6: Review and Reflection

Course Home | 1: What is GS? | 2: Allness | 3: Bypassing | 4: Linguistic Relativity | 5: Symbol Rulers | 6: Review and Reflection

This course was developed and presented on the Canvas Network by Steve Stockdale, Mary Lahman, and Greg Thompson. It is reproduced here under terms of the Creative Commons Share Alike License as published on Canvas Network from 13 January – 24 February 2014.

Module Map

Module 6

Artwork by Alice Webb Art

In this final week of the course, we will introduce only one new item related to General Semantics – an explanation of extensional orientation.

But we have five short articles we think provide a nice wrap-up to review and reinforce some of the broader aspects and applications of General Semantics.

  • First, a reflection on the role that GS played in the lives and works of the “Grand Master” science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, and Albert Ellis, father of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT).
  • Then we have an excerpt of one of the last articles written by Aldous Huxley, from the November 1963 issue of Playboy Magazine in which he extols the benefit of General Semantics.
  • Steve’s essay on stereotypes ties together the physics insights of Niels Bohr with what we currently know about brain science.
  • Mary’s conclusion of her Awareness and Action e-textbook offers some very good tips to students.
  • Wendell Johnson’s “After You’ve Studied General Semantics” concludes the readings with advice that’s just as relevant today as it was in 1945.

Following the readings, we have two pages of resources – Steve’s map of Korzybski’s General Semantics, and a list of course materials that can be downloaded or accessed online.

Finally, on Wednesday, 19 February, we will post individual videos to conclude the presentation of course materials.

Your role in this final week will be to participate in a special Discussion and submit one last 250-word essay.

No time for goodbyes yet – we have a week of work awaiting.

Extensional Orientation

The final GS formulation to cover in this course is one we’ve mentioned and referenced several times during the past five weeks. However, we haven’t really defined or explained it. Perhaps that’s because, without the previous readings and discussions and videos, a description of extensional orientation may not have made much sense.

But since an extensional orientation can be considered as the practical objective of General Semantics in action and practice, let’s briefly explain the differences between extensional and intensional.

Intensional and Extensional

The first thing to understand is that you will not find these terms in a dictionary. Alfred Korzybski used these two words, spelled with an ‘s‘ in the middle instead of a ‘t‘, to denote a continuum of attitude, behavior, or orientation.

Intensional orientations are based on verbal definitions, associations, etc., largely disregarding observations as if they would involve a “principle” of “talk first and never mind the life facts.”

Extensional orientations are based on ordering observations, investigations, etc., first and the verbalization next in importance. — Alfred Korzybski


Similar to the table we used to illustrate the differences regarding Consciousness (or Awareness) of Abstracting-Evaluating, we can consider intensional and extensional orientations as exhibiting the following characteristics in terms of degrees on a continuum.



Relies primarily on verbal definitions. Gives primacy to observed or reported facts.
Uncritically accepts validity of labels, categories, classifications, properties. Prone to ‘animalistic’ evaluations (hardening of the categories and dogmatism); allness.
Focuses on individuals or specific items, challenges appropriateness of group labels. Recognizes differences among similarities, similarities among differences; non-allness.
Exhibits signal reactions: immediate, reflexive, conditioned, “hot button” responses. Exhibits symbol reactions: delayed, considered, attentive responses.
Lacks consciousness or awareness of abstracting; confuses or reverses the order of abstracting. (Identification) Conscious or aware of abstracting (non-identity). Uses the extensional devices of indexing and dating.
Prone to either/or, two-valued evaluations. Recognizes multi-valued potential for evaluations.
Prone to confuse inferences as facts. Recognizes inferences as inferences, sets a high standard for ‘facts.’
Prone to elementalistic evaluating, presuming that different words mean that their different referents exist in isolation, separation. Recognizes the non-elementalistic nature of items or events that may be separated verbally but cannot be separated in the non-verbal ‘reality’; uses extensional device of the hyphen.
Uses absolutistic, unconditional, and all-presuming language that presents false-to-fact assurance and certainty. Uses conditional language that reflects humble awareness of the tentative, uncertain, and limited nature of human knowledge; uses the extensional device of etc.


In Drive Yourself Sane: Using the Uncommon Sense of General-Semantics, Susan and Bruce Kodish explain:

When we orient ourselves by verbal definitions, when we prefer preserving our maps (even maps without territories) to checking them out against ‘facts,’ when we fail to become aware of our assumptions and inferences and to test them out when possible, when we identify different levels of abstracting, we behave intensionally.


When we orient ourselves towards ‘facts,’ when we check our maps against possible territories, when we clarify and test our inferences and assumptions, when we don’t identify different orders of abstracting, we behave extensionally.


Intensional and extensional orientations also exist on a continuum. We know of no one who exhibits a purely extensional orientation. Unfortunately, abundant examples of people near the other end of the continuum exist. Some of them are confined to institutions. Some of them speak, write books, appear on radio and television and run institutions. Most of us appear somewhere in between. (p. 126)

Heinlein and Ellis: Converging Competencies

by Steve Stockdale

Published in ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 64 No. 4, October 2007

Heinlein Society WebsiteOn July 7, 2007, the Heinlein Centennial was held in Kansas City to celebrate what would have been the 100th birthday of acclaimed “Grand Master” science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein is generally acknowledged as one of the four great American science fiction writers, along with Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, and Arthur C. Clarke. Among his most notable books are Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Time Enough for Love.

Albert Ellis Institute WebsiteOn July 24, 2007, Dr. Albert Ellis died at age 93 in New York City. His front-page obituary in the New York Times referred to him as “one of the most influential and provocative figures in modern psychology.” He originated the field of psychotherapy known as Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and authored more than 70 books, including Overcoming Procrastination, How to Live With a Neurotic, A Guide to Rational Living, and How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable About Anything — Yes, Anything.

These two accomplished and celebrated men would seem to have little in common — one a Midwesterner, Naval Academy graduate, futurist, with an almost cult-like following of fans; the other a New Yorker who was referred to as “the Lenny Bruce of psychotherapy,” known for his blue language and results-oriented approach to talk therapy.

And yet Robert Heinlein and Albert Ellis shared a common perspective, or point of view, that developed from the same source — Alfred Korzybski and general semantics. Heinlein came to general semantics through Stuart Chase’s The Tyranny of Words (1938) and attended two seminars with Korzybski in 1939 and 1940. In a speech in 1941, Heinlein made the seemingly outlandish assertion that Korzybski was “at least as great a man as Einstein” based on his “monumental piece of work,” Science and Sanity.

Ellis, so far as I know, never met Korzybski but credited him (and general semantics) as a major influence in his development of REBT, using descriptors such as brilliant, masterpiece, and pioneer.

I attended the Heinlein Centennial in Kansas City. One of the panel sessions I attended was on “The Competent Man.” I learned this was a theme of Heinlein’s that recurred throughout his novels. An oft-repeated quote from Heinlein’s novel Time Enough for Love concerns competency as a general trait:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.


I had the privilege to hear Dr. Ellis speak on one memorable occasion a few years ago. In recalling that talk and in reviewing several of his writings, it seems to me that “competency” was also a recurring theme in his work, specifically as it related to cognitive competency.

As the lives and contributions of these two great men — Robert A. Heinlein and Dr. Albert Ellis, just seven years apart in age — shared the news pages in the same recent month, we choose to devote this special section in this issue of ETC to them.

The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny. — Albert Ellis


I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. — Robert A. Heinlein

What We Could Become

I have read only enough of Heinlein’s writings to have a minimally-informed appreciation of his work. But I know something about the field of general semantics, which certainly influenced Heinlein’s point of view during his early years as a writer and is unmistakably reflected in character and plot development throughout his work.

In the July 2002 Heinlein Journal, Kate Gladstone provided some details from the Institute’s archives regarding Heinlein’s attendance at two seminars with Alfred Korzybski in 1939 and 1940.(1) From my standpoint, the most interesting piece of Heinlein memorabilia found in the archives is an original transcript of Heinlein’s Guest of Honor speech to the 3rd World Science Fiction Convention held in Denver in July 1941. The transcript was sent to the Institute by Heinlein’s wife at the time, Leslyn. He titled his address, “The Discovery of the Future,” published in 1992 in Yoji Kondo’s collection of Heinlein’s writings, Requiem. As he concluded his Denver speech, Heinlein offered this testimony to Alfred Korzybski and general semantics:

I save for the last on that list of the books that have greatly affected me, that to my mind are the key books, of the stuff I’ve piled through, a book that should head the list on the Must List. I wish that, I wish that everyone could read the book – it’s just a wish, there aren’t that many copies of it, everyone can’t, nor could everyone read this particular book. All of you could, you’ve got the imagination for it. It’s Science and Sanity by Count Alfred Korzybski, one of the greatest Polish mathematicians when he went into the subject of symbology and started finding out what made us tick, and then worked up in strictly experimental and observational form from the preliminary works of E.T. Bell.

