An introduction to General Semantics. New York, NY: Harper &
Brothers.
Lutz, W. (1989). Doublespeak. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2011). Experiencing intercultural communication: An introduction (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Meiers, A. (1952). Avoiding the dangers of semantic adolescence. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 9, 273277.
Morreale, S. P., Spitzberg, B. H., & Barge, J. K. (2007). Human communication: Motivation, knowledge, & skills
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Murphy, C. (1992, February). To be in their bonnets. The Atlantic Monthly, pp. 1824.
Postman, N. (1976). Crazy talk, stupid talk. New York, NY: Random House.
Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York, NY: Vintage.
Pula, R. P. (2000). A general semantics glossary: Pulas guide for the perplexed. Concord, CA: International Society
for General Semantics.
Stockdale, S. (2009a). A brief explanation of Korzybskis structural differential. Retrieved from This is Not That
website: http://www.thisisnotthat.com.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
22 of 23
113
Stockdale, S. (2009b). Here's something about General Semantics: A primer for making sense of your world.
Retrieved from This is Not That website: http://www.thisisnotthat.com.
Whitney, D., & Trosten- Bloom, A. (2010). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
1. Did you complete the reading about Bypassing?

2. Did you view the Twilight Zone: Word Play video episode?
3. Did you contribute to one of the six case character discussions: Coach, Kendra, Trey, Calvin, Eliza, or Todd?
4. Did you submit your case analysis assignment?
5. Did you complete the Bypassing Review Discussion assignment?
6. Did you view and reflect on the William Lutz and Irving J. Lee videos, then contribute your thoughts to the
Ongoing Course Discussion?
7. Did you successfully complete the Module 3 Quiz?
Wonderful!
You're ready to move on to Module 4: Language and Culture.
2/17/14, 6:32 AM
23 of 23
114
Map for Module 4: Linguistic Relativity

In Module 1 we were introduced to the structural
differential and the central problematic of General
Semantics: the process of abstracting. In this Module,
led by Greg Thompson, we will focus on using crosscultural comparisons in order to provide real world
examples of how language affects thought.
The idea that language affects thought has been called
the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis or the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - after linguistic
anthropologists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Relativity Effects can be seen in terms of:
1. Effects of speaking a particular language on how
one perceives the world.
2. Effects of speaking a particular language on how
one interacts with the world.
3. Effects of speaking human language in the first
place (sign language counts as a human
language!), as opposed to not speaking a human
language at all.
In this module, we will be focusing on the first two
types of effects, but it should be noted that the third
effect of language is exactly what Korzybski was
talking about in his concept of time binding. Language
is an instrument of time-binding. And written langauge
is particularly powerful in this regard. While there are
many examples of non-literate cultures passing down
traditions through oral language, written language even
further expands our ability to transmit knowledge across great distances of time and space (and indeed it is this very
work in which we are presently engaged!).
Description of Module
First, we begin with an overview explanation of what we mean by linguistic relativity on the page titled Language,
Thought, and Behavior.
In What We Do With Language - And What It Does With Us, Bruce Kodish provides an excellent overview of
Linguistic Relativity and its relevance to General Semantics. He effectively rebuts some of the specific criticisms of
LRH by Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker.
The module will be focused around a video presentation by University of California San Diego (UCSD)
psycholinguist Lera Boroditsky, How Language Shapes Thought. In this engaging lecture, Dr. Boroditsky provides
an outline of the general argument of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis as well as a number of very rich examples
of how language could affect how we understand the world around us.
After you've viewed the presentation, you can share your Reactions to Lera Boroditsky in a graded discussion.
Next, I explain the Relativity in Linguistic Relativity, focusing on examples of cultural relativity, followed by
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
1 of 18
115
Implications of Linguistic Relativity.

The module concludes with two graded assignments: 1) a discussion that asks you to share a personal example of how
language shaped your thinking; and 2) a short 250-word essay on a controversial cultural practice.
Don't overlook the Optional Readings page with links to PDF articles you can download.
Thoughout the week, please review and contribute to the Module 4 General Discussion.
I should note that there are serious challenges to doing this kind of cross-linguistic work. First and foremost, we all
have very different experiences with language. Some of us are monoglots (like me!), and some of us are bi- or multilingual. But there are no two languages that all of us share. This makes it difficult for us to use any two languages for
comparison since only a subset of us will know those two languages well enough to understand the examples. This
means that we will tend to treat more superficial examples of language effects (e.g. the effects of lexical items in one
language vs. another), and will make it difficult to treat more complex examples of language effects (e.g., the effects
of grammatical categories).
I am very excited about hearing people's own personal experiences with bi- or multi-lingualism and what kinds of
effects you have observed. So please be sure to participate in the discussions so that we will have some meaty
first-hand examples of how speaking a language might affect other aspects of our behavior.
Language, Thought, and Behavior

This week we are considering the relationship of language, thought, and
behavior. In particular, we consider this using the comparative method. We
will look at different languages and how these different languages affect how
we think about and behave in the world.
Put slightly differently, this module considers how different maps can map the
'same' territory in a potentially indefinite number of ways.
Here we return again to the structural differential as a way of understanding
how language functions to interpret the world for us.
We will be focused on the level that is most relevant to the actual formal
features of the language that we use, namely the level of Description.
In this module, we will see how the different languages can give us different
descriptions of the same reality.
In this unit, we will consider examples taken from a number of different
languages that can help us to see how the language we speak can affect how
we understand the world around us.
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
2 of 18
116
Beyond Eskimos and their 10/100/1000 Words for Snow: The Sapir-Whorf(-Korzybski?)
Hypothesis
Did you know that suburban white males have over 100 words for 'lawn'?
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
(LRH), refers to the claim that the language that you speak will affect the way that
you understand the world around you. The first to formally forward this hypothesis
were Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf. Although Sapir first formulated
the hypothesis, it was Whorf who was most active in researching the claim.
English examples of Linguistic Relativity

I'll begin the discussion with some of the classic examples from Whorf's work as a
fire insurance claims adjuster. (Yes, Whorf was a leisure-scholar meaning he had a full time job and studied
language in his free time. Note that this is a point that many of his detractors cite as evidence that he wasn't a serious
scholar. Based on what you've learned so far, is this a reasonable inference? Perhaps it would be better to actually
read his work and then decide?)
In his work as an insurance claims adjuster, Whorf was responsible for looking into the origins of fires (ostensibly so
that the insurance company see if there was justification for them to not pay out the claim). In his line of work, it was
generally accepted that one need only look into the physical situation in order to understand what "caused" the fire.
Yet, in his work, Whorf came to the belief that it was not just the "physical situation" that caused the fire, but that
the meaning of the situation was critical, and that, more specifically, the linguistic meaning or the label applied to the
situation was critical to understanding the cause of the fire. Below are some of his examples.
1. People working around "gasoline drums" will be extremely careful and cautious while people working around
"empty gasoline drums" will not. The sense that they are "empty" suggests that they pose no harm. And thus, as
Whorf discovered, a worker may with no concern, flick a cigarette stub into one of these "empty gasoline
drums." The results are, well, explosive. This, it turns out, is because "empty gasoline drums" in fact contain
highly explosive vapors.
2. At another plant, metal containers were insulated on the outside with "spun limestone". Seeing that it was
"limestone" (i.e., "stone"), workers made no attempt to protect it from heat or flame. Yet, it turned out that this
material reacted with the chemical fumes inside to produce acetone, a highly flammable liquid. Thus, when
these "stone" lined containers were exposed to flame, much to everyone's surprise, the "stone" caught fire.
3. A tannery discharged waste water containing animal matter into an outdoor basin partly roofed with wood. A
workman working nearby lit a blowtorch with a match and then threw the match into the "pool of water."
Anyone want to guess the results?
Each of these examples show how the linguistic meaning of the situation can be seen to have very important, and
perhaps even dire, consequences for participants involved. (Whorf is not clear as to whether anyone was hurt in these
fires...)
Cross-linguistic examples of Linguistic Relativity

Consider the oft-quoted example of Eskimos and their words for "snow" that Whorf mentions in his paper titled
"Science and Linguistics."
It is interesting that the snow example is actually given as an elaboration of another point that nobody ever seems to
talk about, the fact that the Hopi have one word for "insect", "aviator", and "airplane". The point here is that if a Hopi
speaker were to be walking through, let's say, an airport and if she were to be looking out the window at an airplane at
which point she saw a fly buzzing around a window just as she passed an "aviator" (i.e. a "pilot"), she would say that
she just saw three of the "same" thing.
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
3 of 18
117
This is much like the non-skiing American for whom powder, slush, and crusty snow are all the "same" thing (I
qualified that as "non-skiing American" because skiers have different terms for snow - and more importantly, they
engage with those different categories of snow quite differently, often to the point of even having different types of
skis for different types of snow).
Whorf's point is that, for the Eskimo, these are not the "same" thing. One substance is good for making igloos ("hardpacked snow"), another is good for walking on ("ice-covered snow"), and another is generally a pain in the rear end
("powder"). But, for the Eskimo each of these different types of snow are, as Whorf says, "different things to contend
with." Having a different name for each of them tells an Eskimo what exactly it is that they are contending with.
So the next time someone says that the Eskimo have over 100 words for snow, after you have helped them understand
how this is false-to-facts (11 seems a more plausible number), you can then tell them that the Hopi have only one
word for "insect", "aviator", and "airplane". That should blow their mind.
Contribute to the Module 4 General Discussion
What We Do With Language - What It Does With Us

The article below by Bruce I. Kodish, Ph.D., presents an excellent overview of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
(or Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) and its relevance to General Semantics. He effectively rebuts some of the specific
criticisms of LRH by Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker.
This article was published in ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 60 Issue 4. It also constitutes Chapter 10
in his 2003 book, Dare to Inquire (available on Amazon).
If you prefer to download the PDF version, click: What we do with language - what it does with us
Neuro-Linguistic Relativity
A particular view of language relates to the applied, evaluational approach of
general semantics. Language is intertwined with behavior, consciousness, etc. It has
a neurological base; that is, language doesn't exist entirely separately from nervous
systems-persons using the words. By means of spiral feedback mechanisms, we
create our language; our language affects us; we create our language; etc., ongoingly.
This individual process is embedded in, influences and is influenced by, a particular
culture and community of others.
This view, "linguistic relativity," has a history in western culture going back at least
several hundred years to the work of Vico and von Humboldt and more recently to
linguistic anthropologists Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Benjamin Lee Whorf,
among others.
For those who espouse linguistic relativity, what we call 'language' and 'culture,
'consciousness' and 'behavior' develop and operate together through individual and
group experience. (Since they do not function in complete isolation from each other,
although they can be considered separately, I put the terms in single quotes here.) Linguistic anthropologist Michael
Agar has coined the term "languaculture" to label the joint phenomenon of language-culture. How do these factors
work together?
Without denying cross-cultural similarities among humans, the principle of linguistic relativity implies that, as Whorf
scholar Penny Lee wrote:
...although all observers may be confronted by the same physical evidence in the form of experiential data and
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
4 of 18
118
although they may be capable of "externally similar acts of observation"... a person's 'picture of the universe' or
'view of the world' differs as a function of the particular language or languages that person knows. (1)
Korzybski and Keyser independently and earlier formulated similar notions in relation to undefined terms, logical
fate, etc. As you may recall, they contended that the culturally inherited structure of an individual's language,
including his or her terminology, grammar, logic, doctrines, etc., relates to assumptions, premises, implications about
the structure of ourselves and the world.
In Science and Sanity, Korzybski hinted at the practical implications of this structure even within a particular,
apparently 'unified' languaculture:
We do not realize what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. It is not an exaggeration to
say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of s.r [semantic or evaluational reactions] and that the structure
which a language exhibits, and impresses upon us unconsciously, is automatically projected upon the world
around us. (2)
Various distorted versions of this view have come to be known as the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis," an academic
abstraction which does not label anything that Sapir or Whorf ever put forward as a hypothesis on their own. (The
principle of linguistic relativity which they did put forward can be interpreted in various ways and may lead to many
different hypotheses.) Some scholars have pursued their own distorted interpretations and made a strawman rendering
of Whorf's views.
As you might imagine, much controversy has been generated by the various versions and responses to them. I
consider this controversy important to examine in some detail in Dare to Inquire, due to the centrality of linguistic
relativity in general semantics. I discuss the general-semantics view in the course of going into various other versions.
Language and Thought

According to psychologist Steven Pinker, both Whorf and Korzybski pre sented linguistic relativity as a singlevalued, absolutistic and uni-directional belief that "language determines thought." (3) This "strong version" (and
'weaker' ones as well) of the supposed Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is "wrong, all wrong" (4) claims Pinker (widely
accepted as an expert in linguistics and psychology).
Actually, neither Whorf nor Korzybski posited a 'language' entirely isolated from human behavior-in-a-culture as the
sole, one-directional, single valued determinant of some separable entity called 'thought.' According to both men,
'language,' 'thought' (more accurately, neuro-evaluational processes), 'behavior,' and 'culture' do not function
separately but rather as elements within a gestalt (a unified whole) where they mutually interact in multi-dimensional
and probabilistic ways.
In saying that 'language' does not function separately from 'thought,' I do not mean to imply, as Pinker does, that
either formulator claimed that there is no 'thought' without 'language.' Whorf, at the very least, qualified this and
Korzybski denied it.
Neither did they deny the possibility of inborn and 'universal' language related processes, more or less impervious to
cultural modification. Neverthe less, the thrust of their work suggests that language has important aspects modifiable
through learning. Through neuro-linguistic (a term originated by Korzybski) processes, our language use helps create
modifiable neuro-evaluational, neuro-linguistic environments, i.e., cultures, which can change and grow through
time-binding. We not only do things with 'language,' 'language' does things with us.
The general-semantics view of linguistic relativity appears unique among other versions of linguistic relativity for
several reasons. First is its explicit neurological emphasis. Using general-semantics language, we can talk more
accurately in terms of neuro-linguistic relativity:
Even a gramophone record undergoes some physical changes before words or noises can be 'stored' and/or
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
5 of 18
119
reproduced. Is it so very difficult to understand that the extremely sensitive and highly complex human nervous
system also undergoes some electro-colloidal changes before words, evaluations, etc., are stored, produced, or
reproduced? (5)
Before his untimely death, Whorf appeared to be struggling toward such an explicit neurological formulation as well.
(6)
A second point which distinguishes general semantics from many other views of linguistic relativity is its focus on an
individual's language behavior or use as it relates to his or her evaluative (roughly 'cognitive') processes. The term
"language" as neurocognitive linguist Sydney Lamb has noted, does not necessarily stand for one thing. Using a
device suggested by general semanticists, Lamb indexes language(1), language(2), language(3).
..when we look closely we can see that it ["language"] is used for a number of quite distinct collections of
phenomena selected from the kaleidoscopic flux, including especially these three: (1) language as a set of
sentences (e.g. Chomsky) or utterances (Bloomfield); (2) language as the system that lies behind such
productions; (3) language as linguistic processes, as in the title of Winograd's Language as a Cognitive Process
(1980). (7)
A given general language(1) system such as English, French, German, etc., can have within it distinguishable dialects
(regional variations) and registers (professional and group variations, such as the language of physicians, etc.).
Individual speakers or writers of a given language(1) will have unique particular variations within the more general
system which may include their vocabulary, logic, metaphors, doctrines, etc. Language(2) includes the neurolinguistic processes by which we generate language(1). A large part of human evaluative processes relates to
language behavior or use, i.e., language(3). We learn how to do things with words in a social context in order to
negotiate our lives with othersand with ourselves. Language(3) has become an area of increasing academic interest
in recent years, as for example in discussions of "thinking for speaking" and "speech acts." General semantics
especially focuses on language(3)how an individual's evaluative processes relate to their language(1) generated
from the neurological processes involved in language production, language(2) .
A third factor that distinguishes general semantics from other forms of linguistic relativity is its specific attention to
practical implications and applicationseven within the boundaries of a particular, apparently 'unified'
languaculture. Whorf, who died in his forties, noted but was not able to elaborate much on the more practical
implications of linguistic relativity. On the other hand, general semantics focuses on ways in which individuals can
become more aware of the effects of their language and its implicatory structure for ill and for good.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," goes a saying from my childhood. On the
contrary, neuro-linguistic factors, i.e., words with the associated neuro-evaluative processes in each of us, can play a
harmful, sometimes quite toxic role in our livesespecially if we remain unconscious of their implications.
We have particularly good access to our linguistic behavior, which appears modifiable to some degree. This is not any
form of word magic. We're interested in the underlying implications and orientation reflected in the structure of
language. These involve our evaluational (semantic) reactions, including so-called verbal 'thinking,' as well as
non-verbal 'thinking,' 'feeling,' behaving, etc. By becoming more aware of our language and its implications, we can
nudge our orientation to get closer in line with so-called 'facts.'
The Chomskyite Protest

