Taxonomy discussions might be boring according to some perspectives, but they are periodically necessary. They can easily become fraught and overlong because they uncover unexpected crossed wires. Words, with their explicit and implicit meanings, are often the first of many steps to share information and understanding. And while individual words in a shared language are the most basic shared-meaning medium, they are subject to all the variability and modality issues that are embedded in the transfer of information.
To really blow your mind, I’m going to talk about a word that’s very hard to avoid. It’s super simple — in English, a single letter! In a truple, and including the grammar of English as a meaningful part of the construct, it always stays in the object position; we change the word for subject and we still tend to define it in light of predicate. You, specifically, will use it multiple times today.
“I” is a singular first-person pronoun. It is used ubiquitously in English as a singular first person pronoun. The letter in small case in other contexts can have other meaning, but in terms of the English language in everyday use it’s well understood. When someone says “I”, we all approach the information as being pertinent to that singular person. This is the dry, precise, and leverageable information contained in the word “I”.
As a part of taxonomy, choosing the dry, precise word that appropriate encapsulates the information is important. It is the first key in transmitting information. We name things with shared vocabulary and meaning in order to be able to talk about them in abstract, and recognize and follow them in concrete objects and actions.
There’s a complication, regardless of how broadly and consistently a word is used. Any word in a living language has the potential for variability in definition and contextualized meaning. Because of how ubiquitous “I” is, the definition rarely (ever?) changes. But meaning? Meanings shift over time and can be the source of confusion as different people use taxonomy with different implicit meanings or interpretations.
Restated, that means taxonomy issues can look like:
- People using different words to mean the same thing
- People using the same word to mean different things
- Asynchronous shifts to underlying meaning over time and through cultures
- Context-based shifts to underlying meaning over time and between cultures
People, time, and context are always part of shared information. If we ever acknowledge other intelligence in the universe, we’ll have to expand meaning or find a new word for the concept of “people” that includes multiple intelligences and a greater breadth of modality. Time and context will still be part of shared information. In that world of acknowledged multiple intelligences, “people” in the list that started this paragraph might become an indication of shortsightedness and an earmark of time and context.
Yeah. Information is something we all leverage, but we have barely scraped the surface of sharing it. Our words are only the most present and one of the longer-lived modalities. So let’s dive.
Every word is an encapsulated node.
Because it is ‘unpacked’ in the mind, the meaning can have different contextualization unless work is done to make sure everyone in a space is on the same page. In other words, the meaning I have for “I” might not be the same nuanced meaning each reader has.
For instance, I very frequently use “I” to point out limited perspective. It is intended to ground, to say that, “this is not the sum of all reality, but a perspective of one that should be combined with other perspectives to create a complex and nuanced whole.” That is a big concept. It’s abstract and wordy, and yet as elegant as I can make it while balancing with the combined meaning of the words used. As a contextualized, encapsulated, nuanced meaning of the word “I”, it’s still functional. It is an implicit and deep understanding of a first person singular existence within a broad multiplicity implied by the need for a singular instance. Then I added perspective/lens: some respect for others. That’s the only part that isn’t tied directly to the need for a word like “I”,
This is not how everyone uses, or interprets the use of, “I”. The multiplicity does not make it in to everyone’s contextualized use of “I”.
I have been called out by various people over the course of my lifetime for the overuse of “I” (and there have been cases where that “overuse” kicks in at #1). These are usually early-days conversations, or even singular interactions with strangers I never run into again. From their perspective, though, my overuse of “I” did not mean that I was a singular person in a sea of multiplicity. Rather, based on feedback over time, the most consistent thread was that they were reacting to my use of “I” based on previous experiences with others who used “I”.
Which brings me to the next idea.
Every person who ingests an encapsulated node — no matter how simplified and ubiquitous!! — brings their perception of the entirety of their reality to the ingestion.
Let’s really think about this. There is a good chance that in your first-person experience across all social constructs you have some interaction with people who use “I” with very different implicit meanings.
-
Some people use “I” to indicate a first-person one of many. Their voice is important, but not comprehensive. Others do not need to agree, and together a we can form.
This is synonymous with my explanation above. - Some people use “I” with more force. It’s overworked. They are looking for agreement and validation, maybe feeling like they aren’t being heard. They both want to be a part of we and worry they won’t be admitted.
Think in terms of the kid on the playground who really wanted to be included in a ball game, or the burned out coworker who sees more work coming their way without any release valve for their existing workload. - People also exist who use “I” to drown out all dissenters, to make the singular first-person the only relevant perception in an otherwise dismissible mass of perceptions. There is no we, and never will be.
