Your comment appears to rely on the premise that this interpretation is wrong. But consider where the meaning of words come from. They’re for communicating with other human beings. If the target audience interprets it a certain way, then that is the correct meaning. In one-to-many communications, it is the expectation that the one follows the conventions of the many. To be coddled is to have it go the other way around.
If the target audience interprets it a certain way, then that is the correct meaning.
You can’t live in a world where you’re not the “target audience”, can you?
For what it’s worth, English is my second language but I’m clearly fluent, and I understood the title’s intent and didn’t assume the priest related to it was the one who did it.
That said, the title is not the clearest, it could be confusing; if I’m confused about something like this, I’d usually clarify it and react to the clarification.
It appears you really don’t like the idea of being an outlier who didn’t get it, and that maybe makes you feel dumb, do you want all of us to coddle you with agreements and praise of your intellect and persuasive argument.
I don’t usually analyze people like this, I just wanted to be as annoying as you.
You can’t live in a world where you’re not the “target audience”, can you?
Why not? I’m pretty sure I’m not the target audience for Fox News articles.
But I think what you’re trying to get at is that not everyone in the target audience will have the same interpretation? Some, like yourself, will read it the way that the author intended. So consequently, you can’t write a headline that will be correctly interpreted by everyone. The best you can do is to write in a way that it’s correctly interpreted by as many as possible.
It appears you really don’t like the idea of being an outlier who didn’t get it
I’m not a fan of being the outlier that put so much effort into learning how neurotypical communication works only to be told that my understanding of neurotypical communication is wrong with no actual correction. I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn’t how they would interpret this headline, I’d like to know how they actually do rather than just being told something like “if they interpret it differently, then they’re dumb and not worth your time”.
As a raging autist, I’d like to invite you to shut up!
This is a person sharing something they find interesting on an online discussion forum, they’re not a professional author at a reputable outlet, it’s okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.
You have no evidence at all that they are NT, much less that your neurodivergence is why you’re being so obtuse.
I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn’t how they would interpret this headline, I’d like to know how they actually do
Then you should simply post a comment asking for clarification, like I said earlier. Instead you started berating and insulting them and started a long annoying pointless argument with multiple people insisting they used language wrong, their sentence is incomprehensible to native English speakers, and now a new goalpost is that their language wasn’t accessible enough for you.
It’s plenty accessible, it’s a forum, you can clarify all confusions without ever needing to accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics from the initial interaction.
if they interpret it differently, then they’re dumb and not worth your time
Nobody made that argument. You’re dumb for insisting that despite being a minority who interpreted something differently than intended, it’s the speaker’s fault and malicious intent.
It’s a communication forum, just have a conversation brother.
it’s okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.
Isn’t that what this entire thread is?
accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics
I never implied intent. Or rather, never intended to. If there’s a particular comment I made that did, do let me know. My communication skills are perpetual work in progress.
This is where you went from “I’m not sure if you meant it the way I initiated l interpreted it” to “I was right all along, you’re intentionally spreading misinformation”.
The problem with your with your theory here is it’s entirely based on the person trying to communicate the idea. You leave absolutely no responsibility to the listener/reader. They have to have an open mind and pay attention and be ready to learn. They also have to actually read the words as they are written. In other words they can’t be so half cocked that they just assume they know what something means before they actually read it. Once they’ve done that they’ve betrayed their responsibility as the reader/listener.
In short you read it wrong. That’s on you. You didn’t try to interpret it critically, or not even critically really just basically, you just assumed you knew what it meant. Now you’re having a hissy fit because you are wrong and don’t want to admit it. You want things handed to you with no effort on your part. Codling.
That seems to be the main point we disagree on. This conversation won’t go anywhere until there’s a consensus on this. To me, the goal of language (and the words that compose that language) is to optimize transfer of information. In colloquial conversations and news headlines, we optimize for the rate of information transfer. In more formal settings like academia or legalese, we optimize for minimal ambiguity at the expense of the rate.
