#interpretation-and-communication

#interpretation-and-communication

The most obvious example is the adoption of the singular 'they' to replace clunky constructions like 'he or she' and 'he/she.' Language purists argue that this is ungrammatical, even though 'they' has been employed in just this way by authors as diverse as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Dickinson, and Shaw.

Computational linguistics is a two-way street: You're either using a computer to do things with human language or communicate or translate or teach a foreign language, or you're using computational techniques to learn something about human languages. Her work documenting and preserving endangered languages uses a little bit of both.

In clinical speech therapy, we use strategic pauses throughout a session with a client. This is similar to resting between physical therapy exercises. When we are teaching people how to use their speech sounds or helping them increase their vocabulary, it's helpful to let the mind rest in between sets.

The term "conspiracy theory" calls to mind a variety of dubious claims and controversies, like rumors about Area 51, claims that the Earth is flat, and the movement known as QAnon. At first blush, these phenomena would seem to have little in common with bogus word origins. But there are a variety of false etymologies that spread virally and refuse to go away, in much the same way that stories about chemtrails, black helicopters, and UFOs refuse to die.

Peter Drucker saw this symbiosis first. He realized that the new industrial order would depend on a worker who produced ideas instead of widgets. The knowledge worker became the engine of prosperity, and management became the social technology that synchronized millions of minds. The modern firm was as much an invention as the transistor it depended on. Three decades later, Tom Peters caught the next wave.

Behavioral economics applies economic modeling to resources other than money. Economic modeling is a way of tracking and predicting changes in the distribution of anything we value-the give and take, ebbs and flows, supplies and demands, cooperations and competitions over any limited resource that people desire. For example, attention. People want it. There's a limited supply. "Attentionomics" is big business these days, tracking the supply of and demand for attention.

In 2024, I made a vow to never base my art criticism on wall labels. My decision came after reading reactions to that year's Whitney Biennial. "If every label in 'Even Better Than the Real Thing,' the 81st installment of the Whitney Biennial, were peeled off the walls and tossed into the Hudson, what would happen?" asked Jackson Arn in the New Yorker. (He went on to suggest that the overall show would have been much better.)

In this issue of the HBR Executive Agenda, editor at large Adi Ignatius talks to Harvard Business School professor Ranjay Gulati about how leaders can act with clarity amid rising social tension and rapid technological change.

For the first time, speech has been decoupled from consequence. We now live alongside AI systems that converse knowledgeably and persuasively-deploying claims about the world, explanations, advice, encouragement, apologies, and promises-while bearing no vulnerability for what they say. Millions of people already rely on chatbots powered by large language models, and have integrated these synthetic interlocutors into their personal and professional lives. An LLM's words shape our beliefs, decisions, and actions, yet no speaker stands behind them.

When respondents were asked which languages feel the most welcoming, Portuguese emerged on top, selected by 34 percent of participants. Spanish came in a close second with 33 percent of respondents calling it the friendliest, followed by Italian in third. Together, these languages form a clear cluster associated with warmth and approach.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head. It doesn't get nearly enough credit. Instead of being understood as an uncouth behavior, "overhearing" should be celebrated, welcomed and pursued. It's an underrated tool in an increasingly lonely and disconnected world.

Many people come to therapy with a goal to work on communication, especially with a partner. The problem, as many see it, is "poor communication," and the goal is to have "better communication." Poor communication can mean a lot of things, including ongoing and repeated conflicts, trouble expressing what we want or need, and avoidant tendencies. Therapy can work out a number of these issues. Understanding our cycle of conflict can create quicker off-ramps to repair.

After interviewing over 200 people for various articles, I've become hypersensitive to the subtle ways trust builds or breaks in conversation. And here's what I've discovered: we all use phrases that quietly erode trust, often multiple times a day, completely unaware of the damage we're doing to our relationships and credibility. The fascinating part? These aren't obvious lies or manipulative statements. They're everyday phrases that seem harmless but trigger our brain's ancient alarm systems, making people instinctively pull back from us.

I've interviewed over 200 people for articles, from startup founders to burned-out middle managers, and I've discovered something fascinating: intellectual depth isn't about fancy degrees or knowing obscure facts. It shows up in how we communicate. When certain habits dominate someone's style, it reveals a concerning lack of curiosity and critical thinking that goes beyond just being annoying-it fundamentally limits their ability to engage with the world meaningfully.

If you don't know it, Ecclesiastes is a collection of Old Testament verses in which the eponymous title character discourses on the apparent meaninglessness of pleasure, accomplishment, wealth, politics, and life itself in the face of the infinitude of the universe and the absolute perfection of God. It is the source of many of our most cliched phrases, such as there is a time for everything and there is nothing new under the sun.

We've all been there: mid-story, mid-vent, mid-enthusiastic ramble, and suddenly the other person's energy shifts. Their smile fades. Their eyes wander down to their phone. Their whole body seems to quietly scream: "Please stop." Most of us don't realize when we're annoying someone. We just think we're being ourselves. We might think we're offering the type of advice our spouse really needs to hear right now.

Take the sur­prise some have expressed in recent years upon find­ing out that the expres­sion to "pic­ture" some­thing in one's head isn't just a fig­ure of speech. You mean that peo­ple "pic­tur­ing an apple," say, haven't been just think­ing about an apple, but actu­al­ly see­ing one in their heads? The inabil­i­ty to do that has a name: aphan­ta­sia, from the Greek word phan­ta­sia, "image," and prefix - a, "with­out."

You know that person in the meeting who barely says anything, yet somehow everyone turns to them when decisions need to be made? I've been fascinated by this phenomenon ever since I started interviewing people for my articles. After talking to over 200 folks ranging from startup founders to middle managers, I noticed something striking: the ones who commanded the most respect weren't always the loudest voices in the room.

A large global study across 69 countries found something unexpected: the more individualistic a society is, the more similar people are in how they feel-and in how they want to feel. Across 59 out of 60 emotions, emotional experiences showed greater uniformity in individualistic cultures. This challenges the common assumption that collectivistic cultures are emotionally restrictive because they suppress individuality. In fact, emotional life in individualistic societies appears to be shaped by strong shared norms that dictate which emotions are acceptable, desirable, or problematic-especially regarding negative emotions.