Definitions, please -- let's make the forum jargon understandable

Field Reports & Anecdotal Experience Men's Pheromone Advice & Field Reports
1

Hi.

I’ll be updating the forum soon with some handy dandy educational technology that’ll allow you to get real-time definitions of all the less than mainstream acronyms, words, and phrases used here.

If you want to contribute to definitions, or have comments about what words you’d like defined, then write them here in this thread.

Please understrand, I may only be able to use parts of contributions. My aim is clarity only. Like on Wikipedia, I’m going to edit the definitions voraciously without regard to contributors feelings.

It doesn’t mean I won’t appreciate each and every contribution. I will!

Even if your definition just makes me think about the wording of an alternate definition I’m going to use, each and every contribution is valuable. It’s just that that I may or may not be able to use your words directly. I’ll need to merge and edit for clarity.

If that’s OK with you, feel free to contribute.

About clarity…

Remember, “dumbing things down” can be one of the smartest things you can ever do. Being easily understood is actually far more intelligent than baffling people.

Most people’s day to day vocabulary consists of only 400 to 800 words. Even the most intelligent people rarely use more than 1200 words.

Intellectual snobs often only seem intelligent because no one really knows what the hell they’re talking about. **People who can actually communicate are intelligent.

It’s people like Dr. Richard Feynman, a famous physicist, who were real geniuses, not merely intellectual snobs. He will be forever remembered because he had real personality, passion and clarity. He could clearly, in mostly common words, explain nuclear physics to nearly anybody. He could make them understand, and get them excited about it.

Although people may seem impressed with them while they’re in the room, nobody remembers the intellectual snob.

So let’s act make this one of the best forums ever. Let’s define what would otherwise be complex concepts and confusing jargon in the simplest and most accurate words we muster (oops… I mean, come up with :wink:).

Thanks

2

The defining of every single word on the forum has begin.

3

testing testing… grundle

4

unless and until it becomes obvious that you are specifically accomodating someone, then it becomes offensive, snotty, holier than thou etc.

my business requires me to dumb things down so much that it is absurd.
usually after one or two sentences my clients just sit there with a dumbfounded look on their faces telling me that their heads are going to explode. in reality i can’t dumb it down anymore and have to smart them up. over the years it has gotten to the point where i can and will weed out the people who either don’t accept the direction i send them or are unwilling to behave in a “smarter”, more responsible manner.

with that being said, i whole heartedly endorse and appreciate what you have done so far with your products and with your forum and noticed that one of my previous posts has already beeen “clarified”. it’s cool, but should caveat that to read that as long as the clarification process doesn’t automatically and generically alter/differ/temper the original posters thoughts and comments it should work out pretty well.

5

eschew obfuscation!

6

<sigh> I’ve worked in “public contact” type jobs most of my life, and those sayings about the “intelligence” of “typical” people sure stick in my mind (ie literacy level). You really have to use the “KISS” principle. I found it interesting that companies like Intel and Microsoft had to hire psychologists and cultural anthropoligists to make sure their products were “comprehendable” to their targeted customer base.

Then again people who like to show off by using $10 words where a couple 50-centers would do annoy me to no end.

7

The point of “dumbing it down” (which simply means to connect with what people already know) is to smart them up. Everyone’s gotta start somewhere.

And I’m not talking about “dumbing down” the forum, but rather, making the popup definitions nice and clear.

The definition system will, in fact, allow you to continue talking in internal lingo all you want, as established groups tend to do. It’ll just make it easier for new people.

Many forums are like brick walls to newer people. When newer people do post, MANY messages on forums consist of questions asking for simple definitions of the “in speak” they’re seeing, but not quite “getting”.

When I was talking about clarity of definitions, I was referring to how most dictionaries are terrible, and send you on wild linguistic goose chases. They often use words more dense and obscure than the one you’re looking up in the definition! That’s what I don’t want.

I don’t want a show of intellectual snobbery, but rather some good hearted attempts at education. That is all.

There’s a lot of mirrors in life – most everything that can be explained can be done so in common words, and with parallels to concepts people already know.

Basics are easier for scholars to understand, as well.

Using the Richard Feynman example, for instance, he stated that he learned the most when he was teaching Physics 101 through an interplay of going back to the root and the brilliance of perspective shown in his students “ignorant questions”.

I also remember the story of this one lawyer who used nothing but easy to understand language in his legal papers. I don’t remember his name, but judges loved him, and often gave him favor because they could actually understand him better.

When I was talking about clarity, I meant clarity of the definitions.

I see your point on the last one. I think you’re right. Definitions shouldn’t knock any steam out of the posters thoughts.

I wonder how best to do that…

If you included in a definition of androstenone something like “not a friendly pheromone”, yet a poster was writing about how he found androstenone to the be the friendliest pheromone for himself ever, there would be obvious dissonance there…

What do you think?

8

hm, maybe symbols rather than individual words, i’m not sure, but as an example, rather than rating something as “good” or “lousy” , specific pheromone products could be numerically ranked by others here based on things like mixability, standalone, easy to use etc. if the pop up definition contained hyperlinked symbols rather than individual user descriptions, you could get a picture of the product along with a link to describe it further or something. :confused:

9

sounds good to me.