You raise an interesting question. How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?
A little bit is natural and expected, but this kind of change in meaning feels like a consequence of a culture that in the last decade has accelerated the practice of re-framing specific words and concepts as something that's "actually a positive" or "actually quite negative if you think about it".
Part of this is a result of our (in the US) culture wars and hijacking of popular terms, but it's also a symptom of social media culture that's always seeking a hot take and creators who are looking to distinguish themselves with (what seems to me) clever re-framing.
The result is a culture that is increasingly fragmented and in which a word can have dramatically different meaning and insinuations depending on it's use in certain social groups or intellectual cliques.
It increasingly feels like I need to download a massive amount of linguistic context before I step into the world of a niche online community because their tight-knit dialogues and shared experiences have now re-framed a word or concept that was largely understood to mean something else.
It's always been like this, just on a smaller scale. Every time you join a group, some people can read the room, learning and sensing the cultural implications, while others step in all the landmines and don't even hear the explosions. How do you do this? Not sure how to explain it, mostly calibration through experience!
If you think that everyone else who is worse at you than reading social cues is self centered rather than your way of experiencing the world maybe just not being universal, I feel like you might be the one acting self-centered.
I was more addressing the alternative of “stepping on all the landmines”. Every time I have made progress in being a better listener I have found I suddenly also make fewer social faux pas. That I can hang with a wider range of individuals because I am less rigid in my own thinking.
It’s difficult to imagine someone who is very present with what is happening be truly socially awkward. They might be uncomfortable but they will likely still be funny and caring. But it’s easy to imagine 100 ways in which a more egotistical person could offend, confuse, or otherwise put off bad vibes in a social setting.
> It’s difficult to imagine someone who is very present with what is happening be truly socially awkward. They might be uncomfortable but they will likely still be funny and caring. But it’s easy to imagine 100 ways in which a more egotistical person could offend, confuse, or otherwise put off bad vibes in a social setting.
I think I mostly agree with the sentiment behind this, if not the terminology. I would certainly describe plenty of people who are well meaning but inept as socially awkward, but I agree that for the most part they are less likely to ruffle feathers.
That being said, I do think the parent comment was speaking specifically about the ability to adapt to new groups with different expectations on the fly. At least based on personal experience, I don't find it particularly difficult to imagine a circumstance where good intent is not enough for someone who struggles to read social cues to still encounter some initial friction with a new social group that doesn't closely resemble one they're familiar with, but I'd agree that it's probably less likely than someone who genuinely doesn't care about whether they offend anyone.
In any case, I appreciate your elaboration on this! I don't think I inferred the point you were trying to make very well initially, so the extra context was helpful to understand where you're coming from.
I'd be wary of testing this as binary. It's not self centered versus not. It's a continuum, which I think you understand because you discuss making progress.
But, what you don't seem to acknowledge is that you don't hear what you don't hear. Some groups may be quietly judging you in a way that is VERY difficult to perceive because you don't understand their subtle social cues. Or, maybe you have perfect social awareness in all situations. I truly don't know.
> How do we keep the meanings of words from diverging so dramatically and so rapidly?
We don’t engage. It’s the only shot we have.
There was a useful article at 404 Media recently about our failure to prevent those on the extreme edges of culture from normalizing their language and behavior: We Have Learned Nothing About Amplifying Morons[0]. See the article, but essentially by engaging we cede ground. Sorta like how both-sides journalism gives space to anti-science nuts and lets them spread falsehoods.
A little bit is natural and expected, but this kind of change in meaning feels like a consequence of a culture that in the last decade has accelerated the practice of re-framing specific words and concepts as something that's "actually a positive" or "actually quite negative if you think about it".
Part of this is a result of our (in the US) culture wars and hijacking of popular terms, but it's also a symptom of social media culture that's always seeking a hot take and creators who are looking to distinguish themselves with (what seems to me) clever re-framing.
The result is a culture that is increasingly fragmented and in which a word can have dramatically different meaning and insinuations depending on it's use in certain social groups or intellectual cliques.
It increasingly feels like I need to download a massive amount of linguistic context before I step into the world of a niche online community because their tight-knit dialogues and shared experiences have now re-framed a word or concept that was largely understood to mean something else.