Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
Popularizer is a word I heard historian William Norton Smith use when discussing American Presidents on C-Span. He did not elaborate significantly but it was apparent to me that he used the word to describe individuals who make popular the books of authors who write about significant concepts that are seldom disseminated throughout the population.
Our educational system prepares us to become good producers and consumers. However, in the name of efficiency, our educational system leaves us ignorant of many domains of knowledge that are vital to our comprehension of matters that seriously affect the health of our culture and of the world. Psychology is just one example of such a domain.
Mr. Smith and I agree that it is essential that someone carry to the people these vital concepts that I mention.
Do you have any desire to be a popularizer?
Isn’t the Internet discussion forum an ideal medium for popularizers to perform their function?
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
magenta flame;700589 wrote: Isn't that just another word for "spin doctor"?
Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten.
Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
I guess that more than one million individuals visit an Internet discussion forum each day.
Off the top of my head I guess that there are more than 100 Internet discussion boards and that there are on average 15 forums per board. I also guess that every day more than 100 thousand members visit their board.
Off the top of my head I guess that there are more than 100 Internet discussion boards and that there are on average 15 forums per board. I also guess that every day more than 100 thousand members visit their board.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten.
Spin doctors take an existing concept and image it in such a way as to make it desireable by a wider audience.
As you described a popularizer, they take an existing concept and image it in such a way as to make it desireable by a wider audience.
Off the top of my head I guess that there are more than 100 Internet discussion boards and that there are on average 15 forums per board. I also guess that every day more than 100 thousand members visit their board.
One of these numbers is hilariously smaller than it should be, and another is hilariously larger than it should be. Perhaps if you invert them, your statement might actually resemble truth.
Spin doctors take an existing concept and image it in such a way as to make it desireable by a wider audience.
As you described a popularizer, they take an existing concept and image it in such a way as to make it desireable by a wider audience.
Off the top of my head I guess that there are more than 100 Internet discussion boards and that there are on average 15 forums per board. I also guess that every day more than 100 thousand members visit their board.
One of these numbers is hilariously smaller than it should be, and another is hilariously larger than it should be. Perhaps if you invert them, your statement might actually resemble truth.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
As far as I know, "popularizer" isn't even a word. I find it ironic that people who are trying to bring education and "enlightenment" to the mainstream are making up words to do so. :rolleyes:
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
laneybug;703554 wrote: As far as I know, "popularizer" isn't even a word. I find it ironic that people who are trying to bring education and "enlightenment" to the mainstream are making up words to do so. :rolleyes:
Words are made up when the vocabulary does not supply suitable words for the meaning trying to be expressed. This happens when the culture has not discovered the need to communicate a certain meaning.
Humans are meaning creating creatures. We are constantly in need of new words to express our comprehension of a matter. Often one culture has a word for a meaning whereas another culture does not. That is why translating is often such a problem.
Words are made up when the vocabulary does not supply suitable words for the meaning trying to be expressed. This happens when the culture has not discovered the need to communicate a certain meaning.
Humans are meaning creating creatures. We are constantly in need of new words to express our comprehension of a matter. Often one culture has a word for a meaning whereas another culture does not. That is why translating is often such a problem.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
coberst;703585 wrote: Words are made up when the vocabulary does not supply suitable words for the meaning trying to be expressed. But simply deciding to coin a phrase to carry a certain meaning doesn't make all such creations intrinsically valid. The word has to be adopted by a large number of people who all agree that it serves a useful linguistic purpose before it becomes accepted as a word in the language.
I think you'll find that enough people are perfectly happy to use the pre-existing term "Spin doctor" or if you want to be a little more connotation neutral, "advocate" covers your definition perfectly well without needing to add more words to the language for no good reason.
This happens when the culture has not discovered the need to communicate a certain meaning. As I mentioned above, we already have -several- words to communicate "One who presents something in a way designed to encourage support for that something"
We have
apostle,
backer,
booster,
champion,
friend,
promoter,
proponent,
supporter
I'm not seeing why we need to add "Popularizer" to that list, when we could in fact make the language more precise and useful by eliminating several of the words we already have.
Often one culture has a word for a meaning whereas another culture does not. That is why translating is often such a problem.But you can see how no new word is actually being invented here? Generally in translation we either use some sort of "best-fit" that conveys the same meaning if somewhat less precisely, or we have a native speaker of the language who also speaks ours attempt to find another word that carries the same meaning.
