Using Psuedo-Euphemisms To Test for BS in Language

17Jan08

    First off, let me say that this tool can be easily misused. Euphemisms and their antonym, dysphemisms, are word substitutions. By substituting similar words in a piece of text or speech, we can arrive at a new understanding of what is being conveyed.

I’ll post an example of using the Euphemism-Tool (Euphetool), then I’ll go on to see whether my euphemisms were useful or not. The point of this practice isn’t to reveal some deeper meaning to a piece of text, but to reveal a structure that may be hidden when loaded words are used.

The original text: which I first found at Liberating Minds

        To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.

Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

            Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

            What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

And now, the Euphetool in action:

Conclusion
To summarize my main points: A few lucky Blue Fish are able to grow larger than others and enjoy the pond ’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. The pond uses both Blue Fish and Green Fish , but most pond s use them in somewhat different ways. Most pond s see individual Blue Fish as more expendable than individual Green Fish , and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some Blue Fish are the big losers and other Blue Fish are the biggest winners. Hence it uses Blue Fish for the many risky jobs it has.

        Blue Fish go to extremes more than Green Fish , and this fits in well with pond s using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

        Pond s are not about Blue Fish against Green Fish . By and large, pond flourishing emerged from groups of Blue Fish working with and against other Blue Fish . While Green Fish concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, Blue Fish created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling pond s to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the Blue Fish ’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Blue Fish created the big social structures that comprise society, and Blue Fish still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that Green Fish can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for pond s is to play off the Blue Fish against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Blue Fish have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as Green Fish .

The essence of how The pond uses Blue Fish depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of Blue Fish -hood is stressful for the Blue Fish , and it is hardly surprising that so many Blue Fish crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than Green Fish . But that insecurity is useful and productive for The pond ’s uses, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The pond uses that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

Well, what do you think? Did the Euphemisms reveal anything to you

For myself, I ran the test in my mind and realized that if I were to go read the whole article that I should be wary about what is being said. It could be ’something about nothing’. Of particular interest to me was the use of ’society’ and ‘culture’. These are concepts and do not exist in the real world, yet the author ascribes potentiality to them as actors. He could be speaking metaphorically, but my alarm bells are gently ringing. Maybe now its time to read the whole article…

Filed under: Guest, Media, Psychology, Science, writing   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: analysis, bs, bs detector, bullshit, dysphemism, euphemism, Euphetool, LiMi, psuedo euphemisms, Psychology, writing