The theory of Noam Chomsky has dominated linguistic studies in the United States for decades. Chomsky has
consistently argued for the universal, innate and unlearned structure of human language. Building on Chomsky's work
(focusing on language(1), Steven Pinker has proposed that the structure oflanguage, i.e., grammar, etc., comes
primarily by means of what he calls a "language instinct" determined by genes.
This chomskyite approach has now begun to show serious wear with little positive results for the claim that "language
is an instinct." (This failure has serious implications for the more general program of "sociobiology" or "evo lutionary
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
6 of 18
120
psychology" as well) Linguist Geoffrey Sampson has done an especially thorough job of analyzing the inadequacies
of chomskyite views. Sampson has concluded that:
...there are some universal features in human languages, but what they mainly show is that human beings have to
learn their mother tongues from scratch rather than having knowledge of language innate in their minds. Except
for the properties that lead to that conclusion, languages are just different (except that they probably do all
contain nouns and verbs) ... (8)
It seems that Dante had more or less the right view when he wrote in his Paradiso:
Tis nature's work that man should utter words,
But whether thus or thus, 'tis left to you
To do as seems most pleasing. (9)
Nonetheless, the great popularity of the chomskyite program has probably prevented many people from taking
Whorf's and Korzybski's work more seriously. To those who believe that most of language structure gets determined
genetically, the differences between different linguistic groups can in some sense be considered trivial. If one accepts
Pinker's claim that in its most significant aspects "language is not a cultural artifact," (10) then attention to language
use cannot be used to affect human perception and behavior in the way general semanticists and others claim it can.
I decided to closely examine Pinker's dismissal of linguistic relativity in his book The Language Instinct, to see if
there was anything there that would require me to revise my own views. The lack of substance in his arguments
surprised me. Pinker's presentation does not seem notable for its accuracy and fairness regarding opposing views. It
illustrates how someone nominally functioning as a scientist can block the way of inquiry. As Lamb noted, "Those
who doubt that language can influence thinking are unlikely to be vigilant for the effects of language on their own
thinking." (11)
Non-Verbal 'Thinking'
Pinker states that "General Semantics lays the blame for human folly on insidious 'semantic damage' to thought
perpetrated by the structure of language." (12) Pinker finds this something to scoff at. However, Korzybski did not
talk or write in terms of 'blame' or of 'thought' and 'language' so elementalistically.
A more accurate rendering of a general-semantics view of 'language' and 'thought' states that the structure of a
language, with its associated neuro semantic (evaluative) reactions in each of us, at a given time, among other
factorsaffects our ongoing behavior, perception, evaluating, etc., for good and ill. Pinker may be unable to
understand the nuances of this view because, as a good chomskyite, he lacks the linguistic consciousness that would
allow him to stop objectifying the abstract terms 'language' and 'thought' as if they represented isolated entities in the
world.
Despite his inaccurate description of general semantics, Pinker does correctly conclude that general semanticists find
some support for their views in Whorf's work. Unfortunately, Pinker also incorrectly concludes that linguistic
relativity must imply that "thought is the same thing as language" (13) and writes at great length to refute this.
However, his efforts here have no relevance whatsoever to either Korzybski's or Whorf's actual views. Neither
claimed that "thought is the same thing as language." In fact they both directly denied this while not eliminating the
importance of what Penny Lee calls "linguistic thinking" (Lamb's language(3)).
In Korzybski's case, as I have already emphasized, the term "semantic(s)" in general semantics implies "evaluation"
and does not typically refer to "just words" despite the usage of those ill-informed about general semantics.
Evaluation refers to happening-meanings, i.e., 'thinking,' 'feeling,' verbal and non-verbal organism-as-a-whole
transactions within an environment. Indeed, Korzybski stressed the importance of non-verbal formulating within his
understanding of neuro-linguistic behavior, noting that silent contemplating and visualization can allow us to take in
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
7 of 18
121
and develop fresh information, relatively unbiased by verbal ruts.
Basic Color Terms

Pinker also makes much of the "basic color term" research of Berlin and Kay, and of Rosch, as disproof of whorfiankorzybskian views. (14) Even though different languacultures have differing numbers of color terms, there does seem
to exist a rough, cross-cultural sequence of those colors which get labeled first, second, third, etc. In addition, people
across different cultures may tend to pick particular focal colors as the best examples or prototypes for a particular
category. Although at least some of this work has flaws in both its data collection and interpretation, it does lend
support to the notion that some aspects of language may depend upon the biologically based perceptual equipment of
humans across cultures. This doesn't, by the way, prove that some gene or genes are directly responsible for specific,
observable language behaviors. Trial-and-error empirical learning may still play a role even in the development of
color terms, however biologically based. (Note that "based" does not equate with "solely determined by.")
Despite Pinker's and other chomskyites' attempts to make this an either-or issue, any research which shows the
possibility of some cross-cultural, biological basis for some of the terms we use does not actually challenge the notion
oflinguistic relativity. Neuro-linguistic relativity held non-absolutely has no inherent conflict with some degree of
non-absolutist neuro-linguistic universalism, which may have some more or less direct biological basis.
Hopi Concept of 'Time'

Unfortunately Pinker doesn't play fair when it comes to discussing these issues. His representations of linguistic
relativity cannot be relied upon for accuracy. For example, he uses selective quotes to 'prove' that Whorf made
"outlandish claims" that the Hopi Indians were "oblivious to time" and did not have tenses in their language. (15)
Although Whorfs analysis of Hopi languaculture may not be entirely flawless, a comparison of Pinker's claims about
it and what Whorf actually wrote results in very different pictures.
It seems clear from a full, non-selective reading of Whorfs work that he recognized the importance of how the Hopi
languaculture clearly deals with durations and times. Whorf did not deny that the Hopi have used dating or calendars,
counted the number of days or duration of events, etc. What he did claim was that the Hopi did not conceptualize
"space or time as such" in the reified manner that we do in English and other Indo-European languages. This has been
corroborated by others who have lived within and studied Hopi language and culture, such as anthropologist Edward
Hall.
Eskimo Snow
In his crusade to show how linguistic relativity is wrong, Pinker doesn't seem to mind descending to personal attack
either. A common "urban legend" claims that Eskimo language has hundreds of different words for snow. By
connecting Whorfs work to this popular claim, Pinker suggests that Whorf was party to a hoax. According to Pinker,
from a report of four Eskimo words for snow made by Boas in 1911 "...Whorf embellished the count to seven and
implied that there were more. His article was widely reprinted, then cited in textbooks and popular books on
language, which led to successively inflated estimates in other textbooks, articles and newspaper columns of Amazing
Facts." (16)
Whorf actually wrote that English had one word for snow and Eskimo had three. Whorf used data that he had
available at the time of this writing (1940) to emphasize that: "Languages classify items of experience differently. The
class corresponding to one word and one thought in language A may be regarded by language B as two or more
classes corresponding to two or more words and thoughts." (17) To say that Whorf embellished anything here distorts
what he said. Whorf does not have responsibility in any way, as Pinker tries to suggest, for other people's
exaggerations and misinterpretations. This constitutes pure name-calling and has no basis in fact. (18)
Experimental Evidence for Linguistic Relativity
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
8 of 18
122
Studies to deliberately test one or another interpretation of linguistic relativity have gone on for at least a half-century.
This research remains an area of great contention and, despite the claims of chomskyites to some sort of victory, their
efforts to declare linguistic relativity "bunk" don't stand up to analysis. Pinker and others have attempted to downplay
the significance of tests that corroborate the notion that words can in some sense have an effect on memory or
categorization. However, the evidence hardly seems "weak." The results of these tests have sometimes surprised
researchers who didn't necessarily favor linguistic relativity.
In one set of classic studies, subjects were shown colored chips. The colors varied in their codability, how easily an
individual could apply a color label or name from his or her language to a chip. The chips were then removed, mixed
up and shown again to the experimental subjects, who were asked to pick out the chips they had been shown before.
The more easily labeled, more codable chips, appeared more available. In other words, the subjects had a better
memory for, and could pick out, the more easily labeled chips, even though they could also remember colored chips
without names. (19)
Pinker briefly mentioned and pooh-poohed the significance of another study about which the experimenters
concluded that the habitual categories of speakers' languages could indeed influence their color-categorizing behavior.
(20) One of the researchers, Willett Kempton, later wrote:
A simple experiment, clear data, and seeing the Whorfian effect with our own eyes: It was a powerful conversion
experience unlike anything I've experienced in my scientific career. Perhaps this all just goes to affirm Seguin's
earlier quote, as applying to us as both natives and as theorists: "We have met the natives whose language filters
the worldand they are us." (21)
Neuro-Linguistic Revision
Do this simple experiment. Have a friend select a number of newspaper headlines of similar size. Find a distance at
which the friend can hold the headlines so that you cannot make out what they say. At this distance, when your friend
tells you what an unfamiliar headline reads, the headline will probably 'pop out' at you.
This experiment provides a literal demonstration of neuro-linguistic revision. It illustrates how your linguistic maps
may have a visible effect on what you 'perceive,' respond to, etc. Indeed, to a great extent we react to what goes on
around us as a function of the linguistic maps that we hold. In other words, we often appear to react to our neurolinguistic reactions.
To the extent that the structure of our language fails to adequately map the non-verbal territory, we may ignore
important 'facts' or respond to fictitious entities created by our way of talking. We do well to become aware of and,
when necessary, change the structure of our language in order to create more adequate linguistic maps. The languages
of science and mathematics not only provide another worldview but also serve as models for the kind of linguistic
behavior that can help us improve our evaluative abilities. They provide especially powerful means for helping us to
fit our language to the non-verbal world.
This doesn't mean that we can create a language that perfectly matches the world. Quite the reverse: our
representations remain that; never exactly the same as what we're representing. Does it follow from this that we waste
our time when we try to tidy up language, to make it more structurally in keeping with the structure of the non-verbal
world? Surely not!
On the contrary, if our representations have properties not shared by the thing represented, or vice versa, we need to
look at that. It indicates a lack of fit or structural similarity between our mode of representation and what we wish to
represent. This lack of fit can lead to problems and should be put right to the degree possible. We can study other
languages and linguistically expressed viewpoints, including the language of science and mathematics, to expand our
'perceptions' and 'conceptions' of the world.
Neuro-linguistic relativity provides another way of understanding logical fate. Its significance relates not only to
different 'languages' as convention ally understood, i.e., English, Hopi, Tarahumara, etc. (languaget), but also and
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
9 of 18
123
perhaps even more importantly to the "linguistic" behavior of each individual (languageJ). The words we use, the
sentences we say, the logic we apply, the doctrines we espouse, insofar as they are done in language, must be
produced and affect us through neuro-linguistic (languagez) mechanisms.
If we do not understand these mechanisms, we are more likely to misuse them and/or to become misused by means of
them. The faith-based mass-murderers of September 11, 2001 probably screamed "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "God is
Great") as they killed themselves and thousands of others. They could not have done what they did without their
particular language-based evaluations. Their actions inevitably required neuro-semantic, neuro-linguistic mechanisms
and influences in order to occur.
Training in the system of GS provides an explicit language of evaluation. This language and its associated evaluative
(semantic) reactions make our own neuro-evaluative, neuro-linguistic mechanisms more codable and thus more
available for each one of us to consciously control. Semiotics pioneer Charles Morris wrote:
The work of A. Korzybski and his followers, psycho-biological in orientation, has largely been devoted to the
therapy of the individual, aiming to protect the individual against exploitation by others and by himself. (22)
General Semantics can help us understand the basic mechanism through which this neuro-evaluative, neuro-linguistic
control occurs. Out of this understanding, suggestions for practice follow including the use of neuro linguistic devices
which can influence perception and behavior in less unsane/insane and more positive, inquiry-oriented directions.
Notes
Penny Lee 1996, p.87
Korzybski 1994 (1933), p.90
Pinker 1994, p.58
Ibid, p.57
Korzybski 1994 (1933), p.xl
Whorf, p.239
Lamb 2000
Sampson, p.136
Qtd. in Vossler, p.235
Pinker 1994, p.18
Lamb 2000
Pinker 1994, p.57
Ibid, p.57
Ibid, pp.61-63
Ibid p.63
Ibid, p.64
Whorf, p.210
Pinker gets his 'information' about this from original research by anthropologist Laura Martin (Martin, 1986)
and an article on Martin's work by Geoffrey Pullum, entitled "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax." Martin's
conclusions were later challenged by Stephen 0. Murray. The term ''hoax" implies a conscious act of deception.
Pullum and Pinker abuse Martin's research. They have no actual evidence of conscious deception by Whorf or
his colleagues.
Agar, pp.69-71.
See P. Kay and W. Kempton, "What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?" This research is discussed in Lakoff 1987,
pp.330-334.
Kempton. Also see Alford, Minkel, and Nisbett and Norenzayan.
Morris, p.283
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
10 of 18
124
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agar, Michael. 1994. Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow and
Company.
Alford, Dan. 1980. "A Hidden Cycle in the History of Linguistics." In Phoenix, vol. 4, numbers I& 2. Available at
http://enformy.com/dma-2.htm.
Hall, Edward T. 1984. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Anchor.
Kay, Paul and Willett Kempton. 1984. "What is the Sapir-WhorfHypothesis?" American Anthropologist 86 (l) March.
Kempton, Willett. 1991. "Whorf and Color." Lingua List Newsgroup, Subject 2.700, Oct. http://www.umich.edu
/-archive/linguisticsllinguist.list/volume.2/no.651-700.
Korzybski, Alfred. 1994 (1933). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non Aristotelian Systems and General
Semantics. Fifth Edition. Preface by Robert P. Pula. Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lamb, Sydney M. 2000. ''Neuro-Cognitive Structure in the Interplay of Language and Thought." In Explorations in
Linguistic Relativity, Edited by M. Piitz and M. Ver spoor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjarrilns Publishing
Company. Also available at http://www.ruf.rice.eduHambllt.htm.
----. 1998. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Lee, Penny. 1997. "Language in Thinking and Learning: Pedagogy and the New Whorfian Framework." Harvard
Educational Review Fall 1997: 430-471. Cambridge, MA.
----. 1996. The Whorf Theory Complex: A Critical Reconstruction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Martin, Laura. 1986. "Eskimo Words for Snow: A Case Study in the Genesis and De cay of an Anthropological
Example." American Anthropologist 88 (June): 418- 423.
McNeil, David and Susan D. Duncan. 1998. "Growth Points in Thinking-for-Speaking." Cogprints at
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/ 00000664/.
Minkel, J. R. 2002. "A Way with Words." www.scientificamerican.com/explorations/ 2002/032502language/.
Morris, Charles. 1946. Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Murray, Stephen 0. 1987. "Snowing Canonical Texts." American Anthropologist 89 (June): 443-444.
Nisbett, R. E. and A. Norenzayan. 2002. "Culture and Cognition." In D. Medin and H. Pashler (Eds.), Stevens'
Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Third Edition, Volume Two: Memory and Cognitive Processes. New York:
John Wiley & Sons. Article available at Richard Nisbett's website: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett
/index.html.
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Morrow.
Pullum, Geoffrey. 1991. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sampson, Geoffrey. 1997. Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate.
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
11 of 18
125
London: Cassell.
Slobin, Dan. 2001. "Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity." Draft Version.
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/slobin.htm.
Vossler, Karl. Trans. by Oscar Oeser. 1932. The Spirit of Language in Civilization. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. ed. by John B. Carrol. 1956. Language, Thought & Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
How Language Shapes Thought

Dr. Lera Boroditsky is now professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego. At the time of this
presentation, she was at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. One of the leading researchers studying
linguistic relativity, in this engaging lecture sponsored by The Long Now Foundation, she brings together numerous
examples of research on linguistic relativity, both her own and that of others.
The YouTube video is embedded below. The entire video is one hour forty-one minutes long. You may want to watch
it in multiple viewings. Here is a time guide that may be helpful:
0:00 Introductory video about Words (interesting, but not directly relevant)
3:50 Stewart Brand's introduction of Dr. Boroditsky (Stewart Brand published The Whole Earth Catalog from
1968-1972)
5:08 Dr. Boroditsky's presentation begins
1:09:45 Question & Answer period
1:41:11 End
If you would prefer to watch the video directly on YouTube or with a YouTube mobile app, copy/paste this link:
http://youtu.be/cPGpZp1pfQQ
After viewing the video presentation by Dr. Lera Boroditsky, "How Language Shapes Thought," select two examples
of how language affects thought that you found most convincing (or most memorable) and explain your selections.
You will not be able to see others' responses until you post yours.
Relativity, not determinism