A rigor of epistemology based on E.T. Bell (break in transcript here – some words lost) … symbology of epistemology. Book refers to the subject of semantics. I know from conversation with a lot of you that the words epistemology and semantics are not unfamiliar to you. But because they may be unfamiliar to some, I’m going to stop and make definitions of these words.

Semantics is simply a study of the symbols we use to communicate. General Semantics is an extension of that study to investigate how we evaluate in the use of these symbols. Epistemology is a study of how we know what we know. Maybe that doesn’t sound exciting. It is exciting, it’s very exciting. To be able to delve back into your own mind and investigate what it is you know, what it is you can know and what it is that you cannot possibly know is, from a standpoint of intellectual adventure, I think possibly the greatest adventure that a person can indulge in. Beats spaceships.

Incidentally, any of you who are going to be in Denver in the next 5 or 6 weeks will have an opportunity, one of the last opportunities, to hear Alfred Korzybski speak in person.(2) He will be here at a meeting similar to this at a meeting of semanticians from all over the world – oh, McLean from Los Angeles, and Johnson from Iowa and Reiser from Mills College and Kendig and probably Hayakawa from up in Canada – the leading semanticians of the world – to hear Alfred Korzybski speak. I think starting Aug. 9, isn’t it, Missy? The early part of August. It’ll be in the newspapers in any case. And it’s much better to hear him speak than it is to read his books. He’s limited by the fact that he’s got to stick to the typewriter, to the printed word; but when he talks – when he talks it’s another matter! He gestures, he’s not tied down with his hands to the desk the way I am; he walks, stumps all around the stage, and waves his hands; (audience laughs) … and you really gather what he means. Incidentally – he looks like A. Conan Doyle’s description of Prof. Challenger, if Prof. Challenger had shaved his beard. Dynamic character.

You may not like him personally, but he’s at least as great a man as Einstein – at least – because his field is broader. The same kind of work that Einstein did, the same kind of work, using the same methods; but in a much broader field, much more close to human relationships. I hope that some of you will be able to hear him. I said that this will be one of the last chances, because the old man’s well over 70 now; as he puts it, “I vill coagulate someday, I vill someday soon, I vill coagulate” – which is the term he uses for dying.(3) He speaks in terms of colloidal chemistry. Properly, it’s appropriate. He won’t last much longer, in the meantime he’s done a monumental piece of work. He has worked out in methodology the same sort of important work that HG Wells did in the matter of description; and the two together are giants in our intellectual horizon, our intellectual matrix today, that stick up over the rest like the Empire State Bldg. (4)

Heinlein wasn’t the only futurist who expressed admiration for Korzybski’s general semantics.

  • A.E. Van Vogt’s series of Null-A novels was rooted in general semantics and provided many serious students their first exposure to the subject.
  • Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World): “A man who knows that there have been many cultures, and that each culture claims to be the best and truest of all, will find it hard to take too seriously the boastings and dogmatizings of his own tradition. Similarly, a man who knows how symbols are related to experience, and who practices the kind of linguistic self-control taught by the exponents of General Semantics, is unlikely to take too seriously the absurd or dangerous nonsense that, within every culture, passes for philosophy, practical wisdom and political argument.” (5)
  • Alvin Toffler (Future Shock and The Third Wave) “… all of the questions that are raised by Science and Sanity are inherent or should be inherent in the work of any thinking writer or communicator.” (6)
  • Robert Anton Wilson (Prometheus Rising, The Illuminatus Trilogy, and Schrodinger’s Cat) “All the events in the world that are going on I tend to see through a Korzybskian grid. He made a bigger impression on me than just about any writer I ever read.” (7)

I must admit that I’ve never been a big science fiction fan. My naïve impression has been that most futurists or science fiction writers tend to focus on imagining how future technologies, alternative life-forms, or distant universes will be invented, evolved, or discovered.

However, among the authors who claim Korzybski as an influence, I find a common interest in describing or developing human capabilities to their potentials. They seem to delve into positive speculations about what we as humans could become, were we to actually manifest the extensional orientation of perceiving, evaluating, and behaving as prescribed in Science and Sanity. Of course, the rocket ships and aliens are still featured aspects, but there is, to my limited reading, an attempt to imbue their characters with an abundance, or absence, of defining characteristics that can be related back to Korzybski’s “semantic man.”

I’d like to give you [originally the attendees at a breakout session I presented at the Heinlein Centennial on the subject of Heinlein and general semantics] the briefest of introductions to the subject by discussing just four of what might be referred to as fundamental premises of general semantics.

1. Human abilities are limited and differentiated

The first premise is that our human abilities to perceive and sense what goes on in our continually-changing environments are limited and differentiated. As members of the human species, our abilities to see, hear, taste, touch, and feel are limited. For example, we know that there are limits to the frequencies humans can hear. We know that humans can’t see certain wavelengths of light. We can extend our sensing capabilities through the use of tools and instruments, such as microscopes, telescopes, microphones, amplifiers, etc. Although we as humans share these general sensing potentials, we vary in terms of our actual individual capabilities. We each have a different combination of visual, auditory, and other sensory acuities. Therefore, presented with the ‘same’ event or stimulus, we will each perceive the event or stimulus according to the limits of our senses and nervous system processing. We will each abstract something different, to some degree, than anyone else and we will then individually construct our experience, awareness, and ‘meaning’ of the stimulus.

2. Language habits influence our world view

A second fundamental premise upon which general semantics is based may be best stated by quoting from the linguistic anthropologist Edward Sapir:

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. … We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (8)

In other words, the culture and language in which we are raised will shape or influence how we construct the ‘realities’ of our experiences, given the peculiarities of that culture and language. This has become known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Similarly, Korzybski posited in Science and Sanity:

… every language having a structure, by the very nature of language, reflects in its own structure that of the world as assumed by those who evolved the language. In other words, we read unconsciously into the world the structure of the language we use. (9)

We do not realize what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. It is not an exaggeration to say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of semantic reaction and that the structure which a language exhibits, and impresses upon us unconsciously, is automatically projected upon the world around us. (10)

3. Humans can respond conditionally to stimuli

Another fundamental premise of general semantics is that humans have the ability to respond conditionally to verbal and non-verbal stimuli. In his famous experiments, Dr. Ivan Pavlov trained his dog to manifest a conditioned response behavior. By ringing a bell at the same time he fed the dog, Pavlov conditioned the dog to associate, or identify, the sound of the bell with the food. When the dog heard the bell, it expected food and began salivating in anticipation. Therefore the dog’s behavioral response (the salivating) resulted directly from the stimulus of the bell; when Pavlov rang the bell, the dog salivated.

Humans, however, have the ability to respond more appropriately in less conditioned ways — conditionally rather than conditioned. We may talk in terms such as “he really pushed my buttons,” but in most cases we have some degree of control over our responsive behaviors, regardless of which button is pushed. If we don’t exercise that control, if we immediately react without pause and without regarding the situation and the consequences, then we can rightly be accused of exhibiting more animalistic, rather than more human, behaviors.

4. The map is not the territory

The fourth premise I would mention in this condensed introduction is related to perhaps the most familiar metaphor associated with Korzybski — the map is not the territory. Our ability to achieve “maximum humanness” and evolve to our individual potentials is at least partially a function of how accurately our language behaviors reflect and are consistent with what we ‘know’ about our world. In other words, our verbal ‘maps’ ought to be congruent with and structurally similar to the facts of our non-verbal ‘territories.’ The world of words we put inside our heads ought to be related to and similar with the world of non-words in which we live.

Abraham Maslow, in his study of what he called self-actualizing behaviors, wrote of individuals whose internal ‘maps’ were in synch with their external ‘territories’:

One particularly impressive and instructive aspect of this superior relation with reality…was [their ability to] …distinguish far more easily than most the fresh, concrete, and ideographic from the generic, abstract, and rubricized. The consequence is that they live more in the real world of nature than in the man-made mass of concepts, abstractions, expectations, beliefs, and stereotypes that most people confuse with the world. They are therefore far more apt to perceive what is there rather than their own wishes, hopes, fears, anxieties, their own theories and beliefs or those of their cultural group. (11)

Please note that these four premises do not constitute all of the premises of general semantics. Some might claim that these do not even constitute premises as much as they represent derived extrapolations from other, more fundamental, premises. But in the context of this Heinlein Centennial, I hope they provide a basis for re-examining Heinlein’s work — particularly his characters — from a general semantics perspective. I suspect that, in addition to his “discovering the future” of interplanetary travel and intergalactic communities, Heinlein has revealed through his fictional characters what we, the readers, might one day become.

And that, to quote the Grand Master, “beats spaceships.”


