January 2022: Semantics

Settling into 2022…

We’ve made our regular transition from last year to new year! Hopefully it’s treating you fairly well despite everything going on. I know my year has kicked off oddly but I wouldn’t describe that “oddly” with any negativity. It could always be a bit better, but it could easily be way, way worse.

Anyway, this month’s post is likely shorter than the prior ones.

Hopefully, this is a brief commentary on Semantics.

The concept came to my attention during my time at Squadron Officer School. I do not remember what the discussion was about, but I do recall someone saying something along the lines of ‘well, you’re just being semantic.’

This fuzzy memory is the source of this month’s topic.

For the meat of this post, I’ll first get straight into how semantics are annoying, then into why they should be embraced and how you might be able to better facilitate a discussion before setting you loose.

Straight to It

Let me cut right to it: when someone is being semantic, they are most likely highlighting definitions – the meaning of a word or phrase. Similarly, when someone is calling someone else out as being semantic, they are most likely dismissing someone’s argument or rationale as being tedious and nit-picky.

If you have been told that you’re merely being semantic, you have no doubt been frustrated with the difficulty of communicating with others.

If you have told someone else that they are merely being semantic, you have no doubt been bored with someone seemingly attempting to trivialize an important discussion.

Why is it that if we are both speaking the same language – for example, English – we seem to have so much difficulty completing both simple and complex discussions successfully? Of course, given the context of this post, that answer lies with semantics.

Maybe this applies primarily to business environments with substantial technical detail, but I think some general ideas can apply quite easily regardless of your background. 

When you hear the word “shot,” what are your first mental images? Do you envision a two ounce glass of semi-clear liquid or a projectile firing weapon?

When you’re sitting in Sunday School and hear the term “stoned,” what comes to mind first between archaic punishment or marijuana first?

When you hear someone declare themselves “dead,” are they defeated in a video game, are they expecting imminent doom, or are they stunned by an amusing anecdote?

And sure, these examples all have fairly clear contexts: you would not expect someone to reveal a pistol and shoot you if you requested a shot at a bar. 

Yet here I am, attempting to convince you of… what, exactly?

Second Thought

All I am trying to say is that semantics certainly can matter. There’s a balance to strike…

So, when should we care about semantics and when can we argue them away from a discussion? I think it’s fairly simple, overall.

Let’s consider semantics as being the “inverse specificity caliber” of a word. More semantics means that your caliber is smaller: in a given context, whatever word or phrase being used has a more specific meaning than a high caliber, essentially more general word or phrase.

An excellent example is the concept of freedom.

What is it? Does it depend on context?

Do we have freedom if we are imprisoned?

Do we have freedom if we cannot enter a physical space?

Does the discussion on freedom have significant implications for a decision that will be made, and does that decision have substantial impacts on the livelihoods of people?

…how critical is it that the caliber of this word is clearly understood?

It obviously depends.

The sensitivity of a discussion’s results to the caliber of a word can make all the difference.

Emphasizing the caliber part of the metaphor, let’s imagine that conversations can be represented by two individuals standing a short distance from a set of targets. Different words with similar meanings are represented by those targets. And, for the sake of this metaphor, these targets vary in size between just a centimeter and a full meter.

Since the general idea behind communicating is to get an idea across, I think you will agree that it’s best to hit as few targets as possible: while someone may interpret what you are saying in a variety of ways, it serves the progress of that discussion best to unambiguously convey a singular idea.

With less semantic power – with highly inverse specificity – your targets become much smaller or the meaning of your word choice becomes too wide, and you are now hitting too many targets. You have provided too many options for your discussion partner to interpret.

In more technical conversations, targets are more likely to be smaller, so it is important that you be semantic to minimize the likelihood of misinterpretation.

You know, I’d really love a lawyer’s take on semantics…

I wish I could remember the specifics of the discussion that prompted this topic; I would use that as an example.

Maybe you feel like this all is pretty easy to grasp, but what’s the best way to get someone else to be more or less semantic in a discussion?

Stepping Back

So, like I said a bit earlier: semantics can matter. They don’t always.

What do you do if you feel like you need to have a more semantics-sensitive conversation? Or what do you do if you feel like the conversation you are having does not need the semantics someone else is trying to inject into it?

It all boils down to communication skills.

Perhaps you’ve approached a conversation with completely different expectations or context to your discussion partner. The semantics you are trying to inject or those they are trying to inject are mismatched due to misaligned contexts.

It may be valuable simply to explicitly express the end goal of a discussion up front so that when certain terminology begins getting used, there’s more buy-in to listen, understand, and evaluate your rationale.

Maybe some of the targets are attached to the same mechanism, so it matters less what words you use: the clown still falls into the giant bucket of icy water either way.

This same general guidance can be used to cut down on semantics – keeping someone focused and on task can be just as frustrating, but being deliberate about your expectations or understandings can help cut down on a lot of wasted time.

Sayonara

This post is a bit all over the place; it feels like all I’ve argued for in this post is to pause, ensure that semantics are at least aligned with the desired end-state of a discussion, and then communicate whatever gaps there might be.

I can’t say I’m particularly happy with the post overall, but it does serve as practice in consistent writing.

That said, I do feel like there might be some valuable truth to grasp in these words.

I would appreciate it if you let me know whether you got anything out of this or not.

Until next time!