One of the most important things to understand about the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is that it is not about
"determinism". The argument is not that your thought is "determined" by the language that you speak - as is implied
by George Orwell's classic book 1984.
Rather, as Dr. Boroditsky noted in her lecture, the argument for determinism has been de-bunked. Rather the
argument is that the language you speak will affect how you come to know the world around you. This is an
important distinction because it means that it is indeed possible to understand people of different languages and
cultures.
Relativity in Physics
As should be obvious from its name, Linguistic Relativity was related to the then emerging Theory of Relativity,
which was also quite influential for Alfred Korzybski's thinking. Einstein's Theory of Relativity poses a serious
problem to the way that most of us think about the world. Most of us think of the world as a thing that is always the
same for all observers. And yet Einstein's theory tells us that perspective matters.
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
12 of 18
126
This point is not so simple as the classic parable of the blind men touching different parts of an elephant and insisting
that they are all touching something different. That is a worthwhile point, but Einstein's theory goes much further than
this.
The theory of relativity predicts that both time and mass change with relative velocity as you approach the speed of
light. Thus, the closer you come to the speed of light, relative to some observer, the slower will be the passage of time
for you in relation to those you have left behind (this has been demonstrated with atomic clocks on the space shuttle).
Similarly, as you approach the speed of light, your mass will appear to an observer to have been foreshortened or
compacted in the direction of travel.
Thus, if we were to take the elephant example, if a person is riding an elephant that is moving near the speed of light
with respect to some other person, then the person riding the elephant (and the elephant herself) will experience time
passing more slowly compared to an observer at rest. What's more, the elephant will appear to be considerably
compacted to that observer at rest.
So what?
The upshot of all this is that Physics has come to the understanding that your frame of reference matters quite
significantly for the reality that you perceive.
Linguistic and cultural relativity took this idea into the realm of social life - noting that one's frame of reference
matters considerably when one is trying to understand the meaning of a given cultural practice. Or, to put it in a
slightly different idiom, in order to understand a part (e.g., a practice within a culture), one must first grasp the whole
(e.g., the culture's system of meaning).
We have already seen some excellent examples of how language can affect our understanding of the world. Next I
turn to how our cultural frames of reference can have a rather considerable affect on our understanding of the world and with very serious consequences!
Cultural Relativity
As an anthropologist, cultural relativism is an important principle. But before anyone think that I am some kind of
moral relativist, let me clarify what I mean by this. Cultural relativism, as I practice it, involves adhering to the
principles of General Semantics that have been outlined thus far in the course. Most fundamentally, it involves
holding off on semantic reactions until one has fully understood the situation and what it means for those involved.
Below I will consider two rather charged examples of this kind of thing that have been hotly debated (what might this
suggest?) in the media. But first a word on cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism, for me, is a methodological concept. That means that it involves how I go about understanding a
situation. Thus, with methodological cultural relativism, one would want to suspend one's judgment of a situation
until one has a good grasp of the situation. This does not mean that one can never say what is good or bad. That is
what is known as moral relativism. Rather, methodological cultural relativism (or just "cultural relativism") involves
exploring the conditions in what some other practice exists before making a judgment about whether or not that
practice is good or bad.
"Bride Kidnapping" in Kyrgystan
To take an example, consider the practice of "bride kidnapping" in Kyrgystan. Watch this 20-minute video on the PBS
website. (As you watch, remember that videos are representations of the world that already involve a lot of labeling
and inferencing - i.e. only a few examples are shown to us, so we are already at a disadvantage. At the same time, this
particular video is, at least, an interesting representation of the practice.)
Initially, the very label "bride kidnapping" suggests a practice that is cruel. And yet, watching the video, you begin to
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
13 of 18
127
wonder if, perhaps, what they are doing is not quite the same thing as "kidnapping." Often the kidnapping is arranged
ahead of time between families, and it seems that the bride can be "in on it". Further, it is important to know that the
practice exists b.c. some families cannot afford to pay the necessary bridewealth (money paid from the husband's
family to the wife's family). "Bride kidnapping" is the practice that these families must resort to if their sons are going
to be married at all.
Thus, to offer another interpretation of the practice that may be true of at some or many of these cases of what is
called "bride kidnapping", it may be that these so called "kidnappings" are well known by the bride-to-be and even
agreed upon by her (although this is not always the case in the video). It may be the case that, even if she wants to
marry the man (or at least is not opposed to it), she must behave in a way that shows that she is not going easily
because that would be disrespectful both to her family since they would not be receiving a bridewealth payment and
potentially degrading to her b.c. for her to willingly accept would suggest that she is not worth a bridewealth.
Note that it could still be the case that some or most, or even all, of the cases of "bride kidnapping" are actually
instances where the woman is randomly snatched off the street by force and it is done against her will. The point is
not to conclude that if one instance of the practice turns out harmlessly, then all instances of the practice are harmless,
or that one can never be critical of another culture. Rather, the point is that deciding whether or not the practice is
problematic will necessarily involve more than just relying on the label "bride kidnapping". Instead, we need to take a
scientific perspective, understand the situation and the relevant cultural frame of reference and then decide.
Female Genital Mutilation / Female Circumcision
A second example, that we can consider in slightly more detail is the example of the practice referred to as "Female
Genital Mutilation" or "Female Circumcision". We can see right from the get-go how labels really matter. The
difference in English between "mutilation" and "circumcision" is dramatic. Whereas the former implies a grotesque
and perhaps torturous act, the latter is a common cultural practice that has been widely accepted for male babies in the
U.S. and elsewhere for quite a long time. So, then, we have a very practical problem at hand, for the purposes of this
module, how should I refer to the practice?
For this module, I find "female circumcision" (or just FC) to be a less loaded term as compared to "female genital
mutilation". This keeps open the possibility that some may find that "female circumcision" is a despicable practice
(perhaps similar to how some view male circumcision). Using the term "mutilation" makes it difficult for one to take
the contradictory side - I mean, who would say "I support a cultural group's right to mutilation"? Alternatively, one
could imagine saying "I support a cultural group's right to circumcision". So, FC it is.
The debate over FC is a rather intense and hotly argued one. The politically correct position (in the U.S. at least) has
been to oppose the practice. This is argued on the grounds that the practice is:
oppressive to women
evidence of male domination
is an attempt by men to reduce the sexual pleasure of women
I suspect that most who live in the U.S. have at least heard of this debate and have probably come to the conclusion
that it is indeed a despicable practice.
And indeed, at this point, it would be difficult to imagine that this practice could be understood in any other way
(particularly if we have heard it called "female genital mutilation"). And yet, on the other side of the issue, there are
those that argue that this conception of the practice is a gross misunderstanding.
One rather striking example comes from anthropologist Fuambai Ahmadu, an anthropologist who received her PhD
from the London School of Economics). In an essay entitled "Rites and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on
Power and Excision", Dr. Ahmadu writes of her own experience of female circumcision. As a woman from Sierra
Leone living in the U.S., at 22 years of age, she chose to go back to Sierra Leone to be circumcised - as was standard
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
14 of 18
128
part of entry into "womanhood" for Sierra Leonean women. As Ahmadu describes her experience of the practice, it
was almost exactly the opposite of what most Americans think of the practice. First, it was a practice that was
performed solely by women. This was an important part of the ritual because it involved the women removing
themselves from the community to undertake the practice away from the men. Second, she argues that it was, for her,
not at all a sign of patriarchal power (i.e. the power of men) but rather was a realization of the power of women
because the practice could only be performed by women and because the practice involved getting rid of a kind of
bodily maleness and becoming more fully female Finally, she argues, and further medical research supports her on
this point, that her experience of pleasure during sexual activity was not affected by the fact that she was circumcised.
If you have now read the article and my explication, perhaps you are beginning to be convinced that this might not be
the horrific practice of male domination that we thought it to be.
And as with "bride kidnapping", following the principle of non-allness would mean that just because one instance of a
practice was shown to be acceptable this does not mean that we should conclude that all instances are acceptable. But
it at least opens us to the possibility that this practice might mean something different to the people who are
undertaking it than it means to us.
If you are interested in further reading on the topic, here is a link to an article by Richard Shweder, an anthropologist
who has addressed the topic in some detail (and he is quick to acknowledge that he may not be the best person to
discuss it since he is a white, Western, male! But the article gives more historical and social perspective on the debate
around the practice).
Implications of Linguistic (and cultural) Relativity - here and now

In addition to these implications for cultures around the globe, there are those who have begun to explore the role of
relativity within our own culture. One standout in this regard is Carol Cohn's study of defense intellectuals (click to
download).
Although she was generally opposed to many of the policies that emerged from the world of defense intellectuals,
Cohn decided that she wanted to study them in order to better understand their frame of reference. Although she saw
their policies as inherently irrational, she sought to understand To this end, she conducted ethnographic research
where she became a participant observer in a community of defense intellectuals.
She found that these defense intellectuals had a different language that they would use to describe the act of war. For
example, as many Americans will recognize, defense intellectuals don't speak of "accidental death" caused by bombs
but rather, they refer to "collateral damage."
Examples abound in weapons and war talk. Missiles intended to kill people are called nuclear missiles with up to 400
times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima are called "Peacekeepers", bombs that kill people by explosive
power rather than radiation are called "clean bombs", and devices attached to missiles to help them go further into
their target are called "penetration aids." And this is where things take an interesting turn that makes one wonder
What is this bomb-talk really all about? Back to that in a moment.
Cohn was particularly interested, as any good ethnographer or good GS thinker would, in figuring out how it is that
people can talk this way without even noticing that they are doing it. How can people talk about killing people in
terms that make it sound like a game of cricket. What she describes is that, as she becomes increasingly indoctrinated
into the culture and the language of defense intellectuals, her thinking begins to change. As she writes:
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
15 of 18
129
"But as I learned their language, as I became more and more engaged with their information and their
arguments, I found that my own thinking was changing. Soon, I could no longer cling to the comfort of
studying an external and objectified 'them.' I had to confront a new question: How can I think this way?
How can any of us?" (Cohn 1987, p. 488).
Cohn's method of approach here is very much the kind of open-mindedness that one needs to do be a good
ethnographer. Just as with the examples of "bride kidnapping" and "FGM/FC", one needs to begin from a place of
non-allness by acknowledging that the seemingly irrational acts that other people are engaged in may not be as
irrational as they seem to us. Key to gaining this understanding is understanding their frame of reference. And most
important to a frame of reference is the language that is used.
So what then does the language used by defense intellectuals mean?
Here is a passage from an earlier article of hers on defense intellectuals that should give us some clues as to what else
might be involved in the bomb and missile talk of defense intellectuals (and note that this was recorded in the
mid-80's well after feminist critiques of weapon-as-phallus had been made - a point that Cohn was particularly struck
by since nobody she observed using this language seemed at all aware of this interpretation of their language):
"Another lecturer solemnly and scientifically announced 'to disarm is to get rid of all your stuff.' (This may, in turn,
explain why they see serious talk of nuclear disarmament as perfectly resistable, not to mention foolish. If
disarmament is emasculation, how could any real man even consider it?) A professor's explanation of why the MX
missile is to be placed in the silos of the newest Minuteman missiles, instead of replacing the older, less accurate
ones, was 'because they're in the nicest hole--you're not going to take the nicest missile you have and put it in a
crummy hole.' Other lectures were filled with discussion of vertical erector launchers, thrust-to-weight ratios, soft lay
downs, deep penetration, and the comparative advantages of protracted versus spasm attacks--or what one military
adviser to the National Security Council has called 'releasing 70 to 80 percent of our megatonnage in one orgasmic
whump. ' There was serious concern about the need to harden our missiles and the need to 'face it, the Russians are a
little harder than we are.'"
Now, thinking about this in terms of general semantics, we would want to better understand what kinds of semantic
reactions might come from making these kinds of associations between armaments and masculinity? (I could get
more specific here with terminology, but that would be impolite). Cohn suggests one possibility: "if disarmament is
emasculation, how could any real man even consider it?" Whether or not this is precisely what is going on here is
certainly up for debate. But it nonetheless raises some interesting questions about whether or not this type of language
might not be making the world a much more dangerous place than it really needs to be.
You may want to visit Cohn's website for more.
Once again, we see that choice of language can potentially have very serious consequences.
Personal Examples
Indicate whether you are mono-lingual (English-only, in this case), bi-lingual, or multi-lingual, and tell us which
languages you speak. Then provide an example from your own life where language proved particularly consequential.
For bi- and multi-lingual speakers
This could be an instance where there was a problem with translation from one language to another. Or, it could be a
general experience that you have of feeling like you are one kind of person when speaking one language and an
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
16 of 18
130
altogether different type of person when speaking another language. Or, it could be a difference that you experience in
your ability to think about particular topics in one of the languages that you speak (assuming that this isn't just a
matter of insufficient vocabulary).
For mono-linguals
Describe some domain in which you had to learn a new set of terms (e.g. a job specific language or perhaps a
mathematical language). How did learning that new set of terms affected how you understood the behavior that you
were engaged in?
You cannot see others' replies until you've posted your own.
Module 4 Assignment
Pick a controversial issue that you have heard practiced in another culture and do some web research in order to better
understand the cultural frame of reference within which that practice is understood. By "controversial," we mean an
issue that is considered normal when seen from another culture's frame of reference but which may not be seen as
normal or acceptable from your own or someone else's cultural frame of reference. Pay particular attention to the way
language and labels encourage you to see the issue in a particular cultural frame of reference.
Here is a short list of some possible controversies:
eating dogs in some countries
Muslims chopping off hands of thiefs
Americans with guns
Americans with the death penalty
female genital mutilation
honor killings
arranged marriages
death penalty for gays
Write a short essay (250 words or less) describing what you learned from your research. You can type in the box
below, or copy/paste from another application. If you found a particularly helpful online resource, include the link.
Optional Readings
These articles provide additional perspectives on the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.
You can click on the Preview icon to view the document within this page, or click on the link to download the PDF file
to your computer.
Benjamin Lee Whorf

Languages and Logic
Science and Linguistics
The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language
John A. Lucy
The linguistics of "color"
Language, Culture, and Mind in Comparative Perspective
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
17 of 18
131
Carol Cohn
Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb
Fuambai Ahmadu
Rites and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on Power and Excision (from Female "Circumcision" in
Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change, edited by Bettina Shell-Duncan Ylva Hernlund)
1. Did you complete the readings about Linguistic Relativity?

Language, Thought, and Behavior
What We Do With Language - What It Does With Us
Relativity
Implications of Linguistic Relativity
2. Did you view the Lera Boroditsky video presentation?
3. Did you post your reactions to the Boroditsky presentation? (50 points)
4. Did you contribute to the Personal Example discussion? (50 points)
5. Did you submit your Module Assignment? (50 points)
Great!
You're ready to move on to Module 5: Who Rules Your Symbols?
2/20/14, 6:31 AM
18 of 18
132
Module Map: Who Rules Your Symbols?

Listen to the audio version of this page
Recap
To this point in the course, weve covered:
An introduction to the field of study called General
Semantics, formulated by Alfred Korzybski. We
discussed Korzybskis motivation and approach to
addressing the problem of why human behavior, in the
form of societies and cultures, has not progressed or
advanced at the pace of engineering, mathematics, and
the sciences. We reviewed the foundational premises of
GS using the map|territory analogy. We talked about
the importance of acknowledging the role of the human
nervous system in how we abstract and evaluate our
experiences. We learned that in translating, or
transforming, our non-verbal experiences into verbal
behaviors, we can avoid symptoms that lead to
mis-evaluations. In other words, we can make better
maps (our language behaviors) that more appropriately
reflect the territories of our experiences.
A framework for analyzing language behaviors
from a GS perspective, developed by William
Haney. Haneys framework is based on recognizing
contributing factors and applying correctives that result
in more effective language behaviors. Mary Lahman
led us through a deep dive into the Haney framework
by focusing on two major topic areas of GS: allness
and bypassing.
Please note that the Haney framework can be applied

to other GS topics in addition to allness and bypassing. In Mary's e-textbook, Awareness and Action, she also devotes
chapters to Inference-Observation Confusion (also referred to as the Fact-Inference distinction) and Differentiation
Failures (including stereotyping, polarization, and frozen evalutions). If you havent already, I encourage you to
download the pdf of Awareness and Action and review the entire book at your leisure.
The topic of the linguistic relativity hypothesis (LRH), as proposed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee
Whorf. Greg Thompson invited us to view Lera Borditskys video presentation, How Language Shapes Thought,
in which she shared results of her research that revealed surprising and fascinating insights into the languageand-thought habits and behaviors of cultures with which most of us are unfamiliar. From Gregs explanations about
LRH and its implications, as well as Bruce Kodishs article on what we do with language and what language does to
us, we got a feel for how similar are the core components of LRH and GS.
We ought to easily recognize, then, that ancient notions such as objective or absolute reality do not
accurately reflect the limitations of our nervous systems as they interact with the outside world. Therefore
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
1 of 35
133
language structures, patterns, or terms that rely on this false-to-fact notion that what I experience (or say)
"is" the same as what exists "out there" in the world misrepresent, mislead, and misinform. The fact of the
matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group
... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our
community predispose certain choices of interpretation. Edward Sapir (Carroll, 1956, p. 134)
[emphasis added]
This Week
In this module, Who Rules Your Symbols? led by Steve Stockdale, were going to try and integrate what weve
learned so far by discussing the implications of two statements from Science and Sanity.
The analysis of living reactions is the sole object of general semantics (Korzybski, 1994, p.xli)
The affairs of man are conducted by our own, man-made rules and according to man-made theories. Man's
achievements rest upon the use of symbols. For this reason, we must consider ourselves as a symbolic,
semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us. (Korzybski, 1994, p. 76) [emphasis
added]
First, I'll present the results of the Point of View (or Orientation) Survey that some of you completed in
Module 1 and explain its significance. Then you will discuss your reactions to the survey results.
Next we'll talk about how these orientations, or points of view, are related to our environments and shape (or
are shaped by?) our evaluations, meanings, and values.
Then we'll address factors related to how you evaluate your own evaluations.
To address the second quote on symbol-rulers, you'll watch the online documentary, "The Persuaders" and
consider the "tension" between the would-be symbol-rulers and you as an individual symbol-evaluator.
We'll conclude the module with a Discussion assignment and a short essay assignment.
Objectives
The objectives for Module 5 include:
1. Gain an appreciation of the complex neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic environments that envelope your
daily living.
2. Understand the inter-related influences and implications of your orientation-environments, and evaluationsmeanings-values.
3. Recognize the extent to which others may attempt to "rule your symbols" and what defenses you may employ
against such attempts.
Point of View Survey Results and Interpretations

2/17/14, 6:00 AM
2 of 35
134
Before you read about the results of the Point of View

(POV) Survey you completed in Module 1, please:
1. Download and print this blank version of the
survey.
2. Mark your responses on this paper version by
filling in the bubbles, then sequentially connect
your responses with a line between each dot. (See
the examples below.)
3. Return to the Module 1 Point of View Survey you
submitted and compare your responses. Did any
of your responses change between the two
versions?
Purpose of the POV Survey