If that fails, especially in english, we just portmanteau the bestfit into one word, or else we just use the word directly from the language of origin.
I think you'll find that enough people are perfectly happy to use the pre-existing term "Spin doctor" or if you want to be a little more connotation neutral, "advocate" covers your definition perfectly well without needing to add more words to the language for no good reason.
This happens when the culture has not discovered the need to communicate a certain meaning. As I mentioned above, we already have -several- words to communicate "One who presents something in a way designed to encourage support for that something"
We have
apostle,
backer,
booster,
champion,
friend,
promoter,
proponent,
supporter
I'm not seeing why we need to add "Popularizer" to that list, when we could in fact make the language more precise and useful by eliminating several of the words we already have.
Often one culture has a word for a meaning whereas another culture does not. That is why translating is often such a problem.But you can see how no new word is actually being invented here? Generally in translation we either use some sort of "best-fit" that conveys the same meaning if somewhat less precisely, or we have a native speaker of the language who also speaks ours attempt to find another word that carries the same meaning.
If that fails, especially in english, we just portmanteau the bestfit into one word, or else we just use the word directly from the language of origin.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
Once again, Devonin says it perfectly.
Honestly, I don't like the word "popularizer" because 1) it sounds utterly ridiculous when you say it out loud, and 2) "popularizer" sounds like a word used for an ad campaign for a politician.
The above is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
I do have one question. Why do some people feel at ease when a lot of other people are doing exactly as they say? Perhaps that should be the real definition of "popularizer." The ones making something popular are only doing so in order for themselves to feel more comfortable.
Honestly, I don't like the word "popularizer" because 1) it sounds utterly ridiculous when you say it out loud, and 2) "popularizer" sounds like a word used for an ad campaign for a politician.
The above is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
I do have one question. Why do some people feel at ease when a lot of other people are doing exactly as they say? Perhaps that should be the real definition of "popularizer." The ones making something popular are only doing so in order for themselves to feel more comfortable.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
laneybug;703610 wrote: Once again, Devonin says it perfectly.
Honestly, I don't like the word "popularizer" because 1) it sounds utterly ridiculous when you say it out loud, and 2) "popularizer" sounds like a word used for an ad campaign for a politician.
The above is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
I do have one question. Why do some people feel at ease when a lot of other people are doing exactly as they say? Perhaps that should be the real definition of "popularizer." The ones making something popular are only doing so in order for themselves to feel more comfortable.
We are digressing into semantic quibbles.
Honestly, I don't like the word "popularizer" because 1) it sounds utterly ridiculous when you say it out loud, and 2) "popularizer" sounds like a word used for an ad campaign for a politician.
The above is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
I do have one question. Why do some people feel at ease when a lot of other people are doing exactly as they say? Perhaps that should be the real definition of "popularizer." The ones making something popular are only doing so in order for themselves to feel more comfortable.
We are digressing into semantic quibbles.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
I hardly see how it is a semantic quibble when you yourself set forward a substantive difference between terms.
Someone said "A popularizer is the same thing as a Spin Doctor" and you responded "Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten." By doing so, you've placed the term "Popularizer" in its own context as a unique word with a seperate definition.
This opens up the direction of the debate to move towards your use of that word, and the meanings you seem to think are inherant in it.
Then, ignoring the other responses to your original post, you continued to directly address the "semantic quibble" in your next post, where you tried to justify your support of the coining of a new word, furthering the discussion as a semantic one in which you were willingly taking part with your digression on the nature of language and the search for meaning.
Then, when -that- post was responded to in a way that suggested your use of this new term was completely unnecessary, and someone else voiced their support of that response, only -then- do you decide to play the "OMG Semantics!" card.
If you won't address people's responses to one line of discussion, and instead push the discussion in another direction, you can't then refuse to acknowledge responses to the new direction simply because you don't like them.
Someone said "A popularizer is the same thing as a Spin Doctor" and you responded "Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten." By doing so, you've placed the term "Popularizer" in its own context as a unique word with a seperate definition.
This opens up the direction of the debate to move towards your use of that word, and the meanings you seem to think are inherant in it.
