In a political revolution, insurgents quickly target the media outlets. Their reasoning? He who controls the language controls the thinking.
Now comes another study to suggest that insurgents may have it right. In this experiment, one group of volunteers was shown a shade of yellow on a strip of white paper for a few seconds. The group was then shown another strip of paper with several shades of yellow (including the first) and asked to identify the original color. In this group, 73% were able to identify the original shade of yellow.
A second group was shown the same shade of yellow, told to describe the color aloud, and then were asked to identify the original color from a strip containing multiple shades. Only 33% of the “describers” were able to accurately identify the original color.
How do we account for this difference between the two groups? Scientists think that the language we use to describe our experience overwrites or distorts our actual experience. In the case of the “describers” mentioned above, they ended up remembering not what they had experienced but what they had said about what they experienced. And what they had said about what they experienced was not clear and precise enough to help them recognize it when they saw it again thirty seconds later.
Our own political parties fight over language. Should it be “global warming” or “climate change”? The “estate tax” or the “death tax”? “Starvation” or “calorie deficiency”? These word choices soften or sharpen the impact of what they describe, and thus have a profound impact on how we think about the underlying phenomena.
One of the functions of language is to help us extract and remember the important features of our experiences so that we can analyze and communicate them later. The New York Times online film archive stores critical synopses of films rather than the films themselves, which would take up far too much space and be far too difficult to search. Experiences are even more complex than movies, and were our brains to store the full-length movie of our lives, our skulls would have to expand.
So words have power, and savvy presenters use them carefully. For instance, avoid business jargon unless you want to be seen as talking much and saying little. Because we hear business jargon all the time (visions, missions, strategic objectives) it sounds to many of us like verbal oatmeal–its meaning is not clear–so the words have no snap, crackle or pop.
We should be careful to make concrete that which is abstract. Instead of saying, “We need to occasion customer loyalty to avoid competitive intrusion,” we should say, “Let’s get ’em hooked on our cookies before the other guys start cooking theirs.”
The take away? Stick your thoughts into the minds of your audience with vivid language, as Martin Luther did when he nailed his theses to the door of the church.
If you don’t assert your story well, another story will prevail.
Pingback: Sims Wyeth, Public Speaking Coach in NJ Dishes on Obama’s Speaking Skills
Pingback: Sims Wyeth, Public Speaking Coach in NJ Dishes on Obama’s Speaking Skills
Pingback: Choose words with care
Comments are closed.