  1. www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/history/GeneralSemanticsInfo.html
  2. Heinlein refers to the Second American Congress on General Semantics held at Denver University in August 1941.
  3. In 1941, Korzybski was only 61 years old. He died in 1950 at age 70.
  4. Heinlein, Robert A. (1941) “The Discovery of the Future.” Speech delivered as Guest of Honor to the 3rd World Science Fiction Convention, Denver, CO. July 4, 1941. Recorded on discs by Walter J. Daugherty. Transcripted by Assorted Services. Presented by Forrest J. Ackerman. A Novacious Publication.
  5. Huxley, Aldous. (1963) “Culture and the Individual.” Playboy Magazine, November 1963.
  6. Toffler, Alvin. (1991) “The Relevance of General Semantics.” Thinking CreAtically, Institute of General Semantics, Englewood, New Jersey.
  7. Wilson, Robert Anton. (2001) “The Map Is Not the Territory: The Future Is Not the Past.” Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture, 1997. The General Semantics Bulletin Numbers 65-68.
  8. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf edited by John B. Carroll, p. 134. The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Reprinted from Language, Culture, and Personality, Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, edited by Leslie Spier, Sapir Memorial Publication Fund, Menasha, Wisconsin, 1941.
  9. Korzybski, Alfred. (1933) Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, p.59-60, Fifth Edition (1994). Institute of General Semantics, Englewood, New Jersey.
  10. Korzybski, Alfred. (1933) Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, p.90, Fifth Edition (1994). Institute of General Semantics, Englewood, New Jersey.
  11. Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality, p. 205. Harper & Brothers, New York.

Aldous Huxley: An Excerpt on “Culture and the Individual”

This is an excerpt from an article riginally published in Playboy Magazine, November 1963, as “A Philosopher’s Visionary Prediction,” one of three essays published together under the title, The Pros and Cons, History and Future Possibilities of Vision-Inducing Psychochemicals.

aldous-huxley-183.jpgThanks to language and culture, human behavior can be incomparably more intelligent, more original, creative and flexible than the behavior of animals, whose brains are too small to accommodate the number of neurons necessary for the invention of language and the transmission of accumulated knowledge. But, thanks again to language and culture, human beings often behave with a stupidity, a lack of realism, a total inappropriateness, of which animals are incapable.

Trobriand Islander or Bostonian, Sicilian Catholic or Japanese Buddhist, each of us is born into some culture and passes his life within its confines. Between every human consciousness and the rest of the world stands an invisible fence, a network of traditional thinking-and-feeling patterns, of secondhand notions that have turned into axioms, of ancient slogans revered as divine revelations. What we see through the meshes of this net is never, of course, the unknowable “thing in itself.” It is not even, in most cases, the thing as it impinges upon our senses and as our organism spontaneously reacts to it. What we ordinarily take in and respond to is a curious mixture of immediate experience with culturally conditioned symbol, of sense impressions with preconceived ideas about the nature of things. And by most people the symbolic elements in this cocktail of awareness are felt to be more important than the elements contributed by immediate experience. Inevitably so, for, to those who accept their culture totally and uncritically, words in the familiar language do not stand (however inadequately) for things. On the contrary, things stand for familiar words. Each unique event of their ongoing life is instantly and automatically classified as yet another concrete illustration of one of the verbalized, culture-hallowed abstractions drummed into their heads by childhood conditioning.

It goes without saying that many of the ideas handed down to us by the transmitters of culture are eminently sensible and realistic. (If they were not, the human species would now be extinct.) But, along with these useful concepts, every culture hands down a stock of unrealistic notions, some of which never made any sense, while others may once have possessed survival value, but have now, in the changed and changing circumstances of ongoing history, become completely irrelevant. Since human beings respond to symbols as promptly and unequivocally as they respond to the stimuli of unmediated experience, and since most of them naively believe that culture-hallowed words about things are as real as, or even realer than their perceptions of the things themselves, these outdated or intrinsically nonsensical notions do enormous harm. Thanks to the realistic ideas handed down by culture, mankind has survived and, in certain fields, progresses. But thanks to the pernicious nonsense drummed into every individual in the course of his acculturation, mankind, though surviving and progressing, has always been in trouble. History is the record, among other things, of the fantastic and generally fiendish tricks played upon itself by culture-maddened humanity. And the hideous game goes on.

What can, and what should, the individual do to improve his ironically equivocal relationship with the culture in which he finds himself embedded? How can he continue to enjoy the benefits of culture without, at the same time, being stupefied or frenziedly intoxicated by its poisons? How can he become discriminatingly acculturated, rejecting what is silly or downright evil in his conditioning, and holding fast to that which makes for humane and intelligent behavior?

A culture cannot be discriminatingly accepted, much less be modified, except by persons who have seen through it—by persons who have cut holes in the confining stockade of verbalized symbols and so are able to look at the world and, by reflection, at themselves in a new and relatively unprejudiced way. Such persons are not merely born; they must also be made. But how?

In the field of formal education, what the would-be hole cutter needs is knowledge; knowledge of the past and present history of cultures in all their fantastic variety, and knowledge about the nature and limitations, the uses and abuses, of language. A man who knows that there have been many cultures, and that each culture claims to be the best and truest of all, will find it hard to take too seriously the boastings and dogmatizings of his own tradition.

Similarly, a man who knows how symbols are related to experience, and who practices the kind of linguistic self-control taught by the exponents of General Semantics, is unlikely to take too seriously the absurd or dangerous nonsense that, within every culture, passes for philosophy, practical wisdom and political argument. As a preparation for hole cutting, this kind of intellectual education is certainly valuable, but no less certainly insufficient. Training on the verbal level needs to be supplemented by training in wordless experiencing. We must learn how to be mentally silent, we must cultivate the art of pure receptivity.


Suspended in Stereotypes

by Steve Stockdale

Race Gender and Stereotypes in the MediaThis essay was my contribution to: A. M. George and T. Thomason (Eds.), Race, gender and other stereotypes: A reader for professional communicators (pp. 7-13). San Diego: Cognella. ISBN 978-1-6092763-0-0. Available mid-2012.

Niels Bohr, an icon of 20th-century physics, was also an astute observer of language and behavior. “Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others” (Petersen, 1985, p. 301). “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature” (Petersen, 1985, p. 305). “We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down” (Petersen, 1985, p. 302).

This last statement relates to Bohr’s formulation of what he called complementarity. One of the conundrums of early 20th-century physics concerned the fact that, under certain experimental conditions, light behaved as particles in a “shower of photons” (Einstein & Infeld, 1938, p. 297). Under other conditions using different observational and measurement methods, light exhibited the characteristics of a wave. Prior to Bohr, physicists were captive to the prevailing language of physics, which carved up definitional structures of mutual exclusivity. By definition, waves behaved in ways that particles did not, therefore a wave could not be a particle. So what was light really — a particle or wave?

Bohr resolved the apparent paradox by rising above the definitions to focus on the observed behavior of light, regardless of the definitional label. He demonstrated that the relative perspective of the observer, including how the observer chose to measure and evaluate the phenomenon, directly affected the observer’s perceptions, measurements, and evaluations of the observed behavior.

We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. — Niels Bohr


Bohr’s notion of complementarity (and its eastern Taoist cousin, mutually-dependent yin and yang) provided an alternative point of view to the western philosophical tradition based on dichotomous, either/or, thinking. Bohr showed that the problem wasn’t with light itself, or with how the physicists measured light. The problem was in the limitation of the vocabulary that physicists had at their disposal to classify light. “Is light a particle or a wave?” presumed that light had to be one or the other, either particle or wave. Bohr proposed that the particle/wave debate resulted from an inappropriate application of either/or thinking. From his complementary perspective, the debate dissolved from an either/or labeling stalemate to a both/and understanding that rose above the labels; light exhibited the characteristics of both particles and waves.

In other words, Bohr argued that physicists had to overcome their stereotypical thinking about waves and particles in light of what they were observing about light. Their observations of light caused them to reevaluate their presumed categorical distinctions between particles and waves. Rather than focus on just the similarities between light and particles, and the differences between light and waves, they had to think in terms of both similarities and differences. Rather than think in terms of only two values, physicists had to orient themselves toward “many-valued” thinking (Korzybski, 1994, p. 93).

This type of thinking — complementarity, yin/yang, both/and, many-valued, or whatever label you prefer — is necessary to resist the easy inclination to adhere to rigid and categorical labels that we typically refer to as stereotyping.

Although that term carries a (usually deservedly) negative connotation, we can think of this type of generalizing activity on a continuum. The order and placement can be argued, but notionally such a continuum could be depicted this way.



What distinguishes the more Benign activity to the left from the more Consequential to the right?

