At some point in late 30s or early 40s, while posting online, I made a conscious effort to use avoid emotionally charged language that many people would find insulting–for example, words like “stupid” or “dumb;” as in, “That’s a stupid idea.” This not only reduced conflicts, but this reduction also reduced a level of agitation and the extent to which interactions with others would sometimes bother me, which would linger even when I went offline. Overall, this move elevated a sense of peace in these interactions, while also allowing me to still engage in vigorous debates. I just enjoyed discussing things on the internet a lot more. However, only recently have I realized another important benefit from this shift in language, and that’s what I want to discuss in this post.
To me, the other benefit from avoiding this type of charged language is measured thinking, and being able to maintain this approach. For me personally, once I begin using this type of language, at some point the language seems to unlock floodgates of emotion, taking me to a point where I become less rational. I should point out that insulting words like “stupid” and “dumb” are not the only catalyst for this. Extreme and superlative language can also do this, too. (I do not want to do the work to write examples right now, but maybe later.) This isn’t to say one should avoid extreme language or superlatives–sometimes that language is appropriate. But one should take care in using these type of language, as it can unleash strong emotions that can having an unhinging effect.
Having said that, I do think one should avoid insulting as much as possible–words like “dumb,” “stupid,” “moronic,” “idiotic,” etc. ‘There are viable alternates that convey the same meaning, without unleashing emotions from one’s self or the other person–for example, “unwise,” “unsound,” “not ideal,” etc. Similarly, I try to avoid the word “wrong” when commenting on another person’s opinion or statement, including when I believe the statement is factually wrong. “I disagree” or “I strongly disagree” works just as well, especially if I follow this with an explanation. Does anyone disagree?
By the way, I arrived at these conclusions partly by observing social media posts from well-respected individuals (Lawrence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Norm Eisen, a long-time political commentator/researcher. Over time, I’ve seen their language become more extreme, and, to me, they not only seemed more unhinged, but their comments seemed less rational and claims seemed overstated. I also began noticing this in myself, when I allowed myself to speak this way.
There is a chicken-and-egg element to this topic. To wit, does one use of more emotionally charged language lead to irrational thinking, or does irrational thinking lead to emotionally charged language? I actually think both can and do occur. However, if a person is irrational, I’m skeptical that avoiding emotionally charged language would lead to more rational thinking. Or, to put it another way, I’m skeptical that such a person would be able to accomplish this. On the other hand, I do think the language a rational, thoughtful person chooses can either foster and maintain rational thinking or have the opposite effect.
Research indicates that how we talk about something affects the way we think about it. I don’t know if there’s research the opposite way, but there must be.
The language police are usually unsuccessful at changing the way people talk about something, but I can think of one good example. Certain kinds of inclusive (even politically correct) language in the late 80s and early 90s, where we stopped calling firefighters “firemen” and board chairs “chairmen” and flight attendants “stewardesses.”
There was a lot of pshawing then as their is today about these things. People are actually clawing back against “retard” of all things.
But the thinking didn’t change first; the language did.
Anyway, I learned all this in a way similar to the way you did. Online, on discussion boards in the 80s and 90s, and then in my own practice as a teacher. Somewhere along the way I stopped saying “shut up” at all, because I didn’t want it in my classroom and I didn’t want it in my personal life. That one change by itself changed a lot about how I respond to people and how I think about them.
A surprising thing is that these changes in my language were not at all difficult to make. I slip up on someone’s pronouns when someone prefers nontraditional personal pronouns, so there’s the exception — even the non-gender-specific singular “they” sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, but I’m working through that.
Otherwise, I’ve found it not difficult at all to switch to gentle, nonconfrontational, accepting, inclusive language. And I know that’s only a small piece of a greater topic you address, but it’s a good example of how my experience is similar to yours.
Meaning, some people are pushing for “retard,” as a way to describe those who are mentally disabled, being more acceptable?
People defending the president’s use of that word in referring to the governor of Minnesota.
Oh my goodness. I did not see that.