Then, ignoring the other responses to your original post, you continued to directly address the "semantic quibble" in your next post, where you tried to justify your support of the coining of a new word, furthering the discussion as a semantic one in which you were willingly taking part with your digression on the nature of language and the search for meaning.
Then, when -that- post was responded to in a way that suggested your use of this new term was completely unnecessary, and someone else voiced their support of that response, only -then- do you decide to play the "OMG Semantics!" card.
If you won't address people's responses to one line of discussion, and instead push the discussion in another direction, you can't then refuse to acknowledge responses to the new direction simply because you don't like them.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
magenta flame;703792 wrote: [QUOTE=Devonin;703790]I hardly see how it is a semantic quibble when you yourself set forward a substantive difference between terms.
Someone said "A popularizer is the same thing as a Spin Doctor" and you responded "Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten." By doing so, you've placed the term "Popularizer" in its own context as a unique word with a seperate definition.
QUOTE]
OIY!!!! I have a name you know
;) for that impetenance you may now refer to me as "the Revered Enlightned One" .
Hmmm......... must put that on my office door:wah:
Perhaps you are correct.
Someone said "A popularizer is the same thing as a Spin Doctor" and you responded "Spin doctors manipulate popularizers enlighten." By doing so, you've placed the term "Popularizer" in its own context as a unique word with a seperate definition.
QUOTE]
OIY!!!! I have a name you know
;) for that impetenance you may now refer to me as "the Revered Enlightned One" .Hmmm......... must put that on my office door:wah:
Perhaps you are correct.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
coberst;703754 wrote: We are digressing into semantic quibbles.
Semantics: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.
If you want to coin a new word, such as popularizer, then the discussion, or quibbling, of semantics is what we really need. Don't you think? One cannot coin a new word without the acceptance of the general public.
Semantics: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.
If you want to coin a new word, such as popularizer, then the discussion, or quibbling, of semantics is what we really need. Don't you think? One cannot coin a new word without the acceptance of the general public.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
laneybug;704040 wrote: Semantics: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.
If you want to coin a new word, such as popularizer, then the discussion, or quibbling, of semantics is what we really need. Don't you think? One cannot coin a new word without the acceptance of the general public.
Good point.
Let the quibble continue.
It is my view that we have originators, translators, commonizers, and popularizers. Freud is an originator, those who take Fraud’s work and smoothes out the rough edges and provide more organization and detail are translators, the commonizers take these matters and write popular books that the aggressive layperson reads and comprehends, the popularizers take all of this to the people in small digestible bites often hiding the profound within simple common language.
If you want to coin a new word, such as popularizer, then the discussion, or quibbling, of semantics is what we really need. Don't you think? One cannot coin a new word without the acceptance of the general public.
Good point.
Let the quibble continue.
It is my view that we have originators, translators, commonizers, and popularizers. Freud is an originator, those who take Fraud’s work and smoothes out the rough edges and provide more organization and detail are translators, the commonizers take these matters and write popular books that the aggressive layperson reads and comprehends, the popularizers take all of this to the people in small digestible bites often hiding the profound within simple common language.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
Your theory may have some ground, and that's great. But, in every one of your posts I try to see the greater meaning of it but I keep tripping on the more obvious aspects.
Why do you think mankind in general are morons? And why, if the vast majority of mankind are morons, do you not consider yourself one?
If 95% of mankind were morons, let's say for argument's sake, than the odds are not in your favor for you not to be one yourself.
You never know. You may finally be appreciated after your time is up on this planet. But it's not looking very good. It appears your sole method for communicating all this is the internet. I would guess that more people are still living offline than people who are on. Your message is only reaching an obscure percentage of those who have access or can afford the internet, and not a percentage at all of those who are living in conditions where a computer is as intangible as clean water.
Why do you think mankind in general are morons? And why, if the vast majority of mankind are morons, do you not consider yourself one?
If 95% of mankind were morons, let's say for argument's sake, than the odds are not in your favor for you not to be one yourself.
You never know. You may finally be appreciated after your time is up on this planet. But it's not looking very good. It appears your sole method for communicating all this is the internet. I would guess that more people are still living offline than people who are on. Your message is only reaching an obscure percentage of those who have access or can afford the internet, and not a percentage at all of those who are living in conditions where a computer is as intangible as clean water.
