"Feel" vs "Believe"

pandora

brianlux wrote:

Here's my final argument for the degradation of the English language:
:roll:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

Wow excellent... I want more!

Is that a movie? If it isn't it should be, perfect for a Friday evening
ebaumworld I must investigate

BinauralJam

brianlux wrote:

Here's my final argument for the degradation of the English language:
:roll:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun:
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white;
But no such roses I see in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath from my mistress reaks:
I love to hear her speak,
yet well I know that music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go:
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare as any she belied with false compare.

There is a reason we do not talk like this anymore.

vant0037

Who Princess wrote:

You guys are overthinking this. :P

It's just a euphemism. It doesn't making any more or less sense than saying "Beats me" instead of "I don't know." Language changes and evolves; it's not static, and those changes don't drag it down or elevate it. That's the beauty of language.

At least that's how I feel. :P

About 99% of modern philosophy and anthropology would disagree with you there.

Look at Facebook. Language is identity creation. People post so much inane jabber on there, but its not meaningless (at least for the poster). It's how they create their identity for the people they are speaking to, even if what they are saying is meaningless to the listener.

So on the subject of choosing "feel" over "believe," I think it's a point worth considering. Generally speaking, if someone "believes" something, people understand them to have an "opinion," and opinions are more assertive stances. A "belief" requires the holder to essentially stick their neck out on something, perhaps controversial, perhaps not. You may believe in a particular congressional action because XYZ. Or you may believe in the law of gravity because you've seen a ball drop. But in all cases, to hold a belief requires some thought, reason, rationale, logic, study, information etc (yes, even with religion). In sum, holding a belief, at least on some topics, is hard work!

Now, feelings on the other hand, are often considered involuntary, instinctive, reflexive. We don't decide that we feel a certain way, we just experience the feeling. Much of individual therapy is geared toward this very idea: we must learn to control our actions and words because we can't control our feelings that cause our actions and words. It's not hard work to find yourself thinking you love someone, or you hate someone, or you don't like this particular congressional action etc.

So when people say certain things, it's often geared toward managing the social fallout from their opinions vs. their feelings. If a person says "I feel that XYZ is wrong," the speaker is implicitly guarding their statement, the sub-text being "this is my involuntary position, please don't judge me." If someone says "I believe that XZY is wrong," they are asserting their position, and implicitly telling listeners (regardless of whether its true or not) "I have seriously considered this issue and am willing to stick my neck out and state a position, subject to criticism, on this issue." Of course, just because someone says they believe something, doesn't mean that they actually have considered the issue or applied logic, rationale, reason etc, but that's exactly the point. Language is power. The words you choose make what you say more persuasive. Even if you haven't done a lick of homework on an issue, implying you have by stating "I believe something to be true" is far more convincing and persuasive to listeners than saying "I feel something to be true."

There's a reason presidential campaigns have speech writers. There's a reason presidents don't say "I feel that..." There's a reason Romney's campaign slogan wasn't "Feel in America." There's a reason advertising is what it is. Language is power.

brianlux

pandora wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Here's my final argument for the degradation of the English language:
:roll:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

Wow excellent... I want more!

Is that a movie? If it isn't it should be, perfect for a Friday evening
ebaumworld I must investigate

Yeah, it called "Idiocracy". I thought it made a great point about where we are headed culturally but it was a little too over the top for me. It almost parodies itself ad infinitum.

pandora

brianlux wrote:

pandora wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Here's my final argument for the degradation of the English language:
:roll:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

Wow excellent... I want more!

Is that a movie? If it isn't it should be, perfect for a Friday evening
ebaumworld I must investigate

Yeah, it called "Idiocracy". I thought it made a great point about where we are headed culturally but it was a little too over the top for me. It almost parodies itself ad infinitum.

I loved it! I guess a look see in my head
the kid is one of my favorite young actors too

I enjoy stupid sometimes especially after a fatty
it's on the list!

brianlux

vant0037 wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

You guys are overthinking this. :P

It's just a euphemism. It doesn't making any more or less sense than saying "Beats me" instead of "I don't know." Language changes and evolves; it's not static, and those changes don't drag it down or elevate it. That's the beauty of language.

At least that's how I feel. :P

About 99% of modern philosophy and anthropology would disagree with you there.