I have used similar versions of this survey (which I've
also called a General Orientation Survey or Personal
Orientation Survey) in General Semantics seminars
and courses for the past ten years.
The original purpose of the survey was to simply provide a basis for discussion among the rather 'homogenous' class
of college students I taught. The students in these classes were overwhelmingly white, 18-22 years old, from (on
average) middle-to-upper class Texas families, studying journalism or advertising/public relations. From all outward
appearances, these classes did not represent much demographic diversity.
Despite this apparent lack of diversity, however, when we discussed the results of this survey, we invariably
discovered that the homogenous appearances did not yield homogenous attitudes.
So the first purpose of the survey is to point out that differences (of attitudes) may lurk below the apparent similarities
(of appearances).
A second purpose of the survey is to point out that, in a very notional and unscientific way, we could consider the
results of this little 20-question survey as a depiction of a personal point of view, or orientation.
*** Let me explain here that in no way do I present this survey as anything other than a class activity for
discussion. For my Educational Psychology graduate degree I took a course in assessment and make no claims
as to the validity or reliability of this "instrument."
For example, consider the hypothetical results of Leslie and Pat below. Based solely on this unscientific exercise, one
could say that based on their responses to the statements on the survey, Pat exhibits an orientation that is generally
more in agreement with the statements than Leslie, as Pat's blue lines fall generally to the right of Leslie's red lines.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
3 of 35
135
Beyond comparing the placement and shape of the two vertical lines (Pat's and Leslie's personal orientations or
points of view), let's look at some of their responses to the statements. Since I made up Pat and Leslie, and their
responses, I can tell you that the only statement on which they agreed is #16, "The pen is mightier than the sword."
On statements #3 and #17, however, their responses were complete opposites.
#3. Everything happens for a reason. (Pat strongly agreed, Leslie strongly disagreed.)
#17. It is what it is. (Again, Pat strongly agreed, Leslie strongly disagreed.)
I hope you can see how, in the hands of a skilled classroom facilitator (ahem), a discussion of these differences might
yield robust class participation.
And then the third purpose of survey, after discussing the class norms and averages, differences and similarities, is to
consider questions such as these:
1. Accepting that the crooked lines of one's responses represents a notional, wholly unscientific depiction of one
(among many possible) way to illustrate one's point of view, how has one acquired this particular point of view
(or orientation)?
2. How has Pat learned or acquired a belief that everything happens for a reason, while Leslie has not learned or
acquired that belief?
3. Does the sum or totality of one's orientation "hang together"? In other words, are the responses consistent and
non-contradictory? For example, if one agreed with #10 (You can't teach an old dog new tricks), it's reasonable
to expect one would also agree with #20 (The more things change, they more they stay the same) given that
both reflect an attitude toward change.
4. In reviewing the orientations of Leslie and Pat, can you infer that you might prefer the company of one or the
other based on their responses? Can you think of anyone you know who might exhibit a similar point of view to
either Pat or Leslie?
5. And finally, referring back to the first question, do you think the 20 responses are the logical consequence of a
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
4 of 35
136
purposeful and deliberate world view (or point of view or orientation), or are they merely a mish-mash of
random top-of-the-head reactions?
We'll come back to these questions later. But now let's look at your Point of View Survey results.
Your Point of View Survey Results

Based on 434 survey submittals as of 28 January, the following slides portray several different types of analysis.
1. Percentage of all responses by statement and response
Note: Percentages do not total 100 due to non-responses and rounding.
2. Weighted average of responses (approximately plotted)
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
5 of 35
137
3. Most responses
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
6 of 35
138
4. Fewest responses
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
7 of 35
139
5. Table comparing sum-of-Disagrees with sum-of-Agrees

Note: This ignores all "0 No Opinion" responses.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
8 of 35
140
6. Chart showing sum of differences (Disagrees - Agrees)

Note: Statements with differences less than [+/- 100] are annotated on the chart as they can be considered the most
"equal" and therefore most polarized. Or do the statements at either end of the chart depict more polarization?
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
9 of 35
141
What are your reactions to your Point of View results?

Share your reactions with the class in the Discussion that follows. If you'd like to view the data used to generate these
slides, you can download the Excel file.
Share your reactions to the results of the Point of View
Survey, both the composite results of the class as well
as your own results.
You may want to respond to the questions asked on the
results page:
1. Accepting that the crooked lines of your
responses represents a notional, wholly
unscientific depiction of one (among many
possible) way to illustrate your point of view,
how have you acquired this particular point of
view (or orientation)?
2. Select one of the statements that you strongly
agreed or disagreed with. How do you suppose
that you learned or acquired this belief, while
others have not learned or acquired that belief?
3. Does the sum or totality of your point of view
"hang together"? In other words, are your
responses consistent and non-contradictory?
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
10 of 35
142
4. In reviewing the hypothetical orientations of Leslie and Pat, or the composite results of the class, can you infer
that you might prefer the company of one or the other based on their responses?
5. Would you say that your 20 responses are the logical consequence of a purposeful and deliberate world view (or
point of view or orientation), or are they merely a mish-mash of random top-of-the-head reactions?
Or, feel free to share whatever evaluations you like.
Orientations and Environments

The analysis of ... living reactions is the sole object of general semantics ... (Korzybski, 1994, p.xli)
I'd like to return to one of the questions posed in the Point of View Survey explanation: how has one acquired this
point of view (or orientation)?
Let's consider that your general orientation (or point of view) constitutes a living reaction and is therefore worthy of
analysis.
Here's how I would analyze this question.
Environment and Orientation of a Plant

First, let's take it out of the human realm and look at a plant.
[Aside: We seem better able to scientifically analyze plants and animals than we do ourselves or our fellow humans.]
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
11 of 35
143
A plant lives within a defined environment.
A plant grows as a function of different environmental factors or influences.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
12 of 35
144
A plant grows as the result of internal processes that absorb or react to the environmental influences.
Tropism is a term that's used to refer to the tendency of plants to respond according to the different types of
environmental stimuli, such as water, gravity, wind, sunlight, etc. For the purposes of this explanation, we can say
that a plant orients itself as a result of the sum total of all these environmental factors (tropisms).
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
13 of 35
145
Environment and Orientation of a Human (in this case, me)

Now let's jump to the human realm and consider the environments that influence us, specifically in the context of the
orientation question ... how has one (in this case, me) acquired his (my) orientation or world view?
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
14 of 35
146
Similar to plants, we live in environments that include a number of factors that can influence our growth and
development. But different from plants, human growth and development depend on more than just our physical
environment. Alfred Korzybski recognized the environments that are unique to humans and therefore critical to the
human time-binding capacity the neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic environments.
[General Semantics] recognizes neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments as unavoidable

conditioning environments, and considers 'mental' illness, science and mathematics as types of human
reactions. We discover that all forms of human reactions involve some common mechanisms which work
automatically for the benefit or detriment of humanity. (p. 297, CW, General Semantics, Psychiatry,
Psychotherapy and Prevention, 1940)
If we stop to reflect, we must face the fact that every human being is born into a neuro-linguistic and neurosemantic environment from which there is no escape. At present sciences are taking care of deadly
environmental dangers such as plagues, epidemics, factory conditions where harmful chemicals are used
which slowly kill off the workers, etc. But the academic linguists in their detachment and interest in
abstract verbiage somehow disregard our neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments as
environment, and therefore do not (and, perhaps, could not) produce any constructive practical results in
building up sanity in education, and so ultimately in human living. It is true that these academicians and
verbalists would have to know more about living human reactions. They would have to study not only
neurology, psychiatry, general semantics, verbalisms written or spoken in hospitals for the "mentally" ill,
etc., but also the pathological reactions found in politicians, journalists, etc., and even in educators and
scientists. (p. 365, CW, Foreward to LHIHA, 1941)
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
15 of 35
147
[Listing errors of omission] The disregard of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments as an
environment unique for our symbolic class of life. These are no more avoidable factors than air or water.
They may have disastrous effects on us, and we know enough about environmental factors, for instance, in
occupational diseases to understand the gravity of such disregard. (p. 379, CW, Foreward with M. Kendig
to A Theory of Meaning Analyzed, GS Monographs, Number III, 1942, pp. vii-xvi.)
You can see that the number of potential neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic factors or influences are
indefinitely-many.
While this slide emphasizes the symbolic influences, it's important to not overlook the biological influences that
certainly affect our neuro-semantic neuro-linguistic environments specifically, our past experiences and genetic
expressions. The sum total of these neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic influences, comparable to the plant's tropism
effects, can be considered as our (or in this case, my) personal orientation.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
16 of 35
148
And from this orientation, I evaluate, react, and behave, as reflected in my responses (or you could say my
evaluations) to the statements on the Point of View survey.
But there's more going on, especially if we look more closely at the influences of our Experiences as we'll see on the
next page.
Evaluations-Meanings-Values
Picking up from the previous page, let's look more closely at the influence of our Experiences.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
17 of 35
149
"Theories" in General Semantics

Throughout Korzybski's writings, he refers to five "theories" related to General Semantics.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Time-binding, or as he titled two early papers, TIME-BINDING: The General Theory.

General Semantics as a general theory of evaluation.
General Semantics as a general theory of values.
General Semantics as establishing a theory of meanings.
General Semantics as establishing a theory of sanity.
We addressed time-binding in Module 1. We also mentioned that the title of the "source book" for General Semantics
is Science and Sanity; that the methods and applications of science are the foundation for human sanity.
We've covered evaluation in the context of the abstracting-evaluating process.
And we talked about meaning, especially in Module 3 on bypassing. As attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce, "you
don't get meaning, you respond with meaning."
But to this point, we haven't really talked about values. So here I want to place evaluation, meanings, and values in a
broader environmental context. That is, evaluations, meanings, and values as inseparable and integral aspects of our
life experiences.
Korzybski coined a technical term for such inseparable-ness non-elementalistic. He observed that one of the
potential errors in our language behaviors was the ability to divide or separate in our verbal worlds of language what
cannot be separated in our non-verbal worlds of experience. This error of separating in words what cannot be
separated in 'reality' he called elementistic evaluating, or to nounify the process, an elementalism.
In this case, we have three different words, which can be defined in different ways. But on a neurological level ... the
level of actual living reactions ... what we refer to as evaluations, meanings, and values are all bound together both as
past and present experiences.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
18 of 35
150
To illustrate, let's return to the "you've got cancer" example of J.S. Bois from Module 1 Defining and Describing
General Semantics.
Imagine a scene in a hospital examining room. Theres a doctor, a patient, and the patients wife. A lab
technician knocks on the door and enters, carrying a medical folder with the patients charts. He hands the
folder to the doctor, nods to the patient and the wife, and leaves the room. The doctor silently looks through
the pages of the chart. She takes a deep breath, gathers herself, and turns to the husband to say, The tests
confirm that youve got cancer.
Can you envision in that scenario how different evaluations, meanings, and values are manifested by each of the
participants?
To repeat another excerpt from Module 1 that I hope you might now find a little more meaningful:
In Week 5, we'll address the "big picture" implications of [Korzybski's] theories about the complex interrelationships among evaluations, meanings, and values. Here are some examples that may give you a feel for
what Korzybski was getting at:
The European Union is divided over the ongoing financial crises in Greece and other countries. Generalizing and
simplifying ... the citizens in Greece evaluate the crisis differently than German citizens because the austerity
that is being forced on Greece means something very different to the Greek than it means to the German. The
Greek and the German evaluate the situation differently because the situation means something different
because they hold different values.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
19 of 35
151
The Tea Party in the United States evaluates the significance of U.S. debt and government spending levels
differently from other political groups because of the meaning that Tea Partiers give to government debt based
on their values.
People around the world hold different evaluations about global warming/climate change based what the
phenomenon means to them and what values they hold. To the citizen of the Maldives, the threat of rising
oceans bears meaningful consequences because they value their way of life (not to mention their actual lives),
so they evaluate the evidence and forecasts about global warming one way. The owner/operator/customers of a
coal-burning electricity plant in the remote southwest U.S. evalute the issue differently because their economic
and political values are affected in different meaningful ways.
The ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan can be considered in terms of different evaluations based on
conflicting values and meanings.
Can you think of any close-to-home controversies that exhibit the inseparable (or non-elementalistic) nature of
evalutions, meanings, and values?
Brain-Based Evaluating
As we saw in Module 1, it's important to acknowledge that when we refer to cognitive activities such as thinking,
feeling, imagining, considering, etc., we are referring to neurological behavior that has a biological basis. Therefore if
we want to conscientiously improve our language behaviors, we need to understand something about how our brains
work at least according to the current brain science.
On this page we have five short video clips about the brain that relate to our evaluating. (Unfortunately, we don't have
closed captioning available on these clips.) All of these come from episodes of the Charlie Rose Show.
1. Overview of the cortex (5:01)

From the Charlie Rose Brain Series, Anthony Movshon provides a functional overview of the cerebral cortex and
describes the four lobes that comprise the cortex.
CRose-Cortex.mp4
2. The brain as a "piece of meat" (3:17)

Also from the Charlie Rose Brain Series, the panel discusses how the brain is not hard-wired like a computer, and
also mentions how dependent we are on our genetics and previous life experiences.
CRose-MeatNotComputer.mp4
3. Paul Allen on the brain's complexity (1:45)

Along with Bill Gates, Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft. He now owns the Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks
and the Portland Trailblazers National Basketball Association franchise. More importantly for our purposes, he has
created the Allen Institute for Brain Science. (Christof Koch from the Module 1 afterimage demonstration is the
Institute's Chief Scientific Officer.) Two weeks ago Allen sat down with Charlie Rose to talk primarily about the
Super Bowl, but he also discussed his Institute and related this comparison of the brain to a computer.
CR-paulAllenshort.mp4
4. Eric Kandel on the role of the "beholder" (2:59)
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
20 of 35
152
During an interview to promote his 2012 book, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art,
Mind, and Brain, Eric Kandel discussed his approach to studying the role of the beholder's response to art
specifically, portraiture.
cr-kandel-beholder.mp4
5. Integration of cortex and amygdala (5:44)

Walter Mischel (of the Marshmallow Experiment in Module 1) and Daniel Kahneman discuss their two schemes for
characterizing the integration of the cortex and the amygdala. Mischel uses the metaphor of hot and cool systems to
compare the two, while Kahneman refers to fast and slow.
Note how similar their descriptions are to what Korzybski, in 1941, observed about the interaction of the cortex and
what was then referred to as the thalamus.
If we orient ourselves predominantly by intension or verbal definitions, our orientations depend mostly on the
cortical region. If we orient ourselves by extension or facts, this type of orientation by necessity follows the
natural order of evaluation, and involves thalamic factors, introducing automatically cortically delayed reactions .
In other words, orientations by intension tend to train our nervous systems in a split between the functions of the
cortical and thalamic regions; orientations by extension involve the integration of cortico-thalamic functions.
Orientations by extension induce an automatic delay of reactions, which automatically stimulates the cortical
region and regulates and protects the reactions of the usually over-stimulated thalamic region .
What was said here is elementary from the point of view of neurology. The difficulty is that this little bit of
neurological knowledge is not applied in practice. Neurologists, psychiatrists, etc., have treated these problems in
an 'abstract', 'academic', detached way only, somehow, entirely unaware that living human reactions depend on
the working of the human nervous system, from which dependence there is no escape. No wonder 'philosophers',
'logicians', mathematicians, etc ., disregard the working of their nervous systems if even neurologists and
psychiatrists still orient themselves by verbal fictions in the 'abstract'.
CR2-hotCool-sys1-2.mp4
Your "Inner Interpreter"

I met Laura Bertone twenty years ago this summer at my first general semantics seminar-workshop at Hofstra
University in New York. We served together as trustees for the Institute of General Semantics for several years.
In 2006, Laura published a wonderful book that serves as both a textbook and a memoirs, of sorts, that contains
illustrative examples from her career as a "Paris-based conference interpreter." That's how the book jacket describes
her profession. I prefer to think of it as "simultaneous translating" which, to my mono-lingual mind, is almost akin to
magic.
The book is The Hidden Side of Babel: Unveiling cognition, intelligence, and sense (Amazon link). The excerpt
below, which you can read inside this page with preview function, or download as a PDF document, is the chapter
titled "The Inner Interpreter." I've selected this excerpt because I believe it reinforces several important points about
how, even within one language, we have to interpret or translate in order to evaluate and understand.
The Inner Interpreter (PDF)
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
21 of 35
153
Example: What do these pictures mean?

