« This Week's Nominations | Main | The Council Speaks »

January 02, 2007

You Keep Using That Word...

"He didn't fall? Inconceivable!" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Vizzini and Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

One of the biggest problems we run into when talking with other people is that the words we use often mean something very different to us than to the person we're arguing with. Obsidian Wings has provided two excellent examples of that in the past week, with hilzoy's Still More Fiscal Discipline and Sebastian's "What do Conservatives and Liberals Do in a Society?" In the former, hilzoy tries to burnish her fiscal discipline bona fides by coming out against an expansion of the Army. In the latter, Sebastian tries to take on some of the differences between liberals and conservatives. In each case, the discussions tend to devolve into disputes, disputes that will never be resolved because of their origins.

In 'Fiscal Discipline,' the dispute centers on that term: what does fiscal discipline mean? To hiilzoy, since she's against spending money on a larger military, that is an expression of fiscal discipline. Sebastian, contrariwise, argues that because hilzoy would be opposed to a larger military regardless of cost, her decision is not an instance of fiscal discipline, but an expression of policy preferences. I tend to agree with Sebastian, but the dispute is ultimately irresolvable because hilzoy defines fiscal discipline differently from Sebastian.

In 'Liberals and Conservatives,' the same problem exists, but in even greater form, as terms like conservative and liberal have far more flexibility than relatively staid terms like fiscal discipline. If one believes in minimizing coercion, are you a liberal, or a conservative? What defines a liberal vs. a conservative? I could provide definitions, but the odds are good that most self-described conservatives and all self-described liberals would disagree with my definitions. (Why would all liberals disagree, but only some conservatives? Because I trend a little rightward in my politics, so my definition of conservatism would have a better shot at accuracy. Any attempt I make to define liberalism, however, will founder on the rocks of misunderstanding.) For most people, those labels are little more than shorthand for what they like and what they dislike; if you're a Democrat, your description of liberalism will be of largely, if not entirely, good things, while your description or conservatism will be of largely, if not entirely, bad things. This is natural; if you consider yourself a liberal, the odds are pretty good it's not because you think liberalism is a collection of bad ideas. It does make discussion of the issue difficult at best.

There is an old joke about how the military services differ.

The Joint Chiefs once told the Navy to "secure a building," to which they responded by turning off the lights and locking the doors.

The Joint Chiefs then instructed Army personnel to "secure the building," and they occupied the building so no one could enter.

Upon receiving the exact same order, the Marines assaulted the building, captured it, and set up defenses with suppressive fire & amphibious assault vehicles, established reconnaissance and communications channels, and prepared for close hand-to-hand combat if the situation arose.

But the Air Force, on the other hand, acted most swiftly on the command, and took out a three-year lease with an option to buy.

In the Army, we have an entire manual dedicated to definitions: Field Manual 1-02, Operational Terms and Graphics. In FM 1-02, you can find definitions of military terms of art from agility to zone of fire, naturally including secure (In an operational context, to gain possession of a position or terrain feature with or without force, and to make such disposition as will prevent, as far as possible, its destruction or loss by enemy action. See FM 3-90. (Army) 1. A tactical mission task that involves preventing a unit, facility, or geographical location from being damaged or destroyed as a result of enemy action. (FM 3-90) 2. One of the five breaching fundamentals. Those actions which eliminate the enemy's ability to interfere with the reduction and passage of combat power through a lane. Secure may be accomplished by maneuver or by fires. (FM 3-34.2) See also assault; breach; denial measure; reduce; suppress. Aren't you glad you asked?) We lay terms out like this because very bad things can happen if you tell a unit to seize an objective (To employ combat forces to occupy physically and control a designated area.) when you really wanted it to clear the objective (A tactical mission task that requires the commander to remove all enemy forces and eliminate organized resistance in an assigned area.) The Army is far from perfect in actually utilizing doctrinal terms (there are many commanders who like to 'flex' their forces, to 'chop' a platoon to a different company, and so on), but as with much of its doctrine, the Army has identified a problem and created a solution for it. (Army doctrine is, by and large, excellent; unfortunately, it is rarely applied.)

FM 1-02 does little good for non-military applications, but the problem of imprecise definitions remains. The cynic in me says that very few people online are really interested in getting at the truth of any particular issue anyhow, but for those few who do, discussions still tend to falter because people tend to disagree on terms. This is unfortunate in itself, but it also tends to lead discussions into unproductive territory in short order, as disputes quickly arise out of different understandings of terms. So much discussion on blogs (probably a majority) tends to devolve into little more than bickering over the same old points, (were I more creative, I might come up with a list to speed things up: argument #12, President Reagan did/did not end the Cold War; argument #35, President Clinton should/should not have been been impeached; etc.), and much of the discussion tends to be ultimately pointless because there is no 'right' answer because neither side accepts the terms of the other.

I thought I had a point when I started this, but the truth is, I'm not sure there's a solution to this. We are emotional creatures. We develop attachments to our beliefs, and we're adapted to seek out evidence that fits our preconceived view of the universe and to set aside that evidence that does not fit our world view. Even if we were to agree to settle definitions prior to moving on to the question at hand, I doubt we could agree on our definitions any more than we agree on how to deal with the problems we face (or even which problems we need to address). Sure, there are a very small number of people out there who are looking to be challenged, but most of us are just looking to hear other people confirm what we already believe. Attempts to hold discussions between opposing philosophies on the internet are doomed to failure because, ultimately, they're dependent on people who are looking for answers, not people who think they already have the answers.

Yes, that's a little downbeat, but five years into the blogosphere, I think it's a pretty accurate assessment. It doesn't mean the blogosphere doesn't have value or that there isn't a point to blogging (otherwise, why would I bother). But the idea that this blog, or any blog, is going to change minds is pretty much a lost cause.