Look at Facebook. Language is identity creation. People post so much inane jabber on there, but its not meaningless (at least for the poster). It's how they create their identity for the people they are speaking to, even if what they are saying is meaningless to the listener.

So on the subject of choosing "feel" over "believe," I think it's a point worth considering. Generally speaking, if someone "believes" something, people understand them to have an "opinion," and opinions are more assertive stances. A "belief" requires the holder to essentially stick their neck out on something, perhaps controversial, perhaps not. You may believe in a particular congressional action because XYZ. Or you may believe in the law of gravity because you've seen a ball drop. But in all cases, to hold a belief requires some thought, reason, rationale, logic, study, information etc (yes, even with religion). In sum, holding a belief, at least on some topics, is hard work!

Now, feelings on the other hand, are often considered involuntary, instinctive, reflexive. We don't decide that we feel a certain way, we just experience the feeling. Much of individual therapy is geared toward this very idea: we must learn to control our actions and words because we can't control our feelings that cause our actions and words. It's not hard work to find yourself thinking you love someone, or you hate someone, or you don't like this particular congressional action etc.

So when people say certain things, it's often geared toward managing the social fallout from their opinions vs. their feelings. If a person says "I feel that XYZ is wrong," the speaker is implicitly guarding their statement, the sub-text being "this is my involuntary position, please don't judge me." If someone says "I believe that XZY is wrong," they are asserting their position, and implicitly telling listeners (regardless of whether its true or not) "I have seriously considered this issue and am willing to stick my neck out and state a position, subject to criticism, on this issue." Of course, just because someone says they believe something, doesn't mean that they actually have considered the issue or applied logic, rationale, reason etc, but that's exactly the point. Language is power. The words you choose make what you say more persuasive. Even if you haven't done a lick of homework on an issue, implying you have by stating "I believe something to be true" is far more convincing and persuasive to listeners than saying "I feel something to be true."

There's a reason presidential campaigns have speech writers. There's a reason presidents don't say "I feel that..." There's a reason Romney's campaign slogan wasn't "Feel in America." There's a reason advertising is what it is. Language is power.

Excellent summation here, Vant. I agree with Who Princess and BinauralJam that these things can get hashed to death but I really do believe in the power of language and the importance of it's accuracy when talking about current events, matters of opinion, politics, environment and such, which is why I posted this on AMT.

On the other hand, I'm more apt to say just about anything on AET.

BinauralJam

I have one more small point to make, it's kind of picking on the Young, i mean no one is as articulate in their 20's as they probably will be, say in their 50's. So have Faith!

comebackgirl

vant0037 wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

You guys are overthinking this. :P

It's just a euphemism. It doesn't making any more or less sense than saying "Beats me" instead of "I don't know." Language changes and evolves; it's not static, and those changes don't drag it down or elevate it. That's the beauty of language.

At least that's how I feel. :P

About 99% of modern philosophy and anthropology would disagree with you there.

Look at Facebook. Language is identity creation. People post so much inane jabber on there, but its not meaningless (at least for the poster). It's how they create their identity for the people they are speaking to, even if what they are saying is meaningless to the listener.

So on the subject of choosing "feel" over "believe," I think it's a point worth considering. Generally speaking, if someone "believes" something, people understand them to have an "opinion," and opinions are more assertive stances. A "belief" requires the holder to essentially stick their neck out on something, perhaps controversial, perhaps not. You may believe in a particular congressional action because XYZ. Or you may believe in the law of gravity because you've seen a ball drop. But in all cases, to hold a belief requires some thought, reason, rationale, logic, study, information etc (yes, even with religion). In sum, holding a belief, at least on some topics, is hard work!

Now, feelings on the other hand, are often considered involuntary, instinctive, reflexive. We don't decide that we feel a certain way, we just experience the feeling. Much of individual therapy is geared toward this very idea: we must learn to control our actions and words because we can't control our feelings that cause our actions and words. It's not hard work to find yourself thinking you love someone, or you hate someone, or you don't like this particular congressional action etc.