At the far left, as human beings with a highly-developed nervous system, we have learned through our life experiences to automatically recognize and categorize many different types of stimuli. We immediately differentiate people from animals from plants, strangers from friends and family, foods from tools, danger from routine, etc. Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee (2005) refer to this process generally as pattern-matching. They explain that this activity occurs at multiple levels in the hierarchy of the nervous system. From sensory stimulation to cognitive awareness, your nervous system makes inferences as it attempts to match current stimulus data with past experience and memory. Even at the most basic levels (distinguishing the edge or color shading of an object), your brain must take incomplete sensory data and “fill in the gaps” with guesses or assumptions in order to create an integrated image of what you believe you see. At this neurological level, “stereotyping is an inherent feature of the brain” (Hawkins & Blakeslee, 2005, p. 204). We are, to paraphrase Bohr, suspended in stereotypes.

To the right, however, lies the more consequential and problematic behaviors that we usually attribute as stereotyping. Such behaviors and underlying attitudes can be considered non-complementary in that they reflect the most simplistic either/or, categorical, and uncritical thinking; some may even say lack of thinking. They presume similarities and disregard differences, and can extend from an individual to a group, or from a group to the individual. They may be labeled as bias, pre-judgment, or prejudice. In every instance, however, such attitudes and behaviors result from a failure of recognizing both differences within similarities, and similarities among differences. “We discriminate against people to the degree we fail to distinguish between them” (Lee, 1952).

We discriminate against people to the degree we fail to distinguish between them. — Irving J. Lee


An aphorism purports that there is a kernel of truth in every stereotype. That might be worth considering, both in terms of “what if there’s not?” as well as “so what if there is?” I would suggest that the flip side of the aphorism is also worth considering: “every label lies a little.” We should remember that, as verbal constructions, labels and stereotypes do not exist in the material world. They reflect symbolic expressions that, more often than not, arise from arbitrary, superficial, and inconclusive classifications and judgments. Nevertheless, indiscriminate, biased, and prejudicial judgments against individuals and groups can have devastating individual and societal consequences.

“We must consider ourselves as a symbolic, semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us” (Korzybski, 1994, p. 76). The first line of defense against potential symbolic subjugation is to become aware of, and practice, a complementary attitude about the verbal environment in which we find ourselves suspended. Within items labeled or categorized as similar, look for and recognize differences; among items that appear to be different, look for similarities. Rather than think in two-valued terms like either/or, right/wrong, or good/bad, consider the fuzzy, middle, gray many-valued areas that lie in between. Look for the lie in every label. Remember that the more time and attention you give to someone else’s verbal categories, classifications, and stereotypes, the less time you have to develop yourself in your own “real world of nature” (Maslow, 1987, p. 129).

And that time is a terrible thing to waste.

Discussion Exercises

  1. You recently heard a new band at your local club that you really liked. You want to encourage your Facebook friends to download a free track from the band’s Facebook page. How might you describe the band’s music so that your friends will check out the band’s page, and have some idea as to what they should expect to hear? Discuss your description with others. Is any stereotypical thinking exhibited?
  2. How might you describe the band’s music if you dislike it and wanted to urge your friends to avoid the band?
  3. Break up into groups of two or three. In three minutes, list as many different criteria as you can that could be used to stereotype an individual or a group.
  4. Assume you are a reporter covering a crime story. If one or more of the stereotyped criteria listed in the previous exercise applied to the victim or the perpetrator, how would you decide if those descriptors are relevant to the story?
  5. Does stereotyping factor into discussions about how to segment a target audience for a new product launch? Or for a press release on behalf of a candidate in a heated political campaign? Are there “kernels of truth” that underlie such targeted decisions?


Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The Evolution of Physics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2005). On Intelligence: How a new understanding of the brain will lead to the creation of truly intelligent machines. New York: Holt Paperbacks.

Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and Sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Lee, I.J. (1952). Talking Sense video series. Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Maslow, A.H. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Petersen, A. (1985). The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. In A.P. French (Ed.), Niels Bohr: a centenary volume (pp. 299-310). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Awareness and Action – Conclusion (Mary Lahman)

Living Extensionally Takes a Lifetime

Beginners often take upon themselves the task of enthusiastically spreading their new-found “wisdom” to family and friends. We suggest that, for best long-term results, you temper this response. —Susan & Bruce Kodish (2011, p. 200)


At the end of a Language and Thought course, we often conclude that everyone needs to learn about general semantics. Once we recognize the allness language in that statement, we discuss ways to continue the “course-generated enthusiasm” for a general semantics approach to language behavior. Fully convinced of our time-binding responsibilities, we wonder how to best teach others about the patterns of miscommunication.

One semester, I shared these discussions with Professor Keller, who proposed that we worry less about “teaching others” and more about “modeling the correctives.” I often saw him follow this advice when participating in and facilitating community group discussions. Beginning his interactions with the simple phrase, “I wonder if,” he modeled how to question and paraphrase. He often used the “how much,” “which,” and “when” indexes, seeking information from the territory (people and contexts) and then updating his map (language and perceptions).

After helping to edit this text, my son wondered how I could have known about the pitfalls of language for so long and still exhibit patterns of miscommunication. I explained to him, as Meiers (1952) convinced participants at The First Conference in General Semantics in 1951, that living extensionally is “a lifetime process” (p. 277). More telling is how Meiers warned newcomers of the dangers of becoming general semantics fanatics. I share Meiers’s concern, so offer several of these warnings as well:

  1. Beware of accepting the disciplines of general semantics as a panacea . . . speaking of it with such “allness” of enthusiasm that it sounds like a panacea.
  2. Beware of using trade jargon—that is the particular terminology of general semantics—in conversation with those who are unfamiliar with the terms.
  3. Beware of the “wiser-than-thou” attitude of applying classification labels to conversational remarks of other people . . . students usually find great pleasure in their ability to recognize higher and lower abstractions in language—especially in the language of others. To make matters worse, they sometimes act as if the higher abstractions and inferences and judgments are less worthy of their consideration than descriptive statements.
  4. Beware of exaggerating the use of the semantic devices to the extent of appearing ridiculous. These five little devices suggested by Korzybski—quotes, dating [when index], indexing, hyphens, and the etc.—are practiced inconspicuously in the everyday language of thousands of people who make no overt reference to general semantics.
  5. Beware of merely talking about general semantics without applying its principles in practice. The highly verbal individual who finds in general semantics a new and exciting philosophy is in danger of keeping it forever on the verbal level, thus increasing the very futility that its discipline hopes to correct. (pp. 275–277).

Each of these dangers resonates with those who believe that they can communicate more effectively if they keep applying general semantics formulations. People may find themselves guilty of each of these behaviors as they diligently pursue eliminating patterns of miscommunication.

In the pursuit of excellence, we may forget, that we are “acquiring an orientation, not a straitjacket” (Kodish & Kodish, 2011, p. 200). Just because we are raising our awareness of our nervous systems’ limitations, we cannot assume that others will be as willing to learn about abstraction and the resulting “misevaluations” found in language behavior.

Ultimately, we would be wise to heed the advice about “minimum expectations” offered by Kodish and Kodish (2011): “When we have minimum expectations about any situation, that is, we’re prepared for not finding what we want, we will more likely find the ‘facts’ of the situation better than we expected; we’ve prepared ourselves for curiosity, change, excitement, happiness, hope, sanity, etc.” (p. 199). Perhaps just aiming for humor in the way that we misuse language will help us to continue the extensional journey.

After all, we have a lifetime to do so . . .

After You’ve Studied General Semantics

Wendell Johnson

The following handout was found in the archives of the Institute of General Semantics. It was probably a mailing sent to members prior to the publication of Johnson’s People in Quandaries in 1945 ( referenced as note 1). It was reprinted in ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 61 Number 4, Special Edition – General Semantics Across the Curriculum.

portrait-wj-380.jpgGenerally speaking, you will make applications to two large groups of problems or situations: those that are essentially personal, and those that you will call professional or relatively impersonal. A word about each of these should help somewhat.

With regard to personal problems, it is to be emphasized that over the years you have grown accustomed to your own behavior and to the people and the world about you. You have a strong tendency to take for granted whatever is thoroughly familiar to you. Your notion of what is ‘normal’ is, therefore, determined largely by the behavior, beliefs, attitudes, customs, social conditions which you have come to take more or less for granted as ‘right’ or ‘natural’ or ‘customary.’

This means that, even though you and your environment may be obviously below par, you may feel that you have no ‘personal problems.’ Many people become so thoroughly accustomed to the frictions, bad feelings, irritabilities, frustrations, blue moods, confusions and general flounderings of their day-to-day existence that nothing short of murder or stark insanity strikes them as peculiar. They are so utterly adjusted to maladjustment that it does not even occur to them that human life might be, except by sheer luck, different from what they know it to be. The fact that you were attracted to a book like this probably indicates that you yourself have not fallen to such a state, of course, but if the above statements serve to polish your semantic lenses a bit, perhaps you will take stock somewhat more in detail than you otherwise would of your own daily round and of the particular ‘peep-holes’ that define your outlook on the world in which you live. (1)

You do have personal problems, of course. What they are, and how important they seem to you, depends on the amount of tension, misery and confusion you have learned to tolerate. Generally speaking, if you examine carefully what you call your ‘big problems’ you will find that they are made up of little things, which accumulate all but unnoticed until your tense back gives way under ‘the last straw.’