To illustrate the interplay of evaluations, meanings, and values, consider the following photos in terms of two
questions.
1. What do you think they mean?
2. What do they mean to you?
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
22 of 35
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
154
23 of 35
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
155
24 of 35
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
156
25 of 35
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
157
26 of 35
158
I took these photos this past December about 30 miles from where I live in western New Mexico. These are rock
drawings known as petroglyphs, carved by the ancient inhabitants of this area.
Let me tell you a little more about the last images that depict the square spiral shape. I took these four photos on the
day after the winter solstice, between 11:58 and 12:03.
What does that additional information mean in terms of how you evaluate these photos and what they depict?
I think it's reasonable to infer that, in the case of the square spiral, the specific location and size of the spiral serve a
deliberate purpose. Combined with the L-shaped shadow of the overhanging rock, this spot marks the highest point of
the sun on the shortest day of the year.
Considering how many years of observations it must have taken to determine where the L-shaped shadow would fall
on this once-a-year day, this must have meant something special to the engravers. They must have valued this specific
time.
Does this additional information make any difference in terms of what this means to you?
"The Persuaders" as Symbol-Rulers

The affairs of man are conducted by our own, man-made rules and according to man-made theories. Man's
achievements rest upon the use of symbols. For this reason, we must consider ourselves as a symbolic,
semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us. (Korzybski, 1994, p. 76) [emphasis
added]
To revisit a slide from earlier in this module, consider how much of our neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic
environments involves various agents who are trying to influence our personal evaluations and living reactions.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
27 of 35
159
It's worth noting that Korzybski's caution regarding "those who rule the symbols, rule us" was published just months
after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933. He (Korzybski) understood how vulnerable and
susceptible humans were to the manipulation of symbols, signs, words, music, etc. He knew the neurological
mechanisms of conditioned responses from Pavlov's experiments, consistent with his own formulation of
identification whereby individuals did not properly evalute and were unaware of their abstracting processes.
Five years before Korzybski's caution hit the New York City streets in Science and Sanity, another New Yorker
published his own book that, unintentionally no doubt, reinforced Korzybski's contention.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an
important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Edward Bernays
Edward Bernays was the nephew of Dr. Sigmund Freud. The name of his 1928 book was Propaganda. He taught the
first university course in public relations, and is generally considered to be one of, if not the, father of the American
public relations industry.
So there would seem to be a natural tension between what Bernays advocated and what Korzybski warned about.
Ironically, however, the history of General Semantics includes several prominent individuals from the the advertising
and public relations industries.
"The Persuaders" with Douglas Rushkoff

In November 2004, days after the U.S. presidential election, the Public Broadcasting Series Frontline series broadcast
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
28 of 35
160
Douglas Rushkoff's 90-minute documentary, "The Persuaders." The film delves into "the persuasion industry" of
advertising, marketing, and political campaigns.
The film includes interviews with several major "persuaders," who make no apologies for their objectives to ... create
loyalty beyond reason ... develop cult-like devotion ... appeal to the reptilian brain ... and find words that work.
You can watch the entire documentary, with transcript, at the PBS website. In particular, pay close attention to
segments 4 (The Science of Selling) and 5 (Giving Us What We Want).
Lay Off of My Persuade Shoes

In 2009, I was invited to give a presentation to a trade association group of advertisers. I took it as an opportunity to
challenge these "persuaders" to raise their game, and their industry, to higher levels of respect for their clients and
their clients' customers.
In the Optional Activities for Module 1 I included one segment of the presentation, A GS Perspective.
Here are the two segments that follow the GS Perspective that specfically address the advertising and PR industries,
and my own personal experience with one particular advertising (some might say propaganda) campaign.
Public Relations Perspective

The script is available here.
aaf-pr.mp4
Chesapeake Energy and Conclusion

aaf-chk-conclusion.mp4
The script is available here.
Response Side Semantics

One year after viewing "The Persuaders," I was motivated to document my thoughts
regarding this tension between those who seek to rule the symbols (the supply side of
symbol-rulers) and those, like myself, who sought to resist the attempts to be ruled (the
response side).
This article from the January 2006 issue of ETC: A Review of General Semantics, "calls
out" those who wish to rule the symbols and issues a metaphorical "call to arms" to those
who wish to put up the response side resistance.
You can download the PDF link below or view it within this page using the preview
feature
Download Response Side Semantics
Module 5 Dicussion
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
29 of 35
161
What topic or illustration most resonated with you in this module regarding Who Rules Your Symbols? Discuss your
evaluations, reactions, responses, etc.
Module 5 Assignment
In this module, we attempted to describe a "tension" that exists between individual evaluators (symbol users) and
those who would seek to manipulate, control, or influence (the symbol rulers).
Submit a short essay of approximately 250 words with your evaluation of this "tension." Do you agree with the
premise that this is a concern to be concerned with? If so, provide examples in which someone attempted to rule your
symbols. If you don't agree that this "tension" exists or represents a serious concern, explain why you feel it isn't.
To submit the assignment, look to the Submit Assignment link to the upper right. You can type your answer into the
edit window or copy/paste from another program. You may also submit a media comment or attach a link.
Optional Activities for Module 5

Audio Resources
The National Public Radio (NPR) program, On the Media, provides a weekly update on stories related to journalism,
advertising, and general interest topics pertinent to all forms of media, including the Internet. These recent segments
relate to the Module 5 content.
Bogus "Blue Monday"
Do the Motivations of Leakers Matter?
On Banning the Other N-Word (Nazi)
What's in a Name? (on the Washington Redskins football mascot)
TLDR, an offshoot project by On the Media producers, profiled an interesing character who was living with the
consequences of being Stereotyped online.
Another NPR program, The Diane Rehm Show, has also produced several programs recently related to journalism,
advertising, and the brain.
An interview with journalist Thomas E. Patterson regarding his book, Informing the News: The Need for
Knowledge-Based Journalism.
A discussion about the latest "native" advertising and efforts to promote transparent advertising on the Internet.
Two interviews with Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of Health, on President Obama's
BRAIN Initiative from last spring and an interview conducted today, 10 February.
Articles
New York Times on the Washington Redskins name controversy
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, "Still Mad as Hell"
Paper/Video Presentation
I prepared the following video presentation and paper for a graduate psychology course titled "Biological Basis of
Behavior." Our textbook was Principles of Neural Science by Eric Kandel, James H. Schwartz, and Thomas M.
Jessell.
What Difference Does it Make? Implications of Neuroscience for Education
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
30 of 35
162
What difference does it make?

When I applied to the Educational Psychology graduate program last year, I explained that my academic interests
were focused on the question, Are educational practices consistent with cross-disciplinary knowledge? As I
progressed through the program curriculum, I narrowed the scope of my cross-disciplinary objective to consider
how the latest findings in neuroscience might inform educational theory and practice. The purpose of this paper is to
provide an initial report regarding: 1) underlying attitudes or premises about how we think about the brain; 2) six
findings from neuroscience that relate to learning; and 3) the consequences or implications of those findings, or what
difference does neuroscience make for education?
How we think about the brain, mind, and all things psychological (constructs, behaviors, motivations, etc.) is
dependent upon a critical underlying premise. That premise can be stated as a choice between accepting the notion of
dualism, which differentiates the substance of mind from that of the brain, or rejecting dualism to instead ascribe
functions of mind to the biological organ of the brain. This paper reflects the point of view of two Nobel laureates,
Francis Crick and Eric Kandel, who reject the mind|brain dualistic dichotomy. Each ascribes the behaviors and
functions of what are generally attributed to the mind to the brain (Crick, 1994; Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 1). In
other words, from a scientific orientation, the brain exists as a biological entity whereas what we refer to as mind
does not exist in a biological sense. The mind is more appropriately thought of as the behavior of our brains
(Crick, 1994, p. 7) or a series of functions carried out by our brains (Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 1). Many people
who do not consider themselves scientific may object to the boldness of this premise and counter with the argument
that there must be more than just the brain to account for our thoughts, ideas, intuitions, etc. However, if one purports
that position, one must be able to offer a competing theory or explanation if not in the brain, where? From a
scientific perspective, therefore, the hypothesis that its all in the brain provides a useful and appropriate attitude for
understanding these six findings.
1. The brain is continually changing and, in a global sense, learning.
Anytime you engage in what is usually referred to as learning, you are also engaged in changing your brain.
Virtually every experience you have and every behavior you exhibit results in some level of neural activity that
causes structural, chemical, and electrical changes in your brain. Kandel notes that this ongoing change activity
results in intellectual growth and also accounts for the impressive degree of plasticity exhibited by the brain in
recovering from certain types of damage, injury, and disease (Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 1).
2. The brain constructs your sensory experiences of the world.
From a common sensical view point, we can easily lapse into the conventional understanding that we see and hear
exactly whats there to be seen and heard. We feel that our senses capture whatever sources may stimulate our
attention our eyes see, our ears hear. We accept easily understood analogies such as our visual system is like a
camera and our hearing is like a tape recorder.
However, we now know that such common sensical feelings and analogies are nave and mistaken. The seeing and
hearing that we attribute to our eyes and ears is really the result of the brain processing sketchy and limited data of
the outside world that is sensed, captured, and transmitted to the brain. The brain forms the experiences that you
become aware of by taking this incomplete sensory data, looking for patterns that match previous experiences,
making inferences to fill in the holes of missing data or unexpected patterns, before integrating the different inputs
into a unified awareness.
Jeff Hawkins likens the activity in the brain (specifically the cortex) to a densely-packed network of fiber optic wires
with a million points of contact. As incoming sense signals enter the brain to be processed, imagine the activated fiber
optic network changing its illuminated patterns every millisecond. The patterns changes in both spatial and temporal
dimensions and those changes, according to Hawkins, constitute the currency of the brain Thats what your brain
works on. And believe it or not your perception of the world is really a fabrication of your model of the world.
You dont really see light or sound. You perceive it because your model says this is how the world is, and those
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
31 of 35
163
patterns invoke the model (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2009).
Christof Koch uses a visual demonstration to illustrate the effect known as afterimage. After staring for about twenty
seconds at four brightly-colored squares (red, green, yellow, and blue) projected onto a screen, the image on the
screen is suddenly changed and the viewer sees four different pastel colors for a few seconds, then the viewer
realizes that the image on the screen is actually four identical gray squares. The viewer has experienced an afterimage
resulting from the visual systems inability to immediately adjust to new input. Koch makes the point that what you
see can be influenced by what you have just seen, and what you have just seen may cause you to not accurately see
what is presented before you now. He concludes from this demonstration that, clearly this naive, realistic view that
theres a world, theres my head and this simple mapping, it cant be true (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial
Committee, 2005).
3. The brain includes a continuously-running simulator that anticipates motor behavior.
Have you ever tried to assist a waiter, burdened with a full tray of food and drinks, by taking your order from the tray,
only to be rebuffed by the waiter who insists, No thanks, Ive got it. Daniel Wolpert refers to this situation in a
demonstration he calls the waiter task, which illustrates how the brain directs a simulation capability that operates
in anticipation of motor behavior (Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 3). He explains that since the feedback capability in the
motor system responds relatively slowly (about 250 milliseconds), for tasks that require much quicker responses (like
hitting a tennis ball) the brain simulates the action and anticipates or predicts the response. So the brain anticipates the
action of the muscles as well as the feedback returning to the brain in response to the action. When your waiter is
holding the full tray, his motor system is controlling his muscles and exerting the proper force to suspend the tray. If
you reach out and remove your drink, the waiters visual system and motor system brain cannot accurately estimate
exactly when the weight and balance of the tray is going to shift. So depending on the particulars of how the tray is
loaded, your good intentions to help may cost you and your fellow diners another thirty-minute wait, and your waiter
a tray load of orders. But the waiters own brain simulation can anticipate exactly when his left hand is going to
remove your glass from the tray such that the tray remains securely stable on his right hand.
Another brain capability related to both motor and sensory systems was identified by the discovery of mirror neurons
by Italian neuroscientist Giacomo Rizzolatti. He observed that when an object such as a banana was offered to a
laboratory monkey, the monkey reached for it, which triggered the firing of a certain neuron in the monkeys brain.
But Rizzolatti also discovered that a second monkey, who simply observed the first monkey reach for the object, also
registered the same neuron firing in his brain. Rizzolatti isolated this mirroring activity to a particular type of
neuron he called mirror neurons. In humans, these neurons are believed to play a pivotal role in one person being
able to feel empathy for another. Rizzolatti also suggests they are necessary for the human ability to imitate others,
enabling the perpetuation of rituals, traditions, and ultimately cultures (Da Cunha, 2010). Moreover, Kandel says
there is evidence that mirror neurons may allow a child to more rapidly acquire language skills by watching the
movement of the mothers mouth as she speaks (Da Cunha, 2010, Episode 4).
4. The brain responds to stimulation, even when the stimulation is artificial.
The phenomenon known as phantom limb occurs when a person feels pain in the location of a limb that has been
amputated. The patient experiences pain, but the attributed source of the pain is literally not there. This phenomenon
manifested in a patient of neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, causing the patient excruciating pain in his phantom
right hand. Ramachandran suspected that the brain might be trying to communicate through the motor system to the
right hand, but in the absence of feedback from the phantom hand, the brain continue to send commands that could
not be executed by the missing hand. He wondered if he could trick the patients brain by providing a visual illusion
that provided apparent feedback. To test his hunch, Ramachandran constructed a simple box with an open top and two
holes in the side in which the patient could insert his good left hand and the nub of his right arm without the
amputated hand. In the center of the box, Ramachandran mounted an upright mirror such that the patient could look
down at the mirror and see the reflection of his left hand, as if it were his right hand. The mirror illusion was powerful
enough to fool the patients nervous system and the phantom pain went away, suggesting that even pain can be a
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
32 of 35
164
construct of the mind (NOVA, 2001).

5. To focus attention on one thing, the brain actively suppresses attention elsewhere.
In researching the ability of the human visual system to track a moving object, neuroscientists have discovered two
different types of neurons. One type of neuron focuses attention on the object, while the other works to actively
suppress the background surrounding the object in order to further highlight the object. Neuroscience researchers,
authors, and amateur magicians Stephen L. Macknic and Susana Martinez-Conde report that this mechanism has been
exploited by magicians in the many ways in which they distract and misdirect their subjects attention in order to
accomplish their magical illusions (Macknic, Martinez-Conde, & Blakeslee, 2010).
6. Some language habits, such as grammar, take years to develop.
Using EEG imaging, researcher Helen Neville has shown that both adults and children as young as six years old can
listen to a story and detect errors of meaning or words that dont make sense within 200 milliseconds, localized in the
posterior of the cortex. When the story narration includes grammatical errors, such as saying words in the wrong
sequence or reversing nouns and verbs, adults can detect the errors even more quickly (within approximately 100
milliseconds) in a localized area on the left frontal lobe. However, the response of children to grammatical errors is
slower and dispersed over a wide area of the cortex. Neville suggests that it may take 10-15 years for children to fully
develop their grammatical recognition capabilities. She notes that this localized area in the left frontal lobe is adjacent
to an area that appears to be critical to tool use and sequential planning: Its possible that one aspect of language is
closely tied to tool use, especially this kind of action planning and sequencing that we have to do in order to talk
(THIRTEEN, 2010).
Researchers such as Patricia Kuhl have concluded that early exposure (prior to age 7) to non-native languages is
critical for a child to most efficiently develop non-native language proficiency. She also suggests that language
learning is strongly dependent upon the development of social learning skills that babies acquire when they are nine
to ten months old. Studies indicate that babies of that age who are exposed to non-native phoneme sounds in the
presence of others have no trouble discriminating those sounds. However, babies who are exposed to non-native
phonemes from a television set do not learn to discriminate (Da Cunha, 2010, Episode 5).
Given these six findings, what difference does knowledge from neuroscience make or could make in
educational theory and practice?
Beginning with the most general implications, two seem foundational for teachers, administrators, and policy makers.
The first is that the brain(or all brains in the plural) is not a black box. Although neuroscientists would be the first to
admit that much remains to be discovered and learned, much is known at present. Authority figures within education
can no longer be content to cling to theories and practices based solely on speculative theories, observational studies,
and common sense. Secondly, they should consider themselves as brain changers. To best teach, they must
understand how the brains of children (and adults) change (or learn) in response to myriad environmental
stimulations. Educational theory should most fundamentally be based on the fact that the brain naturally seeks to
learn. Rather than thinking of education as the dispensing or depositing of knowledge into a childs mind, formal
education or schooling could be viewed as a socially-desirable means to guide the childs natural brain development
(learning) in a direction consistent with cultural and social ideals.
We should also recognize that even though we talk about the brain in generalized, or even universal, terms, each
individual brain is unique. So while we can appropriately generalize about the brains anatomy, function, capability,
and limitations, we should be aware that each brain is different and unique due to effects of genetics, environment,
and life experiences.
At the level of the individual, this attitude of difference-within-similarity should become internalized within each
child from the beginning of the formal educational process. Each child should develop an informed sense of how
he/she is similar to others, but also that he/she is also different from others and unique unto him/herself. Each child
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
33 of 35
165
should develop a sense of to-me-ness that acknowledges the sensations, feelings, descriptions, and experiences of
the world he/she is aware of are created by his/her own nervous system. Each person experiences the world
differently, no matter how similar our descriptions of our experiences of that world are.
Educational practitioners should help the individual exploit the learning capabilities inherent not only in the sensory
system, but also the motor system. Combining these capabilities with those of mirror neurons, it seems clear that
instructional techniques should not rely exclusively on cognitive activities, but also incorporate the manipulation of
tools, instruments, and other aids, as well as watching and imitating behavioral models. While such techniques may
be common in grades K-6, there is no reason why they should not continue to be effective even for adult learning.
Particularly for learning non-native languages after age seven, watching a speaker may significantly facilitate learning
over simply listening to the speaker.
The final implication to be made in this paper, and the most specific, applies to the development of individual
language habits. If the conclusions from Helen Nevilles research are correct that it takes years for a child to
develop proficient grammatical recognition and localization it seems logical to devote significant study to
determine what kinds of grammatical structure are important to process and evaluate experiences, rather than
adherence to grammatical standards that have evolved arbitrarily. Two practical examples of language habits that
deserve study in this regard are to reduce reliance on to be verbs (is, am, are, was, etc.) and absolutistic terms (all,
every, none, perfect, etc.) Such practices logically result from the to-me-ness of individual experience and the
limitations of our imperfect nervous systems.
Teller, the normally mute half of the Penn & Teller magic act, makes his living by exploiting the facts, foibles, and
limitations of the human nervous system. Like his fellow magicians, his on-stage objective is not merely to entertain
the audience, but to lead them to the realization that its really hard to understand the world (Randall, 2011). For
educational practitioners, their objective should be to make it easier for their audience to understand the world.
Without a fundamental understanding of neuroscience and how the brain effects learning change, educators risk
propagating misunderstandings of the world and, by extension, the individuals in that world. Therefore, whether or
not educators embrace and incorporate the findings of neuroscience is indeed a difference that makes a difference.
References
Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009) Episode 1 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Great Mysteries of the Brain. In
Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY.
Charlie Rose LLC.
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009) Episode 2 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: Visual Perception. In Rose, C. ( Host and
Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009) Episode 3 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Acting Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2010) Episode 4 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Social Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and
Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2010) Episode 5 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Developing Brain. In Rose, C. (
Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie
Rose LLC.
J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2005) Consciousness: a neurobiological approach (Christof
Koch). Available from http://jromc.org
J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2009) Why cant a computer be more like a brain? (Jeff
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
34 of 35
166
Hawkins). Available from http://jromc.org

Macknik, S.L., Martinez-Conde, S., with Blakeslee, S. (2010). Sleights of Mind: What the neuroscience of magic
reveals about our everyday deceptions. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
NOVA. (2001). Secrets of the Mind. Available from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/
Randall, T. (Writer, Director). (2011) Magic and the Brain. In Randall, T. (Producer) NOVA Science Now. New York,
NY. PBS.
THIRTEEN. (2010). The Human Spark with Alan Alda. Available from http://www.shoppbs.org/product
/index.jsp?productId=3939596#Details
1. Did you review the Point of View Survey results, compare them to your own survey, and participate in the
Discussion? (50 points)
2. Did you read the explanations about Orientations and Environments and Evaluations, Meanings, and
Values?
3. Did you evaluate your evaluating by reading about Brain Based Evaluating and Your Inner Interpreter?
4. Did you evaluate your would-be symbol rulers by viewing The Persuaders, Persuade Shoes, and reading
about Response Side Semantics?
5. Did you contribute to the Module Discussion? (50 points)
5. Did you submit the Module Assignment? (50 points)
You're almost done!