So when people say certain things, it's often geared toward managing the social fallout from their opinions vs. their feelings. If a person says "I feel that XYZ is wrong," the speaker is implicitly guarding their statement, the sub-text being "this is my involuntary position, please don't judge me." If someone says "I believe that XZY is wrong," they are asserting their position, and implicitly telling listeners (regardless of whether its true or not) "I have seriously considered this issue and am willing to stick my neck out and state a position, subject to criticism, on this issue." Of course, just because someone says they believe something, doesn't mean that they actually have considered the issue or applied logic, rationale, reason etc, but that's exactly the point. Language is power. The words you choose make what you say more persuasive. Even if you haven't done a lick of homework on an issue, implying you have by stating "I believe something to be true" is far more convincing and persuasive to listeners than saying "I feel something to be true."

There's a reason presidential campaigns have speech writers. There's a reason presidents don't say "I feel that..." There's a reason Romney's campaign slogan wasn't "Feel in America." There's a reason advertising is what it is. Language is power.

Nicely said! In therapy we look at feelings as being organic, we don't have much control over our feelings or reactions - they just come up naturally. The work is in understanding why we feel the way we do, because this is information. From there we decide what to do with that information, what we think/believe and what we want to do about it. I absolutely agree that words have power.

That being said I feel like I want to go home. I mean I believe I should go home. I just really want to go home now, dammit!

Who Princess

BinauralJam wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Here's my final argument for the degradation of the English language:
:roll:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/767091/

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun:
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white;
But no such roses I see in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath from my mistress reaks:
I love to hear her speak,
yet well I know that music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go:
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare as any she belied with false compare.

There is a reason we do not talk like this anymore.

Not very many of us have ever spoken like Shakespeare.

While I also get what Brian's trying to say, I'll try to explain myself and briefly unearth my credentials. I have both BA and MA degrees in English and taught college English for 4 years, mostly ESL. So I know a little bit about the subject but I'm hardly "the" expert.*

Besides the fact that language is fluid (constantly evolving, creating new words, borrowing from other languages), the rules vary according to usage. As I learned in college, back in prehistoric times, there is an enormous difference between how we use language when we write and when we speak. Written language has (or should have) formal rules for usage. Spoken language varies according to the situation and audience, but it's generally much more informal than written language. Of course, all this was back before there were such things as email, message boards, texts, and any other technological advances you care to add. But those are generally governed by their own sets of rules and again, they tend to be more informal than written language.

Writing will vary in formality. Bear in mind the two principles of rhetoric: audience and purpose. Every form of communication must consider those two things. Who are you trying to reach and why? If you tell the same story to four different people, there's a good chance you may tell it four different ways.

This is why I don't get too worked up about the changes in language. It's a living thing so it keeps changing. The word "smock" (for undergarments) was very vulgar in Shakespeare's day. "Blizzard" used to mean firing a volley from a gun. In the late 19th century, a American newspaperman used it to describe the blinding snowstorms that came down the Western Plains from Canada, and that's how we know the word today. Just a couple of examples of the way language evolves.

My only disappointment is that people seem to take so little interest in language. But that's because it fascinates me. We really limit our options to communicate if we limit our interest in language.

*I rarely talk about this because then everyone expects me to act like an English teacher.

Smellyman

go back 100 years until you reach 0. You would have a hard time understanding someone from 1912 let alone 512.

Language changes. it is almost more interesting to talk about why and how it changes rather than lament it.

Who Princess

Smellyman wrote:

Language changes. it is almost more interesting to talk about why and how it changes rather than lament it.

:thumbup:

hedonist

Smellyman wrote:

go back 100 years until you reach 0. You would have a hard time understanding someone from 1912 let alone 512.

Language changes. it is almost more interesting to talk about why and how it changes rather than lament it.

But I think one can do both.

(to go off on a small tangent here - sorry, Brian)

Language does change, but at what price? Sacrificing eloquence for expediency? Does it matter, abbreviating words and phrases, if you get your point across?

Semantics aside, I just love language - the connections between them - how some words in Italian, German, French, are similar to their English brothers. How they're woven in ways that can make me stop and actually re-think things, stances, I thought I knew.

How powerful they can be, even sometimes more than a tangible weapon.

Lyrics, literature...simple letters, like the ones my parents traded when they were courting...like the emails Danny and I sent eachother in our first couple of years, where we didn't use LOL and BRB but actually WROTE.