The most effective way to apply general semantics, therefore, is to sharpen your awareness of the little things and apply it to them. Not even with general semantics can you gain much by cutting the weeds after the lettuce has wilted. It is the moment-to-moment, seemingly insignificant, applications that make the greatest difference in the long run. The assignments described in Chapter XXI are designed, in part, to illustrate various possibilities of such moment-to-moment applications, and a careful reading of the book as a whole should readily suggest many more.

Aside from the problems you have which center around intimately personal concerns and relationships, you have also the problems that arise in the course of your work in a profession, or business, or in running a household; in learning a trade, a skill, a game, or in teaching something to others. General semantics can be put to use in many ways by doctors, lawyers, teachers, editors and writers, radio program directors, motion picture executives, housewives, students, merchants, etc., through the long catalog of human occupations. Wherever symbols are used and evaluations are made, wherever there are problems to be solved, use can be made of the method, the principles, the basic orientations which general semantics involves. Likewise, in the general business of being a citizen, of evaluating social, economic and political issues, of contributing constructively to the life of the community and of society in a broad sense, the value of general semantics lies in the practical use that is made of it.

General semantics contains no recipe for boredom. You are not likely ever to say of it, as you may have said from time to time of a course in history, or mathematics, or French, that you ‘have had it.’ At least, if ever you do say of general semantics that you ‘have had it,’ as though for you it were over and done with, you probably didn’t ‘get’ it.

A Map of Korzybski’s General Semantics

Now that we’ve reached the conclusion of this course, the following is a map of General Semantics by Steve Stockdale. Perhaps it may serve as a helpful review, or give you some ideas for creating your own map.


Resources, etc.

seeds.jpgWe realize that we have thrown a lot of material at you during this course. We suspect (or even hope) that you may not have had the opportunity to fully digest the course materials. Therefore we want to provide this summary of resources that may facilitate your return to the course content at your convenience.

Downloadable Content by Module

The course content will be made available for download in two different formats via the links below. You are welcome to download either or both formats.

The HTML format file for each module, and then one file for the entire course, contains all of the text, images, and embedded YouTube videos. As long as you are connected to the Internet, you will be able to follow links and watch the YouTube videos.

Note: The videos posted to the course using the Canvas Media Comment tool are not available.

To download the files, depending on your browser, click or right-click on each link and save to your computer or portable device.

The PDF format file for each module, and then one file for the entire course, contains all of the text and images from the course, but no videos. As long as you are connected to the Internet, you will be able to follow links.

The PDF format file is significantly larger than the HTML file, but may be easier to read for some.

To download the files, depending on your browser, click or right-click on each link and save to your computer or portable device.

Downloadable Readings (PDF)

  1. The Role of Language in the Perceptual Processes by Alfred Korzybski
  2. Awareness and Action: A General Semantics Approach to Effective Language Behavior by Mary Lahman
  3. Here’s Something About General Semantics by Steve Stockdale
  4. ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 61 Number 4 (Special Issue – General Semantics Across the Curriculum); provided courtesy of the Institute of General Semantics
  5. ETC: A Review of General Semantics Volume 65 Number 1 (Special Issue – General Semantics in India); provided courtesy of the Institue of General Semantics
  6. Allness in Language and Politics (Student Paper) by Alex McGuinness
  7. The Science and Sanity of Listening by Benjamin J. Cline
  8. Language, Appearance, and Reality (Doublespeak in 1984) by William D. Lutz
  9. Allness Case Studies, Chapter 11 of William Haney’s Communication and organizational behavior: Text and cases.
  10. Languages and Logic by Benjamin Lee Whorf
  11. Science and Linguistics by Benjamin Lee Whorf
  12. Language, Culture and Mind in Comparative Perspective by John A. Lucy
  13. The Linguistics of ‘Color’ by John A. Lucy
  14. Rights and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on Power and Excision by Fuambai Ahmadu
  15. Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb by Carol Cohn
  16. What We Do with Language – What It Does with Us by Bruce I. Kodish
  17. To Be or Not to Be: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking by D. David Bourland, Jr.
  18. Language Revision by Deletion of Absolutisms by Allen Walker Read
  19. The Inner Interpreter by Laura Bertone
  20. Response Side Semantics by Steve Stockdale
  21. “Lecture Notes on Teaching General Semantics”?by Lance Strate, Ph.D.
  22. “A Continuing Education Guide to Teaching General Semantics”?by Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D.
  23. “Twelve General Semantics Lessons for Middle School Students”?by Martin H. Levinson, Ph.D.

Forms and Activities



Personal Time-binding Discussion

passbox.jpgAs an exercise in personal time-binding, review the Discussions from each of the previous five course modules. As you review the posts, note comments from your classmates that you’ve found personally meaningful and valuable.

Select three (3) posts that you personally found most meaningful and valuable. Then to earn 100 points:

  1. Contact the author of each post you select, via the Canvas Inbox internal email and express your appreciation to the author.
  2. Then share a summary of the 3 comments you selected using the “Reply” block below.

Unknown Author Issue

Unfortunately, about 55 of your classmates – including some of our most active participants – have been afflicted with a Canvas Network bug which, for reasons not yet understood or corrected, cause their names in the Discussions to be shown as Unknown Author.

If you select one of the posts by Unknown Author as one of your most meaningful and you cannot determine the author’s name, please Inbox (Canvas internal email) me with three pieces of information:

  • which module and discussion (please use the titles listed above)
  • date of the post
  • the first few words of the post

It’s not a big deal for me as an Instructor to associate the Unknown Author’s post with an actual name. Then I will send you the name and you can express your appreciation directly to the Known Author. 🙂

Module 6 Assignment

The title of this course is General Semantics: An Approach to Effective Language Behavior.

In the Concerning Expectations video you viewed in Week 1, we asked you to consider what the course title might mean. We asked:

  • What other “approaches” to “language behavior” (effective or otherwise) are you familiar with?
  • How familiar to you is the phrase “language behavior”? Are you more familiar with “language” and “behavior” used separately? Do they even belong together?
  • And what about “effective”? What do you think that means?

Final Assignment – 100 points

man-tech.jpgIn no more than 250 words, provide your evaluative response to this question:

After experiencing this introduction to General Semantics, what will you take away from the course that might contribute to the effectiveness of your own language behavior?

To submit the assignment: Click on the Submit Assignment link in the upper right of this page. You can then type your essay in the editing box, or copy/paste from another application.

Steve’s Concluding Remarks

My apologies for going so long, but I had some thing I wanted to say and two video clips I wanted to show. Steve Stockdale


Well, this is the hardest part for me … having to stop and put a period and an ecetera to the course. Before I get to that period, however, I have a few personal reflections I’d like to offer.

First, thanks to Mary and Manchester University in Indiana for being willing to put their names on this course. And thanks to our volunteer TAs who, because of various life events, didn’t have as much time as they would’ve liked to spend with us.

At the beginning of the course I had a few things to say about expectations. Here are some data as we conclude the course:

  • This chart shows the pattern of our enrollment through 31 January. As the course was open for enrollment through last week, the final count was 1,326.
  • Representing 67 different nations, or about a third of all the countries on the planet.
  • Here you can see the top-level graph of participation in the course, measured by daily number of logins and page views.
  • And here are the numbers of module badges that have been awarded.

So what does this say about the success of the course? What does this all mean with respect to the value of this course?  To you the students, and to Mary, Greg, and me? And what does it mean to the Canvas Network administrators who will evaluate whether to offer it again?

One of the points we’ve tried to highlight about General Semantics is to emphasize that we are concerned not with theories or philosophies about language or communication in the abstract. As Alfred Korzybski put it, we are concerned with living human reactions – not according to detached, academic categories but in terms of living human reactions “in the wild” of daily behaving.

I’d like to show you two short clips to reinforce how GS applies to our living human reactions.

The first is from the 1983 movie with Michael Keaton and Terri Garr, “Mr. Mom.” The father has been laid off from his job and hasn’t yet found work. The mother has found a job and is returning to work, while the father stays home to play “Mr. Mom.”


The second is from a talk by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs in 1980.  View the entire 23-minute talk on YouTube.


To me, these clips illustrate two things.  First, Korzybski’s diagnosis of our human shortcomings ­– how we’re doing it wrong.  And second, his prognosis for what might result if we were to acknowledge these shortcomings, overcome them, and amplify our own human abilities.

