RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Snarf Zagyg]

Your post was about disconnects and disagreements about language and concepts and culture and about how we keep playing out this “Time is a Flat Circle” loop (or at least I thought it was). That seems to be a common lament you have.

I just figured I’d use your post to clarify that my engagements on here aren’t about culture or disconnects with the people I’m speaking with or about imposing language or any of that.

For me it’s about ferreting out my own thoughts, clarifying them + resolving them or reorienting them with those who disagree with me, and (overwhelmingly, though I have had purchase with active commentators here and there) reaching disconnected, curious individuals out there who are intrigued by the conversation.

To the extent that you are reaching disconnected, curious individuals out there, that's great.

Well ... eh, that's not really it from my P.O.V. From my P.O.V., no matter what topic I post, no matter how it's framed, and no matter what tags I used (like "5e") in an attempt to get the "disconnected, curious individuals" out there to contribute to the discussion because I'd like to hear what they have to say, it feels like the exact same people come in and dominate the conversations with the same points, leaving no air for the curious and disconnected.

I already know what I think- I'd really like to hear what other people think. The curious, disconnected people who don't post in the theory threads because ... well, because.

 

[Yora]

Is there an actual point to this thread any more than people playing a hot potato blame game with each other while talking over each other?

I was just trying to get into the thread by starting at the end after not quite understanding the beginning of the discussion. And I still don't really know what it is actually being discussed.

 

[Aldarc]

There’s no theory without jargon. There is no field or area of expertise without jargon. Just because things can be explained simply without jargon does not magically disappear the existence of said jargon. Physicists will talk to other physicists not in terms of simplicity but with jargon. I can explain simply Wellhausen’s influential four source hypothesis for the Pentateuch but this one (quite boring) area of focus in biblical studies still has plenty of jargon that experts use amongst each other. Jargon does not in itself render ideas null and void. Jargon is a natural property of language and communication.

 

[Malmuria]

There’s no theory without jargon. There is no field or area of expertise without jargon. Just because things can be explained simply without jargon does not magically disappear the existence of said jargon. Physicists will talk to other physicists not in terms of simplicity but with jargon. I can explain simply Wellhausen’s influential four source hypothesis for the Pentateuch but this one (quite boring) area of focus in biblical studies still has plenty of jargon that experts use amongst each other. Jargon does not in itself render ideas null and void. Jargon is a natural property of language and communication.

I agree, which is why context and audience matters. This theoretical physicist will talk somewhat differently at a conference with other experts vs in an intro undergraduate survey. As Alder said in the tweet I posted: "theory is often jargon-laded and difficult to penetrate, and people can feel shut-out by conversations they aren't welcomed into."

 

[Fenris-77]

Malmuria 20 +2 = 22

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I was just trying to get into the thread by starting at the end after not quite understanding the beginning of the discussion. And I still don't really know what it is actually being discussed.

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm reasonably certain that we will be hearing about the great Coke/New Coke fiasco soon!

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm reasonably certain that we will be hearing about the great Coke/New Coke fiasco soon!

As a North Carolinian, I was always more a Pepsi guy.

 

[payn]

I like beans in my chilli.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree, which is why context and audience matters. This theoretical physicist will talk somewhat differently at a conference with other experts vs in an intro undergraduate survey. As Alder said in the tweet I posted: "theory is often jargon-laded and difficult to penetrate, and people can feel shut-out by conversations they aren't welcomed into."

I find this tedious, because the jargon being deployed in these threads is either the use of big words that people don't like but aren't jargon, or the jargon deployed is clearly explained. When a physicist does engage with people new to the topic, one thing that happens quite often is a bit of jargon is introduced and then defined, so that everyone understands it and the discussion moves forwards.

What happens in these threads is the jargon is introduce and defined by the user early on, but then a whole discussion erupts about how to define the jargon as everyone jumps in with different definitions or argues the definition instead of engaging the points. Then we get threads like this that complain that it's jargon that's the problem. It's not, really, and context is also not the problem -- we aren't talking about quantum physics and 8th graders, but about people that have already come online to talk about games on a discussion forum. This is where you go to talk about games! What better context to introduce, define, and discuss things with jargon?!

No, jargon is attacked not because it's jargon, but because going after the definition of jargon is the low-hanging fruit for stalling out discussion.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As a North Carolinian, I was always more a Pepsi guy.

I was POSITIVE you were going to go with Royal Crown, my friend!