Think in terms of the soloist who can’t see other’s efforts as anything other than support for their moment of glory. Think part of developing independence on the path to maturity. Think of the business leader who dehumanizes every “other”, unwilling/unable to reconcile cost of living with living wage with extractive profit with sustainable/ongoing life across the planet. - A few people exist who use “we” to mean “I”, otherwise known as the “royal we”.
Think English royalty, for a relatively benign/cultural construct use. Think the corporate leader who is depending on your capitulation to make “we” true enough to get to the next step. Think Trump.
There might be more, but these are the ones I’ve come across frequently enough to watch for. And, yeah, there’s some judgement in the labeling of ‘Solipsistic twit “I’”. That’s how simple it can be to relay information.
An individual’s previous experiences and environments are impressed on every interaction.
This is a fundamental part of human experience. We depend on it as individuals, cultures, and society. We leverage it in our growing understanding of the universe, it’s materials and functions, and how we fit into our physical environment. It is so native in our experience that some people can’t even comprehend that an experience/environment might be novel or otherwise not fit with their developed understanding to date.
Think of it like a learning curve, over time.
Each person you meet is in a snapshot moment, and they may or may not be on a learning trend. They may or may not have evolved some nuance in ingestion and interpretation. They may or may not be willing to spend time sussing out your particular interpretation to see if there is common ground.
In other words, their experience is ongoing, shifting, and the sharing of information is a tacit agreement in space and time in which every individual can vote no for any reason. Always depend on the dry, precise definition as a starting point because of these complications.
Consider the potential learning curve in terms of “I”. One permutation might be:
- Early on, “I” is purely the dry, precise information.
Read: “I” works only as intended, shifting from a parent saying “I” to mean xerself, and a first person singular saying “I” shifting to first person singular reference. The exterior-perspective object of the word shifts to the person saying it; the interior-perspective object is self-referential. - Someone from that person’s world comes from the solipsistic twit “I” model, and that person might need their interpretive understanding to navigate their everyday life.
Read: they have to deal with a narcissist every day, multiple times, and have to understand that person will never, ever, consider themselves as a single part of a multiplicity. “I” is not only self-referential, but other-dismissive. The overuse of “I” becomes a signal to take on alternative behaviors/actions. - Over time they can learn to subset another person’s “I” to a variable modality.
Read: Pat-the-narcissist and those supporting their interpretive world model have to be understood one way, but Dave-and-Sally of game night are definitely using the part-of-a-multiplicity contextualization. Pat-like recognition spawns one set of behaviors/actions, Dave/Sally-like recognition spawns another set.
But right here, right now, never having met me, my use of “I” can be triggering. In one interpretation of how they could have framed it, they have found a pattern (overuse of “I”), decided it always means one outcome (narcissist), and acts accordingly.
It’s that simple, and that complex.
These are the elemental reasons for taxonomy discussions
- They can be as easy as aligning on a dry, precise, and leverageable information contained in a word, and shared across the relevant use cases going forward.
This is what most people assume a taxonomy discussion will be; and in the best cases it is. They can be reasonably quick, will tend towards boring, and will still improve shared understanding. - They can uncover fundamental differences to the encapsulated meanings that lead to the use of a particular word.
When taxonomy discussions derail, this is the most likely scenario. How much time it takes to resolve is a mixture of focus, behavior, and cognitive dissonance. All of that is people-y behavior; politics in the worst case, designa-as-therapy in the best case. There is no short cut, but the shared understanding will scale dramatically. - They can uncover behavioral aspects impacting the choice, meaning, and interpretation of a word.
This often is the result of culture, not only corporate culture and the cultures that evolve on different teams, but the cultures the individuals live in elsewhere. Think of it in terms of racist or colonialist subtext in referential labels that evolved into formal taxonomy. These biases are persistent, often unseen within the teams in which they evolved, and are often hard discussions. - They can uncover history and experiences that are intrinsically relevant to the taxonomy in context.
One of the more persistent use cases is where taxonomy is used in code and would need to hunt down all the uses in order to change without production failure. This is every legacy codebase.
And that’s when we’re all using the same language, jargon included.
Navigating
We can only know which “I” an individual is using through shared conversations and open dialogue. It takes time, pattern forming, and contextualization. And yes, we listen to the words being used, respect the information being shared; but we also pay attention to behavior. Behavior and actions are just as rich an information source as words.
This variability in meaning and interpretation can happen to any word or phrase. It is susceptible to social engineering and any tool used to form memory: education, navigation, marketing, story, and more.
When it comes to sharing information, the ‘sharing’ part has to be included in depth, breadth, and richness to be effective and truly informative.
So please, have the taxonomy discussions.