Now I happen to think these are laudable sentiments, and as the past 20 years of my life attest, I’ve evaluated Korzybski’s General Semantics as still relevant after all these years.

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, seemed to agree.

Similarly, a man who knows how symbols are related to experience, and who practices the kind of linguistic self-control taught by the exponents of General Semantics, is unlikely to take too seriously the absurd or dangerous nonsense that, within every culture, passes for philosophy, practical wisdom and political argument.

So, yes, I’ll confess to enlisting in Korzybski’s quixotic quest. I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to attempt to amplify our inherent human abilities. I believe we can do better. I believe it’s possible that we can up our game, raise the bar on normal, shift the mean, reshape the bell curve, and reduce humanity’s standard deviation.

Does that mean we can take humanity to the next level? Can we change human nature?

Well, before I get completely carried away, I recall an anecdote told by David Bourland, the E-Prime guy, that was told to him by M. Kendig, Korzybski’s right-hand assistant who succeeded Korzybski as Director of the Institute of General Semantics after Korzybski’s death.

David wrote:

Once, one of Korzybski’s “senior grade” students (Kendig) said to Korzybski, “Together we can change the world!”

She told me that he replied, “Well, we might change you a little.”

If you really have an interest in changing “human nature,” perhaps it would work best if you begin with yourself.

And with that, I want to thank all of you for contributing to this learning experience. And now for me comes the period. And et cetera.


Greg’s Concluding Remarks

Greg Thompson

Mary’s Concluding Remarks

Mary Lahman


Thank you for persevering to Module 6

We have enjoyed sharing our understanding of how to move an awareness of GS into action: learning to silently add etc to avoid Allness and being person-minded not word-minded to address Bypassing.

With your newfound awareness of abstraction, you have encouraged each other in the Module discussions. I appreciate your stories and applications of GS.

Thanks you for being an essential part of this learning community.

As you leave us, remember we are acquiring an orientation, not a set if rules. May we be humbled by the way we use language and it uses us. And, may we learn to live extensionally one day at a time.


We hope you’ll enjoy this last video that we think is an appropriate conclusion to the course.

Final Video

Module Completion Checklist


open-checkbox21.png 1.  Did you review the Extensional Orientation material?
open-checkbox21.png 2.  Did you read Heinlein and Ellis: Converging Competencies?
open-checkbox21.png 3.  Did you read Aldous Huxley’s On Language and the Individual?
open-checkbox21.png 4.  Did you read Suspended in Stereotypes?
open-checkbox21.png 5.  Did you read the Conclusion of Awareness and Action?
open-checkbox21.png 6.  Did you read After You’ve Studied General Semantics?
open-checkbox21.png 7.  Did you review the Map of Korzybski’s General Semantics and the list of available resources?
open-checkbox21.png 8.  Did you acknowledge three fellow students for their discussion posts, and did you contribute to the Personal Time-binding Discussion? (100 points)
open-checkbox21.png 9.  Did you submit the Module Assignment? (100 points)


Have you completed all of the modules?

Thanks for taking the time to learn something about General Semantics as an Approach to Effective Language Behavior. We hope you’ve found the experience valuable and meaningful. If you missed some of the course, you can always return to the Modules List to review the entire course, or download the course content by module.

5: Who Rules Your Symbols?

Course Home | 1: What is GS? | 2: Allness | 3: Bypassing | 4: Linguistic Relativity | 5: Symbol Rulers | 6: Review and Reflection

This course was developed and presented on the Canvas Network by Steve Stockdale, Mary Lahman, and Greg Thompson. It is reproduced here under terms of the Creative Commons Share Alike License as published on Canvas Network from 13 January – 24 February 2014.

Module Map

Module 5 Spiral Overview

Artwork by Alice Webb Art

Listen to the audio version of this page


To this point in the course, we’ve covered:

An introduction to the field of study called General Semantics, formulated by Alfred Korzybski. We discussed Korzybski’s motivation and approach to addressing the problem of why human behavior, in the form of societies and cultures, has not progressed or advanced at the pace of engineering, mathematics, and the sciences. We reviewed the foundational premises of GS using the map|territory analogy. We talked about the importance of acknowledging the role of the human nervous system in how we abstract and evaluate our experiences. We learned that in translating, or transforming, our non-verbal experiences into verbal behaviors, we can avoid symptoms that lead to mis-evaluations. In other words, we can make better maps (our  language behaviors) that more appropriately reflect the territories of our experiences.

A framework for analyzing language behaviors from a GS perspective, developed by William Haney. Haney’s framework is based on recognizing contributing factors and applying correctives that result in more effective language behaviors. Mary Lahman led us through a “deep dive” into the Haney framework by focusing on two major topic areas of GS: allness and bypassing.

Please note that the Haney framework can be applied to other GS topics in addition to allness and bypassing. In Mary’s e-textbook, Awareness and Action, she also devotes chapters to Inference-Observation Confusion (also referred to as the Fact-Inference distinction) and Differentiation Failures (including stereotyping, polarization, and frozen evalutions). If you haven’t already, I encourage you to download the pdf of Awareness and Action and review the entire book at your leisure.

The topic of the linguistic relativity hypothesis (LRH), as proposed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. Greg Thompson invited us to view Lera Borditsky’s video presentation, “How Language Shapes Thought,” in which she shared results of her research that revealed surprising and fascinating insights into the language-and-thought habits and behaviors of cultures with which most of us are unfamiliar. From Greg’s explanations about LRH and its implications, as well as Bruce Kodish’s article on “what we do with language and what language does to us,” we got a feel for how similar are the core components of LRH and GS.

We ought to easily recognize, then, that ancient notions such as objective or absolute reality do not accurately reflect the limitations of our nervous systems as they interact with the outside world. Therefore language structures, patterns, or terms that rely on this false-to-fact notion that what I experience (or say) “is” the same as what exists “out there” in the world misrepresent, mislead, and misinform. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group … We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. — Edward Sapir (Carroll, 1956, p. 134) [emphasis added]

This Week

In this module, Who Rules Your Symbols? led by Steve Stockdale, we’re going to try and integrate what we’ve learned so far by discussing the implications of two statements from Science and Sanity.

The analysis of … living reactions is the sole object of general semantics … (Korzybski, 1994, p.xli)


The affairs of man are conducted by our own, man-made rules and according to man-made theories. Man’s achievements rest upon the use of symbols. For this reason, we must consider ourselves as a symbolic, semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us. (Korzybski, 1994, p. 76) [emphasis added]


  • First, I’ll present the results of the Point of View (or Orientation) Survey that some of you completed in Module 1 and explain its significance. Then you will discuss your reactions to the survey results.
  • Next we’ll talk about how these orientations, or points of view, are related to our environments and shape (or are shaped by?) our evaluations, meanings, and values.
  • Then we’ll address factors related to how you evaluate your own evaluations.
  • To address the second quote on symbol-rulers, you’ll watch the online documentary, “The Persuaders” and consider the “tension” between the would-be symbol-rulers and you as an individual symbol-evaluator.
  • We’ll conclude the module with a Discussion assignment and a short essay assignment.


The objectives for Module 5 include:

  1. Gain an appreciation of the complex neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic environments that envelope your daily living.
  2. Understand the inter-related influences and implications of your orientation-environments, and evaluations-meanings-values.
  3. Recognize the extent to which others may attempt to “rule your symbols” and what defenses you may employ against such attempts.

Point of View Survey Results and Interpretations


Listen to the audio version of this page

Before you read about the results of the Point of View (POV) Survey you completed in Module 1, please:

  1. Download and print this blank version of the survey.
  2. Mark your responses on this paper version by filling in the bubbles, then sequentially connect your responses with a line between each dot. (See the examples below.)
  3. Return to the Module 1 Point of View Survey you submitted and compare your responses. Did any of your responses change between the two versions?

Purpose of the POV Survey

I have used similar versions of this survey (which I’ve also called a General Orientation Survey or Personal Orientation Survey) in General Semantics seminars and courses for the past ten years.

The original purpose of the survey was to simply provide a basis for discussion among the rather ‘homogenous’ class of college students I taught. The students in these classes were overwhelmingly white, 18-22 years old, from (on average) middle-to-upper class Texas families, studying journalism or advertising/public relations. From all outward appearances, these classes did not represent much demographic diversity.

Despite this apparent lack of diversity, however, when we discussed the results of this survey, we invariably discovered that the homogenous appearances did not yield homogenous attitudes.

So the first purpose of the survey is to point out that differences (of attitudes) may lurk below the apparent similarities (of appearances).

A second purpose of the survey is to point out that, in a very notional and unscientific way, we could consider the results of this little 20-question survey as a depiction of a personal point of view, or orientation.

*** Let me explain here that in no way do I present this survey as anything other than a class activity for discussion. For my Educational Psychology graduate degree I took a course in assessment and make no claims as to the validity or reliability of this “instrument.”