You're ready to move on to the final module in the course Review and Reflection.
2/17/14, 6:00 AM
35 of 35
167
Module Map: Review and Reflection

In this final week of the course, we will introduce only
one new item related to General Semantics - an
explanation of extensional orientation.
But we have five short articles we think provide a nice
wrap-up to review and reinforce some of the broader
aspects and applications of General Semantics.
First, a reflection on the role that GS played in
the lives and works of the "Grand Master"
science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, and
Albert Ellis, father of Rational Emotive Behavior
Therapy (REBT).
Then we have an excerpt of one of the last
articles written by Aldous Huxley, from the
November 1963 issue of Playboy Magazine in
which he extols the benefit of General
Semantics.
Steve's essay on stereotypes ties together the
physics insights of Niels Bohr with what we
currently know about brain science.
Mary's conclusion of her Awareness and Action
e-textbook offers some very good tips to
students.
Wendell Johnson's "After You've Studied
General Semantics" concludes the readings with
advice that's just as relevant today as it was in
1945.
Following the readings, we have two pages of
resources - Steve's map of Korzybski's General
Semantics, and a list of course materials that can be
downloaded or accessed online.
Finally, on Wednesday, 19 February, we will post individual videos to conclude the presentation of course materials.
Your role in this final week will be to participate in a special Discussion and submit one last 250-word essay.
No time for goodbyes yet - we have a week of work awaiting.
Please note: Canvas Network has requested that you complete an end-of-course survey. You can complete this at any
time during the week.
Extensional Orientation
The final GS formulation to cover in this course is one we've mentioned and referenced several times during the past
five weeks. However, we haven't really defined or explained it. Perhaps that's because, without the previous readings
and discussions and videos, a description of extensional orientation may not have made much sense.
But since an extensional orientation can be considered as the practical objective of General Semantics in action and
practice, let's briefly explain the differences between extensional and intensional.
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
1 of 22
168
Intensional and Extensional

The first thing to understand is that you will not find these terms in a dictionary. Alfred Korzybski used these two
words, spelled with an 's' in the middle instead of a 't', to denote a continuum of attitude, behavior, or orientation.
Intensional orientations are based on verbal definitions, associations, etc., largely disregarding observations
as if they would involve a "principle" of "talk first and never mind the life facts."
Extensional orientations are based on ordering observations, investigations, etc., first and the verbalization
next in importance. Alfred Korzybski
Similar to the table we used to illustrate the differences regarding Consciousness (or Awareness) of AbstractingEvaluating, we can consider intensional and extensional orientations as exhibiting the following characteristics in
terms of degrees on a continuum.
Relies primarily on verbal definitions.
Gives primacy to observed or reported facts.
Uncritically accepts validity of labels, categories,

classifications, properties. Prone to 'animalistic'
evaluations (hardening of the categories and
dogmatism); allness.
Focuses on individuals or specific items, challenges

appropriateness of group labels. Recognizes
differences among similarities, similarities among
differences; non-allness.
Exhibits signal reactions: immediate, reflexive,

conditioned, "hot button" responses.
Lacks consciousness or awareness of abstracting;
confuses or reverses the order of abstracting.
(Identification)
Prone to either/or, two-valued evaluations.
Prone to confuse inferences as facts.
Exhibits symbol reactions: delayed, considered,

attentive responses.
Conscious or aware of abstracting (non-identity).

Uses the extensional devices of indexing and dating.
Recognizes multi-valued potential for evaluations.

Recognizes inferences as inferences, sets a high
standard for 'facts.'
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
2 of 22
Prone to elementalistic evaluating, presuming that

different words mean that their different referents
exist in isolation, separation.
Uses absolutistic, unconditional, and all-presuming

language that presents false-to-fact assurance and
certainty.
169
Recognizes the non-elementalistic nature of items or

events that may be separated verbally but cannot be
separated in the non-verbal 'reality'; uses extensional
device of the hyphen.
Uses conditional language that reflects humble
awareness of the tentative, uncertain, and limited
nature of human knowledge; uses the extensional
device of etc.
In Drive Yourself Sane: Using the Uncommon Sense of General-Semantics, Susan and Bruce Kodish explain:
When we orient ourselves by verbal definitions, when we prefer preserving our maps (even maps without
territories) to checking them out against 'facts,' when we fail to become aware of our assumptions and
inferences and to test them out when possible, when we identify different levels of abstracting, we behave
intensionally.
When we orient ourselves towards 'facts,' when we check our maps against possible territories, when we
clarify and test our inferences and assumptions, when we don't identify different orders of abstracting, we
behave extensionally.
Intensional and extensional orientations also exist on a continuum. We know of no one who exhibits a
purely extensional orientation. Unfortunately, abundant examples of people near the other end of the
continuum exist. Some of them are confined to institutions. Some of them speak, write books, appear on
radio and television and run institutions. Most of us appear somewhere in between. (p. 126)
Heinlein and Ellis: Converging Competencies

by Steve Stockdale
Published in ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 64 No. 4, October 2007
On July 7, 2007, the Heinlein Centennial was held in Kansas City to
celebrate what would have been the 100th birthday of acclaimed Grand
Master science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein is generally
acknowledged as one of the four great American science fiction writers,
along with Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, and Arthur C. Clarke. Among his
most notable books are Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, The
Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Time Enough for Love.
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
3 of 22
170
On July 24, 2007, Dr. Albert Ellis died at age 93 in New York City. His
front-page obituary in the New York Times referred to him as one of the
most influential and provocative figures in modern psychology. He
originated the field of psychotherapy known as Rational Emotive Behavior
Therapy (REBT) and authored more than 70 books, including Overcoming
Procrastination, How to Live With a Neurotic, A Guide to Rational Living,
and How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable About Anything
Yes, Anything.
These two accomplished and celebrated men would seem to have little in common one a Midwesterner, Naval
Academy graduate, futurist, with an almost cult-like following of fans; the other a New Yorker who was referred to as
the Lenny Bruce of psychotherapy, known for his blue language and results-oriented approach to talk therapy.
And yet Robert Heinlein and Albert Ellis shared a common perspective, or point of view, that developed from the
same source Alfred Korzybski and general semantics. Heinlein came to general semantics through Stuart Chases
The Tyranny of Words (1938) and attended two seminars with Korzybski in 1939 and 1940. In a speech in 1941,
Heinlein made the seemingly outlandish assertion that Korzybski was at least as great a man as Einstein based on
his monumental piece of work, Science and Sanity.
Ellis, so far as I know, never met Korzybski but credited him (and general semantics) as a major influence in his
development of REBT, using descriptors such as brilliant, masterpiece, and pioneer.
I attended the Heinlein Centennial in Kansas City. One of the panel sessions I attended was on The Competent
Man. I learned this was a theme of Heinleins that recurred throughout his novels. An oft-repeated quote from
Heinleins novel Time Enough for Love concerns competency as a general trait:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a
building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give
orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
I had the privilege to hear Dr. Ellis speak on one memorable occasion a few years ago. In recalling that talk and in
reviewing several of his writings, it seems to me that competency was also a recurring theme in his work,
specifically as it related to cognitive competency.
As the lives and contributions of these two great men Robert A. Heinlein and Dr. Albert Ellis, just seven years
apart in age shared the news pages in the same recent month, we choose to devote this special section in this issue
of ETC to them.
The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
4 of 22
171
them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny.
Albert Ellis
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too
obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Robert A. Heinlein
What We Could Become

I have read only enough of Heinleins writings to have a minimally-informed appreciation of his work. But I know
something about the field of general semantics, which certainly influenced Heinleins point of view during his early
years as a writer and is unmistakably reflected in character and plot development throughout his work.
In the July 2002 Heinlein Journal, Kate Gladstone provided some details from the Institutes archives regarding
Heinleins attendance at two seminars with Alfred Korzybski in 1939 and 1940.(1) From my standpoint, the most
interesting piece of Heinlein memorabilia found in the archives is an original transcript of Heinleins Guest of Honor
speech to the 3rd World Science Fiction Convention held in Denver in July 1941. The transcript was sent to the
Institute by Heinleins wife at the time, Leslyn. He titled his address, The Discovery of the Future, published in
1992 in Yoji Kondos collection of Heinleins writings, Requiem. As he concluded his Denver speech, Heinlein
offered this testimony to Alfred Korzybski and general semantics:
I save for the last on that list of the books that have greatly affected me, that to my mind are the key books, of the
stuff Ive piled through, a book that should head the list on the Must List. I wish that, I wish that everyone could
read the book its just a wish, there arent that many copies of it, everyone cant, nor could everyone read this
particular book. All of you could, youve got the imagination for it. Its Science and Sanity by Count Alfred
Korzybski, one of the greatest Polish mathematicians when he went into the subject of symbology and started
finding out what made us tick, and then worked up in strictly experimental and observational form from the
preliminary works of E.T. Bell.
A rigor of epistemology based on E.T. Bell (break in transcript here some words lost) symbology of
epistemology. Book refers to the subject of semantics. I know from conversation with a lot of you that the words
epistemology and semantics are not unfamiliar to you. But because they may be unfamiliar to some, Im going to
stop and make definitions of these words.
Semantics is simply a study of the symbols we use to communicate. General Semantics is an extension of that
study to investigate how we evaluate in the use of these symbols. Epistemology is a study of how we know what
we know. Maybe that doesnt sound exciting. It is exciting, its very exciting. To be able to delve back into your
own mind and investigate what it is you know, what it is you can know and what it is that you cannot possibly
know is, from a standpoint of intellectual adventure, I think possibly the greatest adventure that a person can
indulge in. Beats spaceships.
Incidentally, any of you who are going to be in Denver in the next 5 or 6 weeks will have an opportunity, one of
the last opportunities, to hear Alfred Korzybski speak in person.(2) He will be here at a meeting similar to this at
a meeting of semanticians from all over the world oh, McLean from Los Angeles, and Johnson from Iowa and
Reiser from Mills College and Kendig and probably Hayakawa from up in Canada the leading semanticians of
the world to hear Alfred Korzybski speak. I think starting Aug. 9, isnt it, Missy? The early part of August. Itll
be in the newspapers in any case. And its much better to hear him speak than it is to read his books. Hes limited
by the fact that hes got to stick to the typewriter, to the printed word; but when he talks when he talks its
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
5 of 22
172
another matter! He gestures, hes not tied down with his hands to the desk the way I am; he walks, stumps all
around the stage, and waves his hands; (audience laughs) and you really gather what he means. Incidentally
he looks like A. Conan Doyles description of Prof. Challenger, if Prof. Challenger had shaved his beard.
Dynamic character.
You may not like him personally, but hes at least as great a man as Einstein at least because his field is
broader. The same kind of work that Einstein did, the same kind of work, using the same methods; but in a much
broader field, much more close to human relationships. I hope that some of you will be able to hear him. I said
that this will be one of the last chances, because the old mans well over 70 now; as he puts it, I vill coagulate
someday, I vill someday soon, I vill coagulate which is the term he uses for dying.(3) He speaks in terms of
colloidal chemistry. Properly, its appropriate. He wont last much longer, in the meantime hes done a
monumental piece of work. He has worked out in methodology the same sort of important work that HG Wells
did in the matter of description; and the two together are giants in our intellectual horizon, our intellectual matrix
today, that stick up over the rest like the Empire State Bldg. (4)
Heinlein wasnt the only futurist who expressed admiration for Korzybskis general semantics.
A.E. Van Vogts series of Null-A novels was rooted in general semantics and provided many serious students
their first exposure to the subject.
Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World): A man who knows that there have been many cultures, and that
each culture claims to be the best and truest of all, will find it hard to take too seriously the boastings and
dogmatizings of his own tradition. Similarly, a man who knows how symbols are related to experience, and
who practices the kind of linguistic self-control taught by the exponents of General Semantics, is unlikely to
take too seriously the absurd or dangerous nonsense that, within every culture, passes for philosophy, practical
wisdom and political argument. (5)
Alvin Toffler (Future Shock and The Third Wave) all of the questions that are raised by Science and Sanity
are inherent or should be inherent in the work of any thinking writer or communicator. (6)
Robert Anton Wilson (Prometheus Rising, The Illuminatus Trilogy, and Schrodingers Cat) All the events in
the world that are going on I tend to see through a Korzybskian grid. He made a bigger impression on me than
just about any writer I ever read. (7)
I must admit that Ive never been a big science fiction fan. My nave impression has been that most futurists or
science fiction writers tend to focus on imagining how future technologies, alternative life-forms, or distant universes
will be invented, evolved, or discovered.
However, among the authors who claim Korzybski as an influence, I find a common interest in describing or
developing human capabilities to their potentials. They seem to delve into positive speculations about what we as
humans could become, were we to actually manifest the extensional orientation of perceiving, evaluating, and
behaving as prescribed in Science and Sanity. Of course, the rocket ships and aliens are still featured aspects, but
there is, to my limited reading, an attempt to imbue their characters with an abundance, or absence, of defining
characteristics that can be related back to Korzybskis semantic man.
Id like to give you [originally the attendees at a breakout session I presented at the Heinlein Centennial on the
subject of Heinlein and general semantics] the briefest of introductions to the subject by discussing just four of what
might be referred to as fundamental premises of general semantics.
1. Human abilities are limited and differentiated
The first premise is that our human abilities to perceive and sense what goes on in our continually-changing
environments are limited and differentiated. As members of the human species, our abilities to see, hear, taste, touch,
and feel are limited. For example, we know that there are limits to the frequencies humans can hear. We know that
humans cant see certain wavelengths of light. We can extend our sensing capabilities through the use of tools and
instruments, such as microscopes, telescopes, microphones, amplifiers, etc. Although we as humans share these
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
6 of 22
173
general sensing potentials, we vary in terms of our actual individual capabilities. We each have a different
combination of visual, auditory, and other sensory acuities. Therefore, presented with the same event or stimulus,
we will each perceive the event or stimulus according to the limits of our senses and nervous system processing. We
will each abstract something different, to some degree, than anyone else and we will then individually construct our
experience, awareness, and meaning of the stimulus.
2. Language habits influence our world view
A second fundamental premise upon which general semantics is based may be best stated by quoting from the
linguistic anthropologist Edward Sapir:
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily
understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of
expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use
of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or
reflection. The fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the
language habits of the group. ... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the
language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (8)
In other words, the culture and language in which we are raised will shape or influence how we construct the
realities of our experiences, given the peculiarities of that culture and language. This has become known as the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Similarly, Korzybski posited in Science and Sanity:
every language having a structure, by the very nature of language, reflects in its own structure that of the
world as assumed by those who evolved the language. In other words, we read unconsciously into the world the
structure of the language we use. (9)
We do not realize what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. It is not an exaggeration to
say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of semantic reaction and that the structure which a language
exhibits, and impresses upon us unconsciously, is automatically projected upon the world around us. (10)
3. Humans can respond conditionally to stimuli
Another fundamental premise of general semantics is that humans have the ability to respond conditionally to verbal
and non-verbal stimuli. In his famous experiments, Dr. Ivan Pavlov trained his dog to manifest a conditioned response
behavior. By ringing a bell at the same time he fed the dog, Pavlov conditioned the dog to associate, or identify, the
sound of the bell with the food. When the dog heard the bell, it expected food and began salivating in anticipation.
Therefore the dogs behavioral response (the salivating) resulted directly from the stimulus of the bell; when Pavlov
rang the bell, the dog salivated.
Humans, however, have the ability to respond more appropriately in less conditioned ways conditionally rather
than conditioned. We may talk in terms such as he really pushed my buttons, but in most cases we have some
degree of control over our responsive behaviors, regardless of which button is pushed. If we dont exercise that
control, if we immediately react without pause and without regarding the situation and the consequences, then we can
rightly be accused of exhibiting more animalistic, rather than more human, behaviors.
4. The map is not the territory
The fourth premise I would mention in this condensed introduction is related to perhaps the most familiar metaphor
associated with Korzybski the map is not the territory. Our ability to achieve maximum humanness and evolve
to our individual potentials is at least partially a function of how accurately our language behaviors reflect and are
consistent with what we know about our world. In other words, our verbal maps ought to be congruent with and
structurally similar to the facts of our non-verbal territories. The world of words we put inside our heads ought to be
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
7 of 22
174
related to and similar with the world of non-words in which we live.

