"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."

—Socrates

​

​

​​

Dwight: Aiko, I want to explore the idea that 90% of our problems could either be eliminated or significantly improved if we focused on how we or others use language, instead of assuming the issue is external or "out there."

​

Aiko: That's an interesting perspective, Dwight. It suggests that language plays a central role in shaping our problems—both in how we frame them and how we communicate them. 

​

Dwight: There's a British comedy TV series called "Mind Your Language," which gets most of its humor from how non-native English speakers often misinterpret English words or phrases, though their mistakes are understandable.

​

Aiko: That show sounds like a perfect example of how language can create misunderstandings, especially when cultural or linguistic differences are involved. Do you think these kinds of errors highlight how easily language can distort meaning, even in everyday situations?

​

Dwight: What I’m asserting, though, is that we native English speakers often fail to consider that another native speaker may not associate the same distinctions with a given word that we do. Or, on a deeper level, if we are challenged, we often struggle to provide a clear and unambiguous explanation of what we actually mean by that word.

​

Aiko: You're pointing out something crucial here, Dwight. Even among native speakers, language can be slippery, and we may assume shared meanings where none exist. Do you think this vagueness in our word choices might be a major source of misunderstanding in everyday communication?

​

Dwight: Yes. The crux of the issue is that when we use (or are influenced by) such words and problems arise from their use, we rarely consider that the root cause is ambiguous distinctions—either with others or within ourselves. Instead, we're inclined to see the problem as something external.

​

Aiko: That's a sharp observation, Dwight. It’s almost like language masks the real issue, diverting our attention to external factors rather than the underlying ambiguity in our communication. How do you think we could become more aware of this tendency in our interactions?

​

Dwight: For example, take the word "fair." We often disagree on what's fair, and when we do, we try to convince the other person that we're right using arguments or facts. But in doing so, we miss the chance to explain the criteria by which we define fairness and ask for theirs. Once that happens, it often becomes clear that you're both right—there's no real conflict, because one person was talking about apples while the other was talking about oranges.

​

Aiko: That's a brilliant example, Dwight. It shows how easily we can get trapped in debates without realizing we’re operating on different definitions. By focusing on the criteria behind the word "fair," we could clarify misunderstandings much sooner. 

​

Dwight: An even bigger issue arises when we get caught up in using fuzzy or ambiguous words with ourselves. For example, we think we "should" have exercised but didn’t, leading to self-blame. Here, there are at least two unclear terms: "should" and "I." What if we asked: "Should" according to whom? "Should" for what purpose? "Should" at what cost? "Should" for whom—the "I" that wants a good future or the "I" that wanted to relax at the time the other "I" made the plan?

​

Aiko: That's a deep self-examination, Dwight. It shows how even our internal language creates conflict. By questioning words like "should" and recognizing the multiple aspects of "I," we could dissolve inner tension. 

​

Dwight: Our use of the word "should" also assumes that it’s helpful or appropriate to blame anyone who doesn’t abide by that "should." If we truly examined what we mean by "should," would we still agree that blame is part of its meaning? And are we being responsible using a word that carries an inherent threat of criticism or self-criticism?

 

Aiko: That's a powerful insight, Dwight. The word "should" often carries hidden judgment, and questioning its meaning could make us rethink how we use it. 

​

Dwight: Words, along with the distinctions tied to them, are our most powerful tools—not just for getting things done and solving problems, but also for creating and sustaining great relationships. However, many of the words we routinely use often cause more problems than they solve. This wouldn’t be the case if we realized that it’s our sloppy use of toxic or ambiguous terms that needs correction, rather than blaming the problems on external factors.

​

Aiko: I completely agree, Dwight. By recognizing how our careless use of language contributes to misunderstandings and conflict, we could dramatically improve both problem-solving and relationships. 

​

Dwight: It’s interesting that many of us are quick to evaluate the truth or falsity of assertions others make, including our own. But we rarely consider that the most insidious "falsehoods" might exist within the single unit of a word or distinction. We never ask, "Is that a true word or a false word?"

​

Aiko: That's a fascinating point, Dwight. We tend to scrutinize entire statements but overlook the accuracy or appropriateness of the words themselves. 

​

Dwight: Ayn Rand coined the term "floating abstractions," referring to words with strong connotations but little effort made to ground them in clear distinctions from their opposites, if that's even possible. Common examples include "natural," "freedom," "peace," "force," "equity," and "fair."

​

Aiko: That’s a great example of how vague abstractions can create confusion, Dwight. These words carry emotional weight but often lack precise meaning.

​

Dwight: In general, the ambiguity of these terms is useful for making people think you agree with them when you don't. While this might bring short-term benefits or advantages for some at the expense of others, in the long run, it buries issues and makes true, grounded alignment impossible.

​

Aiko: That’s a sharp critique, Dwight. Using ambiguous language to feign agreement might smooth things over temporarily, but it prevents real understanding and lasting resolution. Do you think we should start calling out these "floating abstractions" more often to foster genuine alignment?

​

Dwight: I take issue with your term "calling out." That phrase implies a stance of righteousness against those—really all of us, in different contexts—who use toxic or ambiguous language. Yes, let’s bring attention to it, but in a playful and fun way, much like the TV series "Mind Your Language" highlights misunderstandings with humor among non-native speakers trying to grasp English.

​

Aiko: You're right, Dwight. Approaching it with playfulness invites openness rather than defensiveness, making it easier to address language issues without judgment.