For example, consider the hypothetical results of Leslie and Pat below. Based solely on this unscientific exercise, one could say that based on their responses to the statements on the survey, Pat exhibits an orientation that is generally more in agreement with the statements than Leslie, as Pat’s blue lines fall generally to the right of Leslie’s red lines.


Beyond comparing the placement and shape of the two vertical lines (Pat’s and Leslie’s personal orientations or points of view), let’s look at some of their responses to the statements. Since I made up Pat and Leslie, and their responses, I can tell you that the only statement on which they agreed is #16, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

On statements #3 and #17, however, their responses were complete opposites.

#3. Everything happens for a reason. (Pat strongly agreed, Leslie strongly disagreed.)

#17. It is what it is. (Again, Pat strongly agreed, Leslie strongly disagreed.)

I hope you can see how, in the hands of a skilled classroom facilitator (ahem), a discussion of these differences might yield robust class participation.

And then the third purpose of survey, after discussing the class norms and averages, differences and similarities, is to consider questions such as these:

  1. Accepting that the crooked lines of one’s responses represents a notional, wholly unscientific depiction of one (among many possible) way to illustrate one’s point of view, how has one acquired this particular point of view (or orientation)?
  2. How has Pat learned or acquired a belief that everything happens for a reason, while Leslie has not learned or acquired that belief?
  3. Does the sum or totality of one’s orientation “hang together”? In other words, are the responses consistent and non-contradictory? For example, if one agreed with #10 (You can’t teach an old dog new tricks), it’s reasonable to expect one would also agree with #20 (The more things change, they more they stay the same) given that both reflect an attitude toward change.
  4. In reviewing the orientations of Leslie and Pat, can you infer that you might prefer the company of one or the other based on their responses? Can you think of anyone you know who might exhibit a similar point of view to either Pat or Leslie?
  5. And finally, referring back to the first question, do you think the 20 responses are the logical consequence of a purposeful and deliberate world view (or point of view or orientation), or are they merely a mish-mash of random top-of-the-head reactions?

We’ll come back to these questions later. But now let’s look at your Point of View Survey results.

Your Point of View Survey Results

Based on 434 survey submittals as of 28 January, the following slides portray several different types of analysis.

1. Percentage of all responses by statement and response

Note: Percentages do not total 100 due to non-responses and rounding.


2. Weighted average of responses (approximately plotted)


3. Most responses


4. Fewest responses


5. Table comparing sum-of-Disagrees with sum-of-Agrees

Note: This ignores all “0 No Opinion” responses.


6. Chart showing sum of differences (Disagrees – Agrees)

Note: Statements with differences less than [+/- 100] are annotated on the chart as they can be considered the most “equal” and therefore most polarized. Or … do the statements at either end of the chart depict more polarization?


What are your reactions to your Point of View results?

Share your reactions with the class in the Discussion that follows. If you’d like to view the data used to generate these slides, you can download the Excel file.

m5-pov-blank-380.jpgShare your reactions to the results of the Point of View Survey, both the composite results of the class as well as your own results.

You may want to respond to the questions asked on the results page:

  1. Accepting that the crooked lines of your responses represents a notional, wholly unscientific depiction of one (among many possible) way to illustrate your point of view, how have you acquired this particular point of view (or orientation)?
  2. Select one of the statements that you strongly agreed or disagreed with. How do you suppose that you learned or acquired this belief, while others have not learned or acquired that belief?
  3. Does the sum or totality of your point of view “hang together”? In other words, are your responses consistent and non-contradictory?
  4. In reviewing the hypothetical orientations of Leslie and Pat, or the composite results of the class, can you infer that you might prefer the company of one or the other based on their responses?
  5. Would you say that your 20 responses are the logical consequence of a purposeful and deliberate world view (or point of view or orientation), or are they merely a mish-mash of random top-of-the-head reactions?

Or, feel free to share whatever evaluations you like.

Orientations and Environments

Listen to the audio version of this page

The analysis of … living reactions is the sole object of general semantics … (Korzybski, 1994, p.xli)


I’d like to return to one of the questions posed in the Point of View Survey explanation: how has one acquired this point of view (or orientation)?

Let’s consider that your general orientation (or point of view) constitutes a living reaction and is therefore worthy of analysis. 

Here’s how I would analyze this question.

Environment and Orientation of a Plant

First, let’s take it out of the human realm and look at a plant.

[Aside: We seem better able to scientifically analyze plants and animals than we do ourselves or our fellow humans.]



A plant lives within a defined environment.


A plant grows as a function of different environmental factors or influences.


A plant grows as the result of internal processes that absorb or react to the environmental influences.


Tropism is a term that’s used to refer to the tendency of plants to respond according to the different types of environmental stimuli, such as water, gravity, wind, sunlight, etc.  For the purposes of this explanation, we can say that a plant orients itself as a result of the sum total of all these environmental factors (tropisms).


Environment and Orientation of a Human (in this case, me)

Now let’s jump to the human realm and consider the environments that influence us, specifically in the context of the orientation question … how has one (in this case, me) acquired his (my) orientation or world view?


Similar to plants, we live in environments that include a number of factors that can influence our growth and development. But different from plants, human growth and development depend on more than just our physical environment. Alfred Korzybski recognized the environments that are unique to humans and therefore critical to the human time-binding capacity — the neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic environments.


[General Semantics] recognizes neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments as unavoidable conditioning environments, and considers ‘mental’ illness, science and mathematics as types of human reactions. We discover that all forms of human reactions involve some common mechanisms which work automatically for the benefit or detriment of humanity. (p. 297, CW, General Semantics, Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Prevention, 1940)


If we stop to reflect, we must face the fact that every human being is born into a neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environment from which there is no escape. At present sciences are taking care of deadly environmental dangers such as plagues, epidemics, factory conditions where harmful chemicals are used which slowly kill off the workers, etc. But the academic linguists in their detachment and interest in abstract verbiage somehow disregard our neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments as environment, and therefore do not (and, perhaps, could not) produce any constructive practical results in building up sanity in education, and so ultimately in human living. It is true that these academicians and verbalists would have to know more about living human reactions. They would have to study not only neurology, psychiatry, general semantics, verbalisms written or spoken in hospitals for the “mentally” ill, etc., but also the pathological reactions found in politicians, journalists, etc., and even in educators and scientists. (p. 365, CW, Foreward to LHIHA, 1941)


[Listing errors of omission] The disregard of the neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic environments as an environment unique for our symbolic class of life. These are no more avoidable factors than air or water. They may have disastrous effects on us, and we know enough about environmental factors, for instance, in occupational diseases to understand the gravity of such disregard. (p. 379, CW, Foreward with M. Kendig to A Theory of Meaning Analyzed, GS Monographs, Number III, 1942, pp. vii-xvi.)

You can see that the number of potential neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic factors or influences are indefinitely-many.



While this slide emphasizes the symbolic influences, it’s important to not overlook the biological influences that certainly affect our neuro-semantic neuro-linguistic environments — specifically, our past experiences and genetic expressions.  The sum total of these neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic influences, comparable to the plant’s tropism effects, can be considered as our (or in this case, my) personal orientation.


And from this orientation, I evaluate, react, and behave, as reflected in my responses (or you could say my evaluations) to the statements on the Point of View survey.

But there’s more going on, especially if we look more closely at the influences of our Experiences as we’ll see on the next page.


Listen to the audio version of this page

Picking up from the previous page, let’s look more closely at the influence of our Experiences.


“Theories” in General Semantics

Throughout Korzybski’s writings, he refers to five “theories” related to General Semantics.

  1. Time-binding, or as he titled two early papers, TIME-BINDING: The General Theory.
  2. General Semantics as a general theory of evaluation.
  3. General Semantics as a general theory of values.
  4. General Semantics as establishing a theory of meanings.
  5. General Semantics as establishing a theory of sanity.

We addressed time-binding in Module 1. We also mentioned that the title of the “source book” for General Semantics is Science and Sanity; that the methods and applications of science are the foundation for human sanity.

We’ve covered evaluation in the context of the abstracting-evaluating process.

And we talked about meaning, especially in Module 3 on bypassing. As attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce, “you don’t get meaning, you respond with meaning.” 

But to this point, we haven’t really talked about values. So here I want to place evaluation, meanings, and values in a broader environmental context. That is, evaluations, meanings, and values as inseparable and integral aspects of our life experiences.

Korzybski coined a technical term for such inseparable-nessnon-elementalistic. He observed that one of the potential errors in our language behaviors was the ability to divide or separate in our verbal worlds of language what cannot be separated in our non-verbal worlds of experience. This error of separating in words what cannot be separated in ‘reality’ he called elementistic evaluating, or to nounify the process, an elementalism.