Abraham Maslow, in his study of what he called self-actualizing behaviors, wrote of individuals whose internal
maps were in synch with their external territories:
One particularly impressive and instructive aspect of this superior relation with reality...was [their ability to]
...distinguish far more easily than most the fresh, concrete, and ideographic from the generic, abstract, and
rubricized. The consequence is that they live more in the real world of nature than in the man-made mass of
concepts, abstractions, expectations, beliefs, and stereotypes that most people confuse with the world. They are
therefore far more apt to perceive what is there rather than their own wishes, hopes, fears, anxieties, their own
theories and beliefs or those of their cultural group. (11)
Please note that these four premises do not constitute all of the premises of general semantics. Some might claim that
these do not even constitute premises as much as they represent derived extrapolations from other, more fundamental,
premises. But in the context of this Heinlein Centennial, I hope they provide a basis for re-examining Heinleins work
particularly his characters from a general semantics perspective. I suspect that, in addition to his discovering
the future of interplanetary travel and intergalactic communities, Heinlein has revealed through his fictional
characters what we, the readers, might one day become.
And that, to quote the Grand Master, beats spaceships.
NOTES
1. www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/history/GeneralSemanticsInfo.html
2. Heinlein refers to the Second American Congress on General Semantics held at Denver University in August
1941.
3. In 1941, Korzybski was only 61 years old. He died in 1950 at age 70.
4. Heinlein, Robert A. (1941) The Discovery of the Future. Speech delivered as Guest of Honor to the 3rd
World Science Fiction Convention, Denver, CO. July 4, 1941. Recorded on discs by Walter J. Daugherty.
Transcripted by Assorted Services. Presented by Forrest J. Ackerman. A Novacious Publication.
5. Huxley, Aldous. (1963) Culture and the Individual. Playboy Magazine, November 1963.
6. Toffler, Alvin. (1991) The Relevance of General Semantics. Thinking CreAtically, Institute of General
Semantics, Englewood, New Jersey.
7. Wilson, Robert Anton. (2001) The Map Is Not the Territory: The Future Is Not the Past. Alfred Korzybski
Memorial Lecture, 1997. The General Semantics Bulletin Numbers 65-68.
8. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf
edited by John B. Carroll, p. 134. The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Reprinted from Language, Culture, and Personality, Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, edited
by Leslie Spier, Sapir Memorial Publication Fund, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1941.
9. Korzybski, Alfred. (1933) Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General
Semantics, p.59-60, Fifth Edition (1994). Institute of General Semantics, Englewood, New Jersey.
10. Korzybski, Alfred. (1933) Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General
Semantics, p.90, Fifth Edition (1994). Institute of General Semantics, Englewood, New Jersey.
11. Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality, p. 205. Harper & Brothers, New York.
Aldous Huxley: An Excerpt on "Culture and the Individual"

This is an excerpt from an article riginally published in Playboy Magazine, November 1963, as "A Philosopher's
Visionary Prediction," one of three essays published together under the title, The Pros and Cons, History and Future
Possibilities of Vision-Inducing Psychochemicals.
Thanks to language and culture, human behavior can be incomparably more
intelligent, more original, creative and flexible than the behavior of animals, whose
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
8 of 22
175
brains are too small to accommodate the number of neurons necessary for the
invention of language and the transmission of accumulated knowledge. But, thanks
again to language and culture, human beings often behave with a stupidity, a lack of
realism, a total inappropriateness, of which animals are incapable.
Trobriand Islander or Bostonian, Sicilian Catholic or Japanese Buddhist, each of us is
born into some culture and passes his life within its confines. Between every human
consciousness and the rest of the world stands an invisible fence, a network of
traditional thinking-and-feeling patterns, of secondhand notions that have turned into axioms, of ancient slogans
revered as divine revelations. What we see through the meshes of this net is never, of course, the unknowable "thing
in itself." It is not even, in most cases, the thing as it impinges upon our senses and as our organism spontaneously
reacts to it. What we ordinarily take in and respond to is a curious mixture of immediate experience with culturally
conditioned symbol, of sense impressions with preconceived ideas about the nature of things. And by most people the
symbolic elements in this cocktail of awareness are felt to be more important than the elements contributed by
immediate experience. Inevitably so, for, to those who accept their culture totally and uncritically, words in the
familiar language do not stand (however inadequately) for things. On the contrary, things stand for familiar words.
Each unique event of their ongoing life is instantly and automatically classified as yet another concrete illustration of
one of the verbalized, culture-hallowed abstractions drummed into their heads by childhood conditioning.
It goes without saying that many of the ideas handed down to us by the transmitters of culture are eminently sensible
and realistic. (If they were not, the human species would now be extinct.) But, along with these useful concepts, every
culture hands down a stock of unrealistic notions, some of which never made any sense, while others may once have
possessed survival value, but have now, in the changed and changing circumstances of ongoing history, become
completely irrelevant. Since human beings respond to symbols as promptly and unequivocally as they respond to the
stimuli of unmediated experience, and since most of them naively believe that culture-hallowed words about things
are as real as, or even realer than their perceptions of the things themselves, these outdated or intrinsically nonsensical
notions do enormous harm. Thanks to the realistic ideas handed down by culture, mankind has survived and, in
certain fields, progresses. But thanks to the pernicious nonsense drummed into every individual in the course of his
acculturation, mankind, though surviving and progressing, has always been in trouble. History is the record, among
other things, of the fantastic and generally fiendish tricks played upon itself by culture-maddened humanity. And the
hideous game goes on.
What can, and what should, the individual do to improve his ironically equivocal relationship with the culture in
which he finds himself embedded? How can he continue to enjoy the benefits of culture without, at the same time,
being stupefied or frenziedly intoxicated by its poisons? How can he become discriminatingly acculturated, rejecting
what is silly or downright evil in his conditioning, and holding fast to that which makes for humane and intelligent
behavior?
A culture cannot be discriminatingly accepted, much less be modified, except by persons who have seen through
itby persons who have cut holes in the confining stockade of verbalized symbols and so are able to look at the
world and, by reflection, at themselves in a new and relatively unprejudiced way. Such persons are not merely born;
they must also be made. But how?
In the field of formal education, what the would-be hole cutter needs is knowledge; knowledge of the past and present
history of cultures in all their fantastic variety, and knowledge about the nature and limitations, the uses and abuses,
of language. A man who knows that there have been many cultures, and that each culture claims to be the best and
truest of all, will find it hard to take too seriously the boastings and dogmatizings of his own tradition.
Similarly, a man who knows how symbols are related to experience, and who practices the kind of linguistic
self-control taught by the exponents of General Semantics, is unlikely to take too seriously the absurd or
dangerous nonsense that, within every culture, passes for philosophy, practical wisdom and political argument.
As a preparation for hole cutting, this kind of intellectual education is certainly valuable, but no less certainly
insufficient. Training on the verbal level needs to be supplemented by training in wordless experiencing. We must
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
9 of 22
176
learn how to be mentally silent, we must cultivate the art of pure receptivity.
Suspended in Stereotypes
by Steve Stockdale
This essay was my contribution to: A. M. George and T. Thomason (Eds.), Race,
gender and other stereotypes: A reader for professional communicators (pp.
7-13). San Diego: Cognella. ISBN 978-1-6092763-0-0. Available mid-2012.
Niels Bohr, an icon of 20th-century physics, was also an astute observer of language
and behavior. Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others (Petersen,
1985, p. 301). It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature (Petersen, 1985, p. 305). We are
suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down
(Petersen, 1985, p. 302).
This last statement relates to Bohrs formulation of what he called complementarity.
One of the conundrums of early 20th-century physics concerned the fact that, under
certain experimental conditions, light behaved as particles in a shower of photons (Einstein & Infeld, 1938, p. 297).
Under other conditions using different observational and measurement methods, light exhibited the characteristics of
a wave. Prior to Bohr, physicists were captive to the prevailing language of physics, which carved up definitional
structures of mutual exclusivity. By definition, waves behaved in ways that particles did not, therefore a wave could
not be a particle. So what was light really a particle or wave?
Bohr resolved the apparent paradox by rising above the definitions to focus on the observed behavior of light,
regardless of the definitional label. He demonstrated that the relative perspective of the observer, including how the
observer chose to measure and evaluate the phenomenon, directly affected the observers perceptions, measurements,
and evaluations of the observed behavior.
We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. Niels Bohr
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
10 of 22
177
Bohrs notion of complementarity (and its eastern Taoist cousin, mutually-dependent yin and yang) provided an
alternative point of view to the western philosophical tradition based on dichotomous, either/or, thinking. Bohr
showed that the problem wasnt with light itself, or with how the physicists measured light. The problem was in the
limitation of the vocabulary that physicists had at their disposal to classify light. Is light a particle or a wave?
presumed that light had to be one or the other, either particle or wave. Bohr proposed that the particle/wave debate
resulted from an inappropriate application of either/or thinking. From his complementary perspective, the debate
dissolved from an either/or labeling stalemate to a both/and understanding that rose above the labels; light exhibited
the characteristics of both particles and waves.
In other words, Bohr argued that physicists had to overcome their stereotypical thinking about waves and particles in
light of what they were observing about light. Their observations of light caused them to reevaluate their presumed
categorical distinctions between particles and waves. Rather than focus on just the similarities between light and
particles, and the differences between light and waves, they had to think in terms of both similarities and differences.
Rather than think in terms of only two values, physicists had to orient themselves toward many-valued thinking
(Korzybski, 1994, p. 93).
This type of thinking complementarity, yin/yang, both/and, many-valued, or whatever label you prefer is
necessary to resist the easy inclination to adhere to rigid and categorical labels that we typically refer to as
stereotyping.
Although that term carries a (usually deservedly) negative connotation, we can think of this type of generalizing
activity on a continuum. The order and placement can be argued, but notionally such a continuum could be depicted
this way.
What distinguishes the more Benign activity to the left from the more Consequential to the right?
At the far left, as human beings with a highly-developed nervous system, we have learned through our life
experiences to automatically recognize and categorize many different types of stimuli. We immediately differentiate
people from animals from plants, strangers from friends and family, foods from tools, danger from routine, etc. Jeff
Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee (2005) refer to this process generally as pattern-matching. They explain that this
activity occurs at multiple levels in the hierarchy of the nervous system. From sensory stimulation to cognitive
awareness, your nervous system makes inferences as it attempts to match current stimulus data with past experience
and memory. Even at the most basic levels (distinguishing the edge or color shading of an object), your brain must
take incomplete sensory data and fill in the gaps with guesses or assumptions in order to create an integrated image
of what you believe you see. At this neurological level, stereotyping is an inherent feature of the brain (Hawkins &
Blakeslee, 2005, p. 204). We are, to paraphrase Bohr, suspended in stereotypes.
To the right, however, lies the more consequential and problematic behaviors that we usually attribute as stereotyping.
Such behaviors and underlying attitudes can be considered non-complementary in that they reflect the most simplistic
either/or, categorical, and uncritical thinking; some may even say lack of thinking. They presume similarities and
disregard differences, and can extend from an individual to a group, or from a group to the individual. They may be
labeled as bias, pre-judgment, or prejudice. In every instance, however, such attitudes and behaviors result from a
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
11 of 22
178
failure of recognizing both differences within similarities, and similarities among differences. We discriminate
against people to the degree we fail to distinguish between them (Lee, 1952).
We discriminate against people to the degree we fail to distinguish between them. Irving J. Lee
An aphorism purports that there is a kernel of truth in every stereotype. That might be worth considering, both in
terms of what if theres not? as well as so what if there is? I would suggest that the flip side of the aphorism is
also worth considering: every label lies a little. We should remember that, as verbal constructions, labels and
stereotypes do not exist in the material world. They reflect symbolic expressions that, more often than not, arise from
arbitrary, superficial, and inconclusive classifications and judgments. Nevertheless, indiscriminate, biased, and
prejudicial judgments against individuals and groups can have devastating individual and societal consequences.
We must consider ourselves as a symbolic, semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us
(Korzybski, 1994, p. 76). The first line of defense against potential symbolic subjugation is to become aware of, and
practice, a complementary attitude about the verbal environment in which we find ourselves suspended. Within items
labeled or categorized as similar, look for and recognize differences; among items that appear to be different, look for
similarities. Rather than think in two-valued terms like either/or, right/wrong, or good/bad, consider the fuzzy, middle,
gray many-valued areas that lie in between. Look for the lie in every label. Remember that the more time and
attention you give to someone elses verbal categories, classifications, and stereotypes, the less time you have to
develop yourself in your own real world of nature (Maslow, 1987, p. 129).
And that time is a terrible thing to waste.
Discussion Exercises
1. You recently heard a new band at your local club that you really liked. You want to encourage your Facebook
friends to download a free track from the bands Facebook page. How might you describe the bands music so
that your friends will check out the bands page, and have some idea as to what they should expect to hear?
Discuss your description with others. Is any stereotypical thinking exhibited?
2. How might you describe the bands music if you dislike it and wanted to urge your friends to avoid the band?
3. Break up into groups of two or three. In three minutes, list as many different criteria as you can that could be
used to stereotype an individual or a group.
4. Assume you are a reporter covering a crime story. If one or more of the stereotyped criteria listed in the
previous exercise applied to the victim or the perpetrator, how would you decide if those descriptors are
relevant to the story?
5. Does stereotyping factor into discussions about how to segment a target audience for a new product launch? Or
for a press release on behalf of a candidate in a heated political campaign? Are there kernels of truth that
underlie such targeted decisions?
References
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The Evolution of Physics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2005). On Intelligence: How a new understanding of the brain will lead to the creation
of truly intelligent machines. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and Sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
12 of 22
179
ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Lee, I.J. (1952). Talking Sense video series. Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.
Maslow, A.H. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Petersen, A. (1985). The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. In A.P. French (Ed.), Niels Bohr: a centenary volume (pp.
299-310). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Awareness and Action - Conclusion (Mary Lahman)

Living Extensionally Takes a Lifetime
Beginners often take upon themselves the task of enthusiastically spreading their new-found wisdom to
family and friends. We suggest that, for best long-term results, you temper this response. Susan & Bruce
Kodish (2011, p. 200)
At the end of a Language and Thought course, we often conclude that everyone needs to learn about general
semantics. Once we recognize the allness language in that statement, we discuss ways to continue the coursegenerated enthusiasm for a general semantics approach to language behavior. Fully convinced of our time-binding
responsibilities, we wonder how to best teach others about the patterns of miscommunication.
One semester, I shared these discussions with Professor Keller, who proposed that we worry less about teaching
others and more about modeling the correctives. I often saw him follow this advice when participating in and
facilitating community group discussions. Beginning his interactions with the simple phrase, I wonder if, he
modeled how to question and paraphrase. He often used the how much, which, and when indexes, seeking
information from the territory (people and contexts) and then updating his map (language and perceptions).
After helping to edit this text, my son wondered how I could have known about the pitfalls of language for so long
and still exhibit patterns of miscommunication. I explained to him, as Meiers (1952) convinced participants at The
First Conference in General Semantics in 1951, that living extensionally is a lifetime process (p. 277). More telling
is how Meiers warned newcomers of the dangers of becoming general semantics fanatics. I share Meierss concern, so
offer several of these warnings as well:
1. Beware of accepting the disciplines of general semantics as a panacea . . . speaking of it with such allness of
enthusiasm that it sounds like a panacea.
2. Beware of using trade jargonthat is the particular terminology of general semanticsin conversation with
those who are unfamiliar with the terms.
3. Beware of the wiser-than-thou attitude of applying classification labels to conversational remarks of other
people . . . students usually find great pleasure in their ability to recognize higher and lower abstractions in
languageespecially in the language of others. To make matters worse, they sometimes act as if the higher
abstractions and inferences and judgments are less worthy of their consideration than descriptive statements.
4. Beware of exaggerating the use of the semantic devices to the extent of appearing ridiculous. These five little
devices suggested by Korzybskiquotes, dating [when index], indexing, hyphens, and the etc.are practiced
inconspicuously in the everyday language of thousands of people who make no overt reference to general
semantics.
5. Beware of merely talking about general semantics without applying its principles in practice. The highly verbal
individual who finds in general semantics a new and exciting philosophy is in danger of keeping it forever on
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
13 of 22
180
the verbal level, thus increasing the very futility that its discipline hopes to correct. (pp. 275277).
Each of these dangers resonates with those who believe that they can communicate more effectively if they keep
applying general semantics formulations. People may find themselves guilty of each of these behaviors as they
diligently pursue eliminating patterns of miscommunication.
In the pursuit of excellence, we may forget, that we are acquiring an orientation, not a straitjacket (Kodish &
Kodish, 2011, p. 200). Just because we are raising our awareness of our nervous systems limitations, we cannot
assume that others will be as willing to learn about abstraction and the resulting misevaluations found in language
behavior.
Ultimately, we would be wise to heed the advice about minimum expectations offered by Kodish and Kodish
(2011): When we have minimum expectations about any situation, that is, were prepared for not finding what we
want, we will more likely find the facts of the situation better than we expected; weve prepared ourselves for
curiosity, change, excitement, happiness, hope, sanity, etc. (p. 199). Perhaps just aiming for humor in the way that
we misuse language will help us to continue the extensional journey.
After all, we have a lifetime to do so . . .
After You've Studied General Semantics

