D&D General Questions Regarding the History of the Term "Psionics."

[Paul Farquhar]

They used "Transporter" in Star Trek (and "T-Mat" in Doctor Who C1969), but teleport was already in common usage elsewhere. The Tomorrow People (British Children's TV 1973) used the terms "psionics" and "teleportation".

 

[Hussar]

LOL. I love the notion that people are less erudite today than they were in yesteryear. What a joke. The average person is FAR more educated than the average person was back then, and, never minding that the English Language as a language probably has about twice as many actual words today as it did as little as a few hundred years ago.

Sorry, but, stilted diction and archaic wordings are not the sign of an expanded vocabulary.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

LOL. I love the notion that people are less erudite today than they were in yesteryear. What a joke. The average person is FAR more educated than the average person was back then, and, never minding that the English Language as a language probably has about twice as many actual words today as it did as little as a few hundred years ago.

Sorry, but, stilted diction and archaic wordings are not the sign of an expanded vocabulary.

Back when? If you look back 70 years or more people in the UK where much more divided into educated and uneducated. And those who where educated where better educated than the 2020 average.

If you look back 30 years, people in the UK had better general knowledge, before the national curriculum became more proscriptive and teachers were less constrained by regulations.

 

[the Jester]

I think cutting the difference between transporter and teleporter in common culture is a lot like arguing the difference between a "Kleenex" and a "tissue". Sure, they are different, but to the common person they are interchangeable.

Except that we are talking about the origin of one of those words here.

 

[seebs]

I think the degradation of commonly spoken English is self-evident by just listening/reading to how people spoke even a hundred years ago, with people commonly using more poetic words and more eloquent sentence structures. Today's common speech, in comparison, can almost come across as simplistic grunting in a lot of cases.

I don't think this has actually happened. Part of what you're seeing here is that you're comparing formal things that got kept to the bulk of daily communication, but also you're missing the depth and poetry of the modern communications as well. They're not worse, they're not less nuanced or less powerful, they're different. Language evolves, and we've always had people saying that modern language is less eloquent, but actually, it's not. It's differently eloquent, and if you really want to be effective, I recommend learning to use more than one variety, and code-switching.

Never assume people are stupid; assume they know something you don't know. It'll be right a lot of the time.

 

[generic]

I think the degradation of commonly spoken English is self-evident by just listening/reading to how people spoke even a hundred years ago, with people commonly using more poetic words and more eloquent sentence structures. Today's common speech, in comparison, can almost come across as simplistic grunting in a lot of cases.

This may be more evident in that, at least, the language has become more simple, but it has also become more universal, as it is now the default lingua franca, used across the world. In addition, it is a natural linguistic trend for languages to undergo phases of change, included simplification and increase in complexity over time.

Conversely, knowledge of mathematics seems to have increased, as has knowledge of science and general political science. There may yet be a more simple language, at least, when examining the parlance spoken by the demotic individual, but, there has been a measurable increase in general intelligence and general knowledge over time. Many psychologically-focused studies have demonstrated an increase in intelligence, measurable, in some capacity, in everyone, across all demographics, at least, among English speakers in the first world.

Furthermore, the proliferation of acronyms, neologisms, and new terms, including 'meme'-based forms of communication has led to a system of intramural references that allow for, even, in some instances, more private and enclosed forms of communication. Communication through references, especially through neologisms and allusions to memes seems to be the norm among many in this day.

 

[seebs]

Never forget that references you don't spot are still references to other media. They're
gonna be there in anything from academic papers to source code, or even just forum posts.
Give writers credit for the fact that they're probably saying something, even if
you don't know what it is. That's just Gricean maxims at work. Communication density is
up, not just down.

 

[generic]

(Yes, I am a bit of an intellectual elitist, and I make no apologies about it. I don't consider myself a genius nor do I go out of my way to make other people feel stupid or condescend to them, I don't insult anyone nor intentionally use "big words" to try to confuse them, but the anti-intellectual biase of American culture causes a whole lot of people to be actively hostile to anyone who speaks using any kind of eloquence or precision, or shows that they have a mind and take pride in using it and who take care in how they speak. I quite often find myself having to pause and intentionally "dumb down" the things I am about to say so as not to alienate people. The current political climate especially has made it acceptable among certain groups to attack anyone who shows any signs of having an intellect or education.)

Let it also be stated, from one intellectual to another, that it is altogether too common for those who pride themselves in their intellect, their 'eloquent register', and other forms of hierarchical judgement are too often subject to the same parameters that they subconsciously impose on others.

Often, I have found that, and this need not be interpreted as an anti-intellectual diatribe, those whose diction is forced into complexity, not those who use such terms casually, are profoundly insecure in terms of confidence in their own abilities. I do understand your frustration, as I am prone to using certain terms that others may not understand without realizing that those terms are over-complex. However, one who presents himself as an intellectual elitist is, perhaps, less of an elitist than he who merely thinks in terms of elitism. I prefer to speak with, associate with, and engage with those who seem to be my intellectual equals. However, I make no claim that I am an 'intellectual elitist' except in my own mind, and it is certainly not a thing which I would express exasperation over publicly, even in a virtual environment, because true intellectual elitists, and thus, elites, can recognize each other.

 

[seebs]

Also code-switching is fun and coming up with inderect referential terms can be really entertaining. I referred to a recent video game involving jumping and fighting things, done by a guy famous for doing such games in the past, as "noted lightbulb manufacturer General Electric" and at least one person knew what I meant.

I was also successful at expressing "I am shocked and horrified by this" as "when I read this, every mason jar in my house spontaneously disappeared."

Since people successfully parsed these, I can only conclude that the "simplistic grunts" are working. Bonus points if you can decipher either without all the context.

 

[generic]

@Aaron L, in addition to this, an eloquent and sanguine mastery of the advanced English lexicon is no particular indication of intelligence except in the linguistic sphere.

I have known many undeniably brilliant people whose mastery of English and the lexicon, even as native speakers, was pitiful. These individuals compensated with incredibly knowledge of things such as mathematics, coding, spatial programming, science, or the creative arts, like music and illustration.

The ability to express, or, rather, to obfuscate, is no particularly good indicator of intelligence or intellectual superiority.