In this case, we have three different words, which can be defined in different ways. But on a neurological level … the level of actual living reactions … what we refer to as evaluations, meanings, and values are all bound together both as past and present experiences.


To illustrate, let’s return to the “you’ve got cancer” example of J.S. Bois from Module 1 Defining and Describing General Semantics.

Imagine a scene in a hospital examining room. There’s a doctor, a patient, and the patient’s wife. A lab technician knocks on the door and enters, carrying a medical folder with the patient’s charts. He hands the folder to the doctor, nods to the patient and the wife, and leaves the room. The doctor silently looks through the pages of the chart. She takes a deep breath, gathers herself, and turns to the husband to say, “The tests confirm that you’ve got cancer.”


Can you envision in that scenario how different evaluations, meanings, and values are manifested by each of the participants?

To repeat another excerpt from Module 1 that I hope you might now find a little more meaningful:

In Week 5, we’ll address the “big picture” implications of [Korzybski’s] theories about the complex inter-relationships among evaluations, meanings, and values. Here are some examples that may give you a feel for what Korzybski was getting at:

The European Union is divided over the ongoing financial crises in Greece and other countries. Generalizing and simplifying … the citizens in Greece evaluate the crisis differently than German citizens because the austerity that is being forced on Greece means something very different to the Greek than it means to the German. The Greek and the German evaluate the situation differently because the situation means something different because they hold different values.

The Tea Party in the United States evaluates the significance of U.S. debt and government spending levels differently from other political groups because of the meaning that Tea Partiers give to government debt based on their values.

People around the world hold different evaluations about global warming/climate change based what the phenomenon means to them and what values they hold. To the citizen of the Maldives, the threat of rising oceans bears meaningful consequences because they value their way of life (not to mention their actual lives), so they evaluate the evidence and forecasts about global warming one way. The owner/operator/customers of a coal-burning electricity plant in the remote southwest U.S. evalute the issue differently because their economic and political values are affected in different meaningful ways.

The ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan can be considered in terms of different evaluations based on conflicting values and meanings.

Can you think of any close-to-home controversies that exhibit the inseparable (or non-elementalistic) nature of evalutions, meanings, and values?

Brain-Based Evaluating

As we saw in Module 1, it’s important to acknowledge that when we refer to cognitive activities such as thinking, feeling, imagining, considering, etc., we are referring to neurological behavior that has a biological basis. Therefore if we want to  conscientiously improve our language behaviors, we need to understand something about how our brains work — at least according to the current brain science.

On this page we have five short video clips about the brain that relate to our evaluating. (Unfortunately, we don’t have closed captioning available on these clips.) All of these come from episodes of the Charlie Rose Show.

1. Overview of the cortex (5:01)

From the Charlie Rose Brain Series, Anthony Movshon provides a functional overview of the cerebral cortex and describes the four lobes that comprise the cortex.


2. The brain as a “piece of meat” (3:17)

Also from the Charlie Rose Brain Series, the panel discusses how the brain is not hard-wired like a computer, and also mentions how dependent we are on our genetics and previous life experiences.


3. Paul Allen on the brain’s complexity (1:45)

Along with Bill Gates, Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft. He now owns the Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks and the Portland Trailblazers National Basketball Association franchise. More importantly for our purposes, he has created the Allen Institute for Brain Science. (Christof Koch from the Module 1 afterimage demonstration is the Institute’s Chief Scientific Officer.) Two weeks ago Allen sat down with Charlie Rose to talk primarily about the Super Bowl, but he also discussed his Institute and related this comparison of the brain to a computer.


4. Eric Kandel on the role of the “beholder” (2:59)

During an interview to promote his 2012 book, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, Eric Kandel discussed his approach to studying the role of the beholder’s response to art — specifically, portraiture.


5. Integration of cortex and amygdala (5:44)

Walter Mischel (of the Marshmallow Experiment in Module 1) and Daniel Kahneman discuss their two schemes for characterizing the integration of the cortex and the amygdala. Mischel uses the metaphor of hot and cool systems to compare the two, while Kahneman refers to fast and slow.

Note how similar their descriptions are to what Korzybski, in 1941, observed about the interaction of the cortex and what was then referred to as the thalamus.

If we orient ourselves predominantly by intension or verbal definitions, our orientations depend mostly on the cortical region. If we orient ourselves by extension or facts, this type of orientation by necessity follows the natural order of evaluation, and involves thalamic factors, introducing automatically cortically delayed reactions . In other words, orientations by intension tend to train our nervous systems in a split between the functions of the cortical and thalamic regions; orientations by extension involve the integration of cortico-thalamic functions.

Orientations by extension induce an automatic delay of reactions, which automatically stimulates the cortical region and regulates and protects the reactions of the usually over-stimulated thalamic region .

What was said here is elementary from the point of view of neurology. The difficulty is that this little bit of neurological knowledge is not applied in practice. Neurologists, psychiatrists, etc., have treated these problems in an ‘abstract’, ‘academic’, detached way only, somehow, entirely unaware that living human reactions depend on the working of the human nervous system, from which dependence there is no escape. No wonder ‘philosophers’, ‘logicians’, mathematicians, etc ., disregard the working of their nervous systems if even neurologists and psychiatrists still orient themselves by verbal fictions in the ‘abstract’.


Your “Inner Interpreter”

I met Laura Bertone twenty years ago this summer at my first general semantics seminar-workshop at Hofstra University in New York. We served together as trustees for the Institute of General Semantics for several years. 

In 2006, Laura published a wonderful book that serves as both a textbook and a memoirs, of sorts, that contains illustrative examples from her career as a “Paris-based conference interpreter.” That’s how the book jacket describes her profession. I prefer to think of it as “simultaneous translating” which, to my mono-lingual mind, is almost akin to magic.

The book is The Hidden Side of Babel: Unveiling cognition, intelligence, and sense (Amazon link). The excerpt below, which you can read inside this page with preview function, or download as a PDF document, is the chapter titled “The Inner Interpreter.” I’ve selected this excerpt because I believe it reinforces several important points about how, even within one language, we have to interpret or translate in order to evaluate and understand.

The Inner Interpreter (PDF)


Example: What do these pictures mean?

To illustrate the interplay of evaluations, meanings, and values, consider the following photos in terms of two questions.

  1. What do you think they mean?
  2. What do they mean to you?







I took these photos this past December about 30 miles from where I live in western New Mexico. These are rock drawings known as petroglyphs, carved by the ancient inhabitants of this area.

Let me tell you a little more about the last images that depict the square spiral shape. I took these four photos on the day after the winter solstice, between 11:58 and 12:03.

What does that additional information mean in terms of how you evaluate these photos and what they depict?

I think it’s reasonable to infer that, in the case of the square spiral, the specific location and size of the spiral serve a deliberate purpose. Combined with the L-shaped shadow of the overhanging rock, this spot marks the highest point of the sun on the shortest day of the year.

Considering how many years of observations it must have taken to determine where the L-shaped shadow would fall on this once-a-year day, this must have meant something special to the engravers. They must have valued this specific time.

Does this additional information make any difference in terms of what this means to you?

“The Persuaders” as Symbol-Rulers

The affairs of man are conducted by our own, man-made rules and according to man-made theories. Man’s achievements rest upon the use of symbols. For this reason, we must consider ourselves as a symbolic, semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us. (Korzybski, 1994, p. 76) [emphasis added]


To revisit a slide from earlier in this module, consider how much of our neuro-semantic and neuro-linguistic environments involves various agents who are trying to influence our personal evaluations and living reactions.


It’s worth noting that Korzybski’s caution regarding “those who rule the symbols, rule us” was published just months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933. He (Korzybski) understood how vulnerable and susceptible humans were to the manipulation of symbols, signs, words, music, etc. He knew the neurological mechanisms of conditioned responses from Pavlov’s experiments, consistent with his own formulation of identification whereby individuals did not properly evalute and were unaware of their abstracting processes.

Five years before Korzybski’s caution hit the New York City streets in Science and Sanity, another New Yorker published his own book that, unintentionally no doubt, reinforced Korzybski’s contention.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. — Edward Bernays


Edward Bernays was the nephew of Dr. Sigmund Freud. The name of his 1928 book was Propaganda. He taught the first university course in public relations, and is generally considered to be one of, if not the, father of the American public relations industry.

So there would seem to be a natural tension between what Bernays advocated and what Korzybski warned about. Ironically, however, the history of General Semantics includes several prominent individuals from the the advertising and public relations industries.

“The Persuaders” with Douglas Rushkoff

In November 2004, days after the U.S. presidential election, the Public Broadcasting Series Frontline series broadcast Douglas Rushkoff’s 90-minute documentary, “The Persuaders.” The film delves into “the persuasion industry” of advertising, marketing, and political campaigns. 

The film includes interviews with several major “persuaders,” who make no apologies for their objectives to … create loyalty beyond reason … develop cult-like