Your comment appears to rely on the premise that this interpretation is wrong. But consider where the meaning of words come from. They’re for communicating with other human beings. If the target audience interprets it a certain way, then that is the correct meaning. In one-to-many communications, it is the expectation that the one follows the conventions of the many. To be coddled is to have it go the other way around.
You can’t live in a world where you’re not the “target audience”, can you?
For what it’s worth, English is my second language but I’m clearly fluent, and I understood the title’s intent and didn’t assume the priest related to it was the one who did it.
That said, the title is not the clearest, it could be confusing; if I’m confused about something like this, I’d usually clarify it and react to the clarification.
It appears you really don’t like the idea of being an outlier who didn’t get it, and that maybe makes you feel dumb, do you want all of us to coddle you with agreements and praise of your intellect and persuasive argument.
I don’t usually analyze people like this, I just wanted to be as annoying as you.
The many do not agree with you.
Why not? I’m pretty sure I’m not the target audience for Fox News articles.
But I think what you’re trying to get at is that not everyone in the target audience will have the same interpretation? Some, like yourself, will read it the way that the author intended. So consequently, you can’t write a headline that will be correctly interpreted by everyone. The best you can do is to write in a way that it’s correctly interpreted by as many as possible.
I’m not a fan of being the outlier that put so much effort into learning how neurotypical communication works only to be told that my understanding of neurotypical communication is wrong with no actual correction. I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn’t how they would interpret this headline, I’d like to know how they actually do rather than just being told something like “if they interpret it differently, then they’re dumb and not worth your time”.
As a raging autist, I’d like to invite you to shut up!
This is a person sharing something they find interesting on an online discussion forum, they’re not a professional author at a reputable outlet, it’s okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.
You have no evidence at all that they are NT, much less that your neurodivergence is why you’re being so obtuse.
Then you should simply post a comment asking for clarification, like I said earlier. Instead you started berating and insulting them and started a long annoying pointless argument with multiple people insisting they used language wrong, their sentence is incomprehensible to native English speakers, and now a new goalpost is that their language wasn’t accessible enough for you.
It’s plenty accessible, it’s a forum, you can clarify all confusions without ever needing to accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics from the initial interaction.
Nobody made that argument. You’re dumb for insisting that despite being a minority who interpreted something differently than intended, it’s the speaker’s fault and malicious intent.
It’s a communication forum, just have a conversation brother.
Isn’t that what this entire thread is?
I never implied intent. Or rather, never intended to. If there’s a particular comment I made that did, do let me know. My communication skills are perpetual work in progress.
This is where you went from “I’m not sure if you meant it the way I initiated l interpreted it” to “I was right all along, you’re intentionally spreading misinformation”.
That wasn’t my comment
Ha, and so it isn’t. You squeezed right in to defend it though…
The problem with your with your theory here is it’s entirely based on the person trying to communicate the idea. You leave absolutely no responsibility to the listener/reader. They have to have an open mind and pay attention and be ready to learn. They also have to actually read the words as they are written. In other words they can’t be so half cocked that they just assume they know what something means before they actually read it. Once they’ve done that they’ve betrayed their responsibility as the reader/listener.
In short you read it wrong. That’s on you. You didn’t try to interpret it critically, or not even critically really just basically, you just assumed you knew what it meant. Now you’re having a hissy fit because you are wrong and don’t want to admit it. You want things handed to you with no effort on your part. Codling.
Where do the meaning of words come from?
What you need more hand holding Socrates?
That seems to be the main point we disagree on. This conversation won’t go anywhere until there’s a consensus on this. To me, the goal of language (and the words that compose that language) is to optimize transfer of information. In colloquial conversations and news headlines, we optimize for the rate of information transfer. In more formal settings like academia or legalese, we optimize for minimal ambiguity at the expense of the rate.
This is a lot of syllables to say “words should mean things.” You’ve somehow turned “communication should be clear” into a peer-reviewed discovery.