the evolving mind

Vague words are blunt instruments. Science relies on the sharp. For where there is imprecision, error will slip in.

The following “science article” found at ScienceDaily just about made me slap my head in disapproval and disappointment. In fact, I did scribble oy vey! in the margin (and I’m not even Jewish). As a voluntary member of the language police, I had my sirens wailing.

Partners Sculpt Each Other to Achieve Their Ideal Selves: If Successful, Relationship Goes Well

A new international review of seven papers on “the Michelangelo phenomenon” shows that when close partners affirm and support each other’s ideal selves, they and the relationship benefit greatly.

While vague/general terms can have sexy connotations they are a poor choice for the truly scientific. Sure, it is nearly impossible to avoid dropping one into a sentence here and there, but when an article is chock full of them, can you really call it science? I can’t.

Is this science, or something you’d expect to find in the self-help section of a book store?

The Michelangelo studies show that close partners sculpt one another’s traits and skills and promote, versus inhibit, one another’s goal achievement. “It’s not just that you treat me positively,” Finkel said. “You treat me in particular ways that dovetail with my ideal self.”

That’s how Sara, an outgoing person with a great social network, brought Bob’s best out in him. Sara made Bob more comfortable being the person he wanted to be. With Sara celebrating his ideal self, he became much funnier.

What is “sculpting”? What is the “ideal self”? Methinks the authors are talking over the finer-grained psychological truth, the more precise social, cognitive, emotional, and biological mechanisms involved.

There is a place for appealing yet vague/general/abstract terms. That place is in astrological forecasts. In their lack of precision, vague terms allow too much room for the bogus to be injected.

Technorati Links: language, science

Trackback URI | Comments RSS