Wendell Johnson
The following handout was found in the archives of the Institute of General Semantics. It was probably a mailing sent
to members prior to the publication of Johnson's People in Quandaries in 1945 ( referenced as note 1). It was
reprinted in ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 61 Number 4, Special Edition - General Semantics Across
the Curriculum.
Generally speaking, you will make applications to two
large groups of problems or situations: those that are
essentially personal, and those that you will call
professional or relatively impersonal. A word about
each of these should help somewhat.
With regard to personal problems, it is to be emphasized
that over the years you have grown accustomed to your
own behavior and to the people and the world about
you. You have a strong tendency to take for granted
whatever is thoroughly familiar to you. Your notion of
what is normal is, therefore, determined largely by the
behavior, beliefs, attitudes, customs, social conditions
which you have come to take more or less for granted as
right or natural or customary.
This means that, even though you and your environment
may be obviously below par, you may feel that you
have no personal problems. Many people become so
thoroughly accustomed to the frictions, bad feelings,
irritabilities, frustrations, blue moods, confusions and
general flounderings of their day-to-day existence that
nothing short of murder or stark insanity strikes them as
peculiar. They are so utterly adjusted to maladjustment
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
14 of 22
181
that it does not even occur to them that human life

might be, except by sheer luck, different from what they know it to be. The fact that you were attracted to a book like
this probably indicates that you yourself have not fallen to such a state, of course, but if the above statements serve to
polish your semantic lenses a bit, perhaps you will take stock somewhat more in detail than you otherwise would of
your own daily round and of the particular peep-holes that define your outlook on the world in which you live. (1)
You do have personal problems, of course. What they are, and how important they seem to you, depends on the
amount of tension, misery and confusion you have learned to tolerate. Generally speaking, if you examine carefully
what you call your big problems you will find that they are made up of little things, which accumulate all but
unnoticed until your tense back gives way under the last straw.
The most effective way to apply general semantics, therefore, is to sharpen your awareness of the little things and
apply it to them. Not even with general semantics can you gain much by cutting the weeds after the lettuce has wilted.
It is the moment-to-moment, seemingly insignificant, applications that make the greatest difference in the long run.
The assignments described in Chapter XXI are designed, in part, to illustrate various possibilities of such momentto-moment applications, and a careful reading of the book as a whole should readily suggest many more.
Aside from the problems you have which center around intimately personal concerns and relationships, you have also
the problems that arise in the course of your work in a profession, or business, or in running a household; in learning
a trade, a skill, a game, or in teaching something to others. General semantics can be put to use in many ways by
doctors, lawyers, teachers, editors and writers, radio program directors, motion picture executives, housewives,
students, merchants, etc., through the long catalog of human occupations. Wherever symbols are used and evaluations
are made, wherever there are problems to be solved, use can be made of the method, the principles, the basic
orientations which general semantics involves. Likewise, in the general business of being a citizen, of evaluating
social, economic and political issues, of contributing constructively to the life of the community and of society in a
broad sense, the value of general semantics lies in the practical use that is made of it.
General semantics contains no recipe for boredom. You are not likely ever to say of it, as you may have said from
time to time of a course in history, or mathematics, or French, that you have had it. At least, if ever you do say of
general semantics that you have had it, as though for you it were over and done with, you probably didnt get it.
A Map of Korzybski's General Semantics

Now that we've reached the conclusion of this course, the following is a map of General Semantics by Steve
Stockdale. Perhaps it may serve as a helpful review, or give you some ideas for creating your own map.
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
15 of 22
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
182
16 of 22
183
Resources, etc.
We realize that we have thrown a lot of material at you during this course. We suspect
(or even hope) that you may not have had the opportunity to fully digest the course
materials. Therefore we want to provide this summary of resources that may facilitate
your return to the course content at your convenience.
Downloadable Content by Module

The course content will be made available for download in two different formats via the links below. You are
welcome to download either or both formats.
The HTML format file for each module, and then one file for the entire course, contains all of the text, images, and
embedded YouTube videos. As long as you are connected to the Internet, you will be able to follow links and watch
the YouTube videos.
Note: The videos posted to the course using the Canvas Media Comment tool are not available.
To download the files, depending on your browser, click or right-click on each link and save to your computer or
portable device.
Module 1 HTML (size=200 kb, 24 January)
Module 2 HTML (size=67 kb, 24 January)
Module 3 HTML (size=66 kb, 2 February)
Module 6 HTML
The PDF format file for each module, and then one file for the entire course, contains all of the text and images from
the course, but no videos. As long as you are connected to the Internet, you will be able to follow links.
The PDF format file is significantly larger than the HTML file, but may be easier to read for some.
To download the files, depending on your browser, click or right-click on each link and save to your computer or
portable device.
Module 1 PDF (size=12.0 mb, 24 January)
Module 2 PDF (size=1.8 mb, 24 January)
Module 3 PDF (size=1.4 mb, 2 February)
Module 6 PDF
Downloadable Readings (PDF)

1.
2.
3.
4.
The Role of Language in the Perceptual Processes by Alfred Korzybski

Awareness and Action: A General Semantics Approach to Effective Language Behavior by Mary Lahman
Here's Something About General Semantics by Steve Stockdale
ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 61 Number 4 (Special Issue - General Semantics Across the
Curriculum); provided courtesy of the Institute of General Semantics
5. ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 65 Number 1 (Special Issue - General Semantics in India);
provided courtesy of the Institue of General Semantics
6. Allness in Language and Politics (Student Paper) by Alex McGuinness
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
17 of 22
184
7. The Science and Sanity of Listening by Benjamin J. Cline

8. Language, Appearance, and Reality (Doublespeak in 1984) by William D. Lutz
9. Allness Case Studies, Chapter 11 of William Haney's Communication and organizational behavior: Text and
cases.
10. Languages and Logic by Benjamin Lee Whorf
11. Science and Linguistics by Benjamin Lee Whorf
12. Language, Culture and Mind in Comparative Perspective by John A. Lucy
13. The Linguistics of 'Color' by John A. Lucy
14. Rights and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on Power and Excision by Fuambai Ahmadu
15. Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb by Carol Cohn
16. What We Do with Language - What It Does with Us by Bruce I. Kodish
17. To Be or Not to Be: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking by D. David Bourland, Jr.
18. Language Revision by Deletion of Absolutisms by Allen Walker Read
19. The Inner Interpreter by Laura Bertone
20. Response Side Semantics by Steve Stockdale
21. Lecture Notes on Teaching General Semanticsby Lance Strate, Ph.D.
22. A Continuing Education Guide to Teaching General Semanticsby Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D.
23. Twelve General Semantics Lessons for Middle School Studentsby Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D.
Forms and Activities

Structural Differential Worksheet by Mary Lahman
Miscommunication Worksheet by Mary Lahman
Videos
How Language Shapes Thought by Lera Boroditsky (YouTube)
The Persuaders by Douglas Rushkoff (Public Broadcasting Service)
Irving J. Lee "Talking Sense" Series (Six 27-minute segments, YouTube)
"Word Play" episode of The Twilight Zone (YouTube)
Websites
Institute of General Semantics
Australian General Semantics Society
Societe Francophone de Semantique Generale
ThisIsNotThat.com (Steve Stockdale)
Steve Stockdale Portfolio
Online version of William V. Haney's 1960 Communicaton: Patterns and Incidents
Charlie Rose Brain Series Episodes (with excerpts on stevestockdale.com)
Personal Time-binding Discussion

As an exercise in personal time-binding, review the Discussions from each of the
previous five course modules. As you review the posts, note comments from your
classmates that you've found personally meaningful and valuable.
Ongoing Course Discussion
Module 1 Discussion
Module 1 Abstracting-Evaluting Discussion
Module 2 Allness Discussion
Module 2 Allness Cases
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
18 of 22
185
Module 3 Bypassing Discussion

Module 3 Bypassing Cases
Module 4 Discussion
Module 4 Reactions to Lera Boroditsky
Module 5 Discussion
Module 5 Point of View Discussion
Select three (3) posts that you personally found most meaningful and valuable. Then to earn 100 points:
1. Contact the author of each post you select, via the Canvas Inbox internal email and express your appreciation to
the author.
2. Then share a summary of the 3 comments you selected using the "Reply" block below.
Unknown Author Issue
Unfortunately, about 55 of your classmates - including some of our most active participants - have been afflicted with
a Canvas Network bug which, for reasons not yet understood or corrected, cause their names in the Discussions to be
shown as Unknown Author.
If you select one of the posts by Unknown Author as one of your most meaningful and you cannot determine the
author's name, please Inbox (Canvas internal email) me with three pieces of information:
which module and discussion (please use the titles listed above)
date of the post
the first few words of the post
It's not a big deal for me as an Instructor to associate the Unknown Author's post with an actual name. Then I will
send you the name and you can express your appreciation directly to the Known Author. :)
Module 6 Assignment
The title of this course is General Semantics: An Approach to Effective Language Behavior.
In the Concerning Expectations video you viewed in Week 1, we asked you to consider what the course title might
mean. We asked:
What other "approaches" to "language behavior" (effective or otherwise) are you familiar with?
How familiar to you is the phrase "language behavior"? Are you more familiar with "language" and "behavior"
used separately? Do they even belong together?
And what about "effective"? What do you think that means?
Final Assignment - 100 points

In no more than 250 words, provide your evaluative response to this question:
After experiencing this introduction to General Semantics, what will you take
away from the course that might contribute to the effectiveness of your own
language behavior?
To submit the assignment: Click on the Submit Assignment link in the upper right of
this page. You can then type your essay in the editing box, or copy/paste from another application.
Steve's Concluding Remarks

2/18/14, 10:38 PM
19 of 22
186
My apologies for going so long, but I had some thing I wanted to say and two video clips I wanted to show.
Steve Stockdale
Script
Well, this is the hardest part for me ... having to stop and put a period and an ecetera to the course. Before I get to that
period, however, I have a few personal reflections I'd like to offer.
First, thanks to Mary and Manchester University in Indiana for being willing to put their names on this course. And
thanks to our volunteer TAs who, because of various life events, didn't have as much time as they would've liked to
spend with us.
At the beginning of the course I had a few things to say about expectations. Here are some data as we conclude the
course:
This chart shows the pattern of our enrollment through 31 January. As the course was open for enrollment
through last week, the final count was 1,326.
Representing 67 different nations, or about a third of all the countries on the planet.
Here you can see the top-level graph of participation in the course, measured by daily number of logins and
page views.
And here are the numbers of module badges that have been awarded.
So what does this say about the success of the course? What does this all mean with respect to the value of this
course? To you the students, and to Mary, Greg, and me? And what does it mean to the Canvas Network
administrators who will evaluate whether to offer it again?
One of the points we've tried to highlight about General Semantics is to emphasize that we are concerned not with
theories or philosophies about language or communication in the abstract. As Alfred Korzybski put it, we are
concerned with living human reactions - not according to detached, academic categories but in terms of living human
reactions "in the wild" of daily behaving.
I'd like to show you two short clips to reinforce how GS applies to our living human reactions.
The first is from the 1983 movie with Michael Keaton and Terri Garr, "Mr. Mom." The father has been laid off from
his job and hasn't yet found work. The mother has found a job and is returning to work, while the father stays home to
play "Mr. Mom."
[clip]
The second is from a talk by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs in 1980. View the entire 23-minute talk on YouTube.
[clip]
To me, these clips illustrate two things. First, Korzybski's diagnosis of our human shortcomings how we're doing it
wrong. And second, his prognosis for what might result if we were to acknowledge these shortcomings, overcome
them, and amplify our own human abilities.
Now I happen to think these are laudable sentiments, and as the past 20 years of my life attest, I've evaluated
Korzybski's General Semantics as still relevant after all these years.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, seemed to agree.
Similarly, a man who knows how symbols are related to experience, and who practices the kind of linguistic
self-control taught by the exponents of General Semantics, is unlikely to take too seriously the absurd or
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
20 of 22
187
dangerous nonsense that, within every culture, passes for philosophy, practical wisdom and political argument.
So, yes, I'll confess to enlisting in Korzybski's quixotic quest. I don't believe it's unreasonable to attempt to amplify
our inherent human abilities. I believe we can do better. I believe it's possible that we can up our game, raise the bar
on normal, shift the mean, reshape the bell curve, and reduce humanity's standard deviation.
Does that mean we can take humanity to the next level? Can we change human nature?
Well, before I get completely carried away, I recall an anecdote told by David Bourland, the E-Prime guy, that was
told to him by M. Kendig, Korzybski's right-hand assistant who succeeded Korzybski as Director of the Institute of
General Semantics after Korzybski's death.
David wrote:
Once, one of Korzybski's "senior grade" students (Kendig) said to Korzybski, "Together we can change the
world!"
She told me that he replied, "Well, we might change you a little."
If you really have an interest in changing "human nature," perhaps it would work best if you begin with yourself.
And with that, I want to thank all of you for contributing to this learning experience. And now for me comes the
period. And et cetera.
Greg's Concluding Remarks

Greg Thompson
Mary's Concluding Remarks

Mary Lahman
Script
Thank you for persevering to Module 6
We have enjoyed sharing our understanding of how to move an awareness of GS into action: learning to silently add
etc to avoid Allness and being person-minded not word-minded to address Bypassing.
With your newfound awareness of abstraction, you have encouraged each other in the Module discussions. I
appreciate your stories and applications of GS.
Thanks you for being an essential part of this learning community.
As you leave us, remember we are acquiring an orientation, not a set if rules. May we be humbled by the way we use
language and it uses us. And, may we learn to live extensionally one day at a time.
Conclusion
We hope you'll enjoy this last video that we think is an appropriate conclusion to the course.
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
21 of 22
188
Final Video
1. Did you review the Extensional Orientation material?

2. Did you read Heinlein and Ellis: Converging Competencies?
3. Did you read Aldous Huxley's On Language and the Individual?
4. Did you read Suspended in Stereotypes?
5. Did you read the Conclusion of Awareness and Action?
6. Did you read After You've Studied General Semantics?
7. Did you review the Map of Korzybski's General Semantics and the list of available resources?
8. Did you acknowledge three fellow students for their discussion posts, and did you contribute to the Personal
Time-binding Discussion? (100 points)
9. Did you submit the Module Assignment? (100 points)
Have you completed all of the modules?

Thanks for taking the time to learn something about General Semantics as an Approach to Effective Language
Behavior. We hope you've found the experience valuable and meaningful. If you missed some of the course, you can
always return to the Modules List to review the entire course, or download the course content by module.
2/18/14, 10:38 PM
22 of 22

General Semantics Course

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

General Semantics Course

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

General Semantics - Full Course

Course Availability: 13 January 2014 - 24 February 2014

Welcome from your Instructors

General Semantics - Full Course

About this Course - Specifically

General Semantics - Full Course

Video Tour of the Course

General Semantics - Full Course

Teaching Assistants (TAs)

General Semantics - Full Course

Please introduce yourself, guided by the questions listed below.

How would you like to be addressed?

General Semantics - Full Course

Module Map: What is General Semantics?

General Semantics - Full Course

Module Learning Objectives

Countries represented in the course

General Semantics - Full Course

General Semantics - Full Course

General Semantics - Full Course

Point of View Survey

1. You're either for something or against it.

Defining and Describing General Semantics

General Semantics - Full Course

What is General Semantics?

from Wendell Johnson

General Semantics - Full Course

from Irving J. Lee

from Dr. Russell Meyers

General Semantics - Full Course

Scientific method (generalized)

from J. Samuel Bois

Basic Understandings of General Semantics

General Semantics - Full Course

Used with permission of Institute of General Semantics

General Semantics - Full Course

General Semantics - Full Course

One test is worth a thousand expert opinions. Anonymous

General Semantics - Full Course

General Semantics - Full Course

confusing facts with our inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.;

General Semantics - Full Course

Charlotte Schuchardt Read

Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950)

Photo used with permission of Institute of General Semantics

As a student he studied engineering, mathematics, and

General Semantics - Full Course

And with language we can also:

speak, write, read, and listen;

mislead, misinform, and misunderstand;

General Semantics - Full Course

1. What makes humans human? Time-binding

General Semantics - Full Course

General Semantics - Full Course

2. What accounts for the differences in human behavior? Evaluating

General Semantics - Full Course

General Semantics - Full Course

Biography (link to Amazon.com listing).

Map|Territory: Foundational Premises

Artwork by Alice Webb Art

The Map|Territory Analogy

General Semantics - Full Course

2. The map cannot show all of the territory.

General Semantics - Full Course