Interpretive sway of proximity of meaning

Different people have different interpretations of what a word means.

People differ on how close word X and word Y are in meaning.

phenomenon

Mr. A. "It's X."

Mr. B. "I see, it's Y."

Mr. A. "No!"

explanation

In Mr. A's mind, words X and Y are placed far apart.

They are placed close together in Mr. B.

https://gyazo.com/c44cae610f7c16296bfbd82c4b88f46f

The word "Y" is probably more "natural" to Mr. B than the word "X".

Familiarity with hearing, etc.

So Mr. B chooses Y.

If you have unconsciously rewritten

If you are intentionally trying to make the explanation natural and easy to understand and Y

For Mr. A, X and Y are totally different, so he replies "No".

This is hard for Mr. B to understand.

In Mr. B's mind, X and Y are in close proximity, so it's hard to recognize the difference.

If Mr. B does not recognize the difference between X and Y

Mr. B thinks, "That's what Mr. A said."

If Mr. B recognizes that there is a difference between X and Y, but not a big difference.

Mr. B thinks, "You're such a detail-oriented person, it doesn't matter either way."

If Mr. B intentionally chooses words in an attempt to provide a clear explanation

Mr. B thinks "it's easier to understand this way."

They're thinking, "Oh, he's one of those people who can't tolerate expression unless it's what he wants, ugh."

If Mr. A tells Mr. B "No" and Mr. B changes his perception that X and Y are different, it will be improved.

But it's hard to change perceptions.

In this explanation, X and Y are just one word discrepancies, but often discrepancies occur in more complex situations

It is difficult for Mr. B, who identifies X and Y, to come to distinguish X and Y on his own.

Mr. A, who distinguishes between X and Y, needs to facilitate the separation of concepts within Mr. B.

Separation of concepts

Collect cases where Mr. B identifies X and Y.

Show it to Mr. B. "You think these words mean the same thing, don't you?" and confirm

Then tell them, "I want X and Y to be treated differently for this reason.

It is important to clearly show why.

If the only reason is Mr. A's feelings, there is no reason for Mr. B to step up to the plate.

Suppose, for example, that someone confuses "symmetric key cryptography" with "public key cryptography.

It's not symmetric key cryptography, it's public key cryptography!" "How many times are you wrong? but it's futile.

The symmetric key cipher is

Public key cryptography is

So, he says, treat it as a separate thing.

↑upThis is a case where the word has a formal definition, so it is relatively easy

Complicated cases

A word has multiple meanings.

Example: equating "hash" with "associative array

In some contexts, "hash = associative array" is fine, but now Mr. A is talking about a SHA-1 hash, and the situation is that he is talking about a SHA-1 hash.

Combination of multiple words, not words, not corresponding to distinct terms, Y encompasses X

Example: equating "disruptive innovation" with "some amazing innovation" rather than a single technical term

From Mr. A, who uses "disruptive innovation" to mean "an inferior performing product taking over a market," Mr. B sometimes gets it right, and sometimes gets it wrong from the premise.

The definition of the word is not clear to begin with.

Example: equating "sight" with "field of vision".

Example: equating "knowledge" with "information".

Unlike technical terms, general terms are not clearly defined, so either A, who makes a distinction, or B, who does not, is not correct

If person A uses the distinction and person B is unaware of the distinction, information loss occurs.

For effective communication, it is necessary to create a consensus of distinction

---