Sure we may use words differently, but as long as there is respect for their intent, their context, it's all good by me.

brianlux

Who Princess wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

Language changes. it is almost more interesting to talk about why and how it changes rather than lament it.

:thumbup:

I get what you're both saying and I'm ok with that. This wasn't meant to be about keeping language archaic. I would absolutely flounder verbally if I were suddenly transported back to Shakespearean times.

The two points I was trying to make here initially were:
1) The marked difference- even in today's language- between feelings and beliefs, and the importance of expressing which of the two you mean if you want to be understood correctly.

2) The other point I made initially related to the psychology of saying something like "You make me feel bad when you say my green hair looks funny", or "That book getting lost made me feel stupid." When we say these things we are doing one or both of two things- either giving away our personal power or avoiding being responsible for our own actions. I can't make you feel anything other than physical pain. You might be more apt to have your feelings hurt if I poke fun at your green hair but I can't make you feel hurt. You let that happen. The book didn't make you feel stupid because you lost it. Either you made yourself feel stupid for losing it or it was stolen in which case there was no reason for feeling stupid in the first place. So the message is this- don't give your power away and be responsible for your own thoughts and actions.

Edit: My apologies if this sounds like a rant or a lecture. It's not meant to be. I just think good communication is important. Remember- and this is important- I can be as full of shit and as stupid as the next guy. :P

catefrances

belief requires faith... faith that you are correct in what it is you believe. to feel requires no faith. when i feel a need to go to the shops what that tells me is that i am restless and need an activity to relieve that. i dont necessarily need to buy anything at the shops, yet that wont stop me from possibly buying something/anything once im there.

pandora

Who Princess wrote:

Not very many of us have ever spoken like Shakespeare.

While I also get what Brian's trying to say, I'll try to explain myself and briefly unearth my credentials. I have both BA and MA degrees in English and taught college English for 4 years, mostly ESL. So I know a little bit about the subject but I'm hardly "the" expert.*

Besides the fact that language is fluid (constantly evolving, creating new words, borrowing from other languages), the rules vary according to usage. As I learned in college, back in prehistoric times, there is an enormous difference between how we use language when we write and when we speak. Written language has (or should have) formal rules for usage. Spoken language varies according to the situation and audience, but it's generally much more informal than written language. Of course, all this was back before there were such things as email, message boards, texts, and any other technological advances you care to add. But those are generally governed by their own sets of rules and again, they tend to be more informal than written language.

Writing will vary in formality. Bear in mind the two principles of rhetoric: audience and purpose. Every form of communication must consider those two things. Who are you trying to reach and why? If you tell the same story to four different people, there's a good chance you may tell it four different ways.

This is why I don't get too worked up about the changes in language. It's a living thing so it keeps changing. The word "smock" (for undergarments) was very vulgar in Shakespeare's day. "Blizzard" used to mean firing a volley from a gun. In the late 19th century, a American newspaperman used it to describe the blinding snowstorms that came down the Western Plains from Canada, and that's how we know the word today. Just a couple of examples of the way language evolves.

My only disappointment is that people seem to take so little interest in language. But that's because it fascinates me. We really limit our options to communicate if we limit our interest in language.

*I rarely talk about this because then everyone expects me to act like an English teacher.

Great post knowledge and understanding ...

"audience and purpose" I remember this from long ago

English teachers always my favorite and many I remember easily today from so long ago.
If you had a nice one they were the nicest people ever. A cool one, the coolest.
I have a feeling that was you.
English my favorite class throughout the years. Although reading in front of the class
with a tiny voice, still tiny, is remembered as nightmarish

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

belief requires faith... faith that you are correct in what it is you believe. to feel requires no faith. when i feel a need to go to the shops what that tells me is that i am restless and need an activity to relieve that. i dont necessarily need to buy anything at the shops, yet that wont stop me from possibly buying something/anything once im there.

Well said, but I would add that there is a difference between feeling the need to go shopping and saying, "I feel like going shopping". That sentence tells me nothing about how you feel whereas saying, "I feel bored so I think I'll go shopping" does. I can empathize with your feeling bored whereas I cannot empathize with you going shopping. Make sense?

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

catefrances wrote:

belief requires faith... faith that you are correct in what it is you believe. to feel requires no faith. when i feel a need to go to the shops what that tells me is that i am restless and need an activity to relieve that. i dont necessarily need to buy anything at the shops, yet that wont stop me from possibly buying something/anything once im there.

Well said, but I would add that there is a difference between feeling the need to go shopping and saying, "I feel like going shopping". That sentence tells me nothing about how you feel whereas saying, "I feel bored so I think I'll go shopping" does. I can empathize with your feeling of boredom whereas I cannot empathize with you going shopping. Make sense?

no it doesnt cause i didnt say boredom i said restless. plus i never feel like going shopping. it is an activity that grinds my bones. for me it is an activity that needs to be endured. however i do know people do go shopping because they are bored and cant think of anything else that will stimulate them and relieve that bordeom and most of the time thye dont even know it.. and this is the cornerstone of our consumerist society. we dont need it but were gonna buy it cause we feel we need to. instant gratification.

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

brianlux wrote:

catefrances wrote:

belief requires faith... faith that you are correct in what it is you believe. to feel requires no faith. when i feel a need to go to the shops what that tells me is that i am restless and need an activity to relieve that. i dont necessarily need to buy anything at the shops, yet that wont stop me from possibly buying something/anything once im there.

Well said, but I would add that there is a difference between feeling the need to go shopping and saying, "I feel like going shopping". That sentence tells me nothing about how you feel whereas saying, "I feel bored so I think I'll go shopping" does. I can empathize with your feeling of boredom whereas I cannot empathize with you going shopping. Make sense?

no it doesnt cause i didnt say boredom i said restless. plus i never feel like going shopping. it is an activity that grinds my bones. for me it is an activity that needs to be endured. however i do know people do go shopping because they are bored and cant think of anything else that will stimulate them and relieve that bordeom and most of the time thye dont even know it.. and this is the cornerstone of our consumerist society. we dont need it but were gonna buy it cause we feel we need to. instant gratification.

Good call- you did say "restless".
I feel I've overtaxed my brain today and believe very tired from doing so.

Who Princess

brianlux wrote:

The other point I made initially related to the psychology of saying something like "You make me feel bad when you say my green hair looks funny", or "That book getting lost made me feel stupid." When we say these things we are doing one or both of two things- either giving away our personal power or avoiding being responsible for our own actions. I can't make you feel anything other than physical pain. You might be more apt to have your feelings hurt if I poke fun at your green hair but I can't make you feel hurt. You let that happen. The book didn't make you feel stupid because you lost it. Either you made yourself feel stupid for losing it or it was stolen in which case there was no reason for feeling stupid in the first place. So the message is this- don't give your power away and be responsible for your own thoughts and actions.

Good point. For many years I've been a health educator and I currently teach workshops in managing diabetes and chronic illnesses. The curriculum was developed at Stanford Medical School and covers a great range of tools that people can use to deal with their chronic conditions. One of the tools we talk about is communication--with your family, your friends, your health care team. We talk about the differences between "I" and "you" messages. "You" messages are the kind you posted: "You hurt me when you make fun of my green hair." An "I" message would be "I feel hurt that you made fun of my hair" or "When you make fun of my hair, I feel hurt." The differences don't seem that great but "you" messages tend to be blaming and confrontational while "I" messages allow you to express yourself honestly while trying to resolve the problem.

These concepts have been around for a long time and I don't know where they originated. But for effective communication, I like them a lot.

brianlux wrote:

Edit: My apologies if this sounds like a rant or a lecture. It's not meant to be. I just think good communication is important. Remember- and this is important- I can be as full of shit and as stupid as the next guy. :P

So I can I. :oops:
I also specialize in being tacky. :P

catefrances

Smellyman wrote:

go back 100 years until you reach 0. You would have a hard time understanding someone from 1912 let alone 512.

Language changes. it is almost more interesting to talk about why and how it changes rather than lament it.

and this is why the english language will live on for avery long time to come.. it is fluid...it evolves... it breathes...if it didnt itd end up as dead as latin. it accepts/steals/borrows words from other languages.. words get co opted and end up with different meanings.. gay for example. hard as an antonym of both soft and easy(when we should use the more 'correct' difficult). not to mention all the variant patois.