Settling a completely unimportant debate: What's your go-to pie?
Doesn't have to be the "best" pie. Just the one you almost always end up buying.
Doesn't have to be the "best" pie. Just the one you almost always end up buying.
Something I've been thinking about lately is how quickly we move from what happened to what we think it means.
For example, someone folds their arms during a meeting.
The observation is simple:
"They folded their arms."
The interpretation might be:
"They're annoyed."
"They've switched off."
"They disagree."
Or they might just be cold.
The observation is what we directly observe.
The interpretation is the story we attach to it.
Those are not always the same thing.
I'm not aiming this at any particular political issue or current event. I'm more interested in how we talk to each other generally in Aotearoa, at work, in schools, in whānau, in community spaces, and online.
Do you think we're good at separating what we actually observe from what we think it means?
Or is that distinction not as useful as it sounds?
Keen to hear people's thoughts and any examples from your own experiences.
I’m curious about the moments where a person didn’t just learn new information, but changed how they interpreted what they already knew.
What changed?
I was under the impression we were going for a walk. He appears to have entered his outdoor furniture era.
Can language ever describe an observation completely free of interpretation? Or does interpretation begin before the sentence is even spoken?
Before the beard.
When the moustache carried the entire operation.
Observation:
"The fridge contains bread, yoghurt, leftovers, vegetables, and cheese."
Explanation:
"There is nothing to eat."
Alternative explanation:
"There is nothing here that I want to eat."
What's an everyday example where the first explanation turned out not to be the whole story?
Author here.
This is a short nonfiction atlas exploring a simple question: Where does human checkability begin to reach its limits? The book moves through perception, observation, memory, language, identity, social reality, agency, and absence, looking at places where checking appears straightforward and places where uncertainty remains. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive and is being shared freely for anyone interested.
Feedback is welcome.
I recently coined the word driftlight for something I think a lot of people have experienced. It's that feeling when a conversation, book, place, question, or experience stays with you and keeps giving you new things to think about long after it's over. Not just remembering it, but continuing to see new meaning in it. For example: "I still have driftlight from that conversation," or "The meeting ended yesterday. The driftlight hasn't." I didn't know a simple word for this experience, so I gave it one. Curious whether others recognise it and whether the word works for you.
Nerdostry (noun)
The tendency to keep returning to a question, pattern, subject, or interest through curiosity rather than obligation.
Etymology: Blend of nerd + the suffix -ry (as in wizardry, husbandry, or artistry).
I've been experimenting with this word as a way of describing a particular kind of recurring curiosity. I'm interested in feedback on both the concept and the construction of the word itself.
Does English already have a word that captures this territory better?