It is better to have your mind opened by wonder
than closed by belief.
than closed by belief.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
laneybug;704656 wrote: Your theory may have some ground, and that's great. But, in every one of your posts I try to see the greater meaning of it but I keep tripping on the more obvious aspects.
Why do you think mankind in general are morons? And why, if the vast majority of mankind are morons, do you not consider yourself one?
If 95% of mankind were morons, let's say for argument's sake, than the odds are not in your favor for you not to be one yourself.
You never know. You may finally be appreciated after your time is up on this planet. But it's not looking very good. It appears your sole method for communicating all this is the internet. I would guess that more people are still living offline than people who are on. Your message is only reaching an obscure percentage of those who have access or can afford the internet, and not a percentage at all of those who are living in conditions where a computer is as intangible as clean water.
To learn is also to read well. Sleep-reading is something we all learn in our educational system but when our school daze are over we need to become critical and alert readers. I do not every remember using the word moron.
Why do you think mankind in general are morons? And why, if the vast majority of mankind are morons, do you not consider yourself one?
If 95% of mankind were morons, let's say for argument's sake, than the odds are not in your favor for you not to be one yourself.
You never know. You may finally be appreciated after your time is up on this planet. But it's not looking very good. It appears your sole method for communicating all this is the internet. I would guess that more people are still living offline than people who are on. Your message is only reaching an obscure percentage of those who have access or can afford the internet, and not a percentage at all of those who are living in conditions where a computer is as intangible as clean water.
To learn is also to read well. Sleep-reading is something we all learn in our educational system but when our school daze are over we need to become critical and alert readers. I do not every remember using the word moron.
Popularizers bring ‘Power to the People’
Now who is quibbling? You've made a number of statements and stated a number of opinions about the average person.
Coberst wrote: Most Americans fail to recognize that thinking and reality are inseparabl(sic)
Coberst wrote: It is very difficult for people to recognize their ignorance when we have to use common language and common words.
Coberst wrote: The problem that I see is that our society may very well self-destruct in the next 200 years if our citizens do not make an effort to be more intellectually sophisticated. That will be difficult to accomplish until we reduce the degree of anti-intellectualism in the society.
Coberst wrote: Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?
Coberst wrote: Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy
Coberst wrote: Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of.
Coberst wrote: I think that anti-intellectualism may be the dominant ideology in America and it shops itself in many disguised forms.
Coberst wrote: I am riding through the land thinking that virtually no one agrees with me--or rather no one understands me
So from this we see a number of opinions pervading your discussions.
-Most- americans fail to realise that thinking and reality are inseperable
-Most- people are ignorant and fail to recognise it
-Most- people need to become more intellectually sophisticated
-Most- people are anti-intellectuals
-Most- people have little comprehension of sciene
-Most- people have an unhealthy narrow-minded approach
-Most- people have an anti-intellectual bias (again)
-Most- people don't agree with you, oh wait...most people don't -understand- you
So no, you've never said "I think they are morons" in so many words, but the words you do use, and the way you phrase them make it perfectly clear exactly where you think you, and everyone else, rank.
Coberst wrote: Most Americans fail to recognize that thinking and reality are inseparabl(sic)
Coberst wrote: It is very difficult for people to recognize their ignorance when we have to use common language and common words.
Coberst wrote: The problem that I see is that our society may very well self-destruct in the next 200 years if our citizens do not make an effort to be more intellectually sophisticated. That will be difficult to accomplish until we reduce the degree of anti-intellectualism in the society.
Coberst wrote: Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?
Coberst wrote: Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy
Coberst wrote: Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of.
Coberst wrote: I think that anti-intellectualism may be the dominant ideology in America and it shops itself in many disguised forms.
Coberst wrote: I am riding through the land thinking that virtually no one agrees with me--or rather no one understands me
So from this we see a number of opinions pervading your discussions.
-Most- americans fail to realise that thinking and reality are inseperable
-Most- people are ignorant and fail to recognise it
-Most- people need to become more intellectually sophisticated
-Most- people are anti-intellectuals
-Most- people have little comprehension of sciene
-Most- people have an unhealthy narrow-minded approach
-Most- people have an anti-intellectual bias (again)
-Most- people don't agree with you, oh wait...most people don't -understand- you
So no, you've never said "I think they are morons" in so many words, but the words you do use, and the way you phrase them make it perfectly clear exactly where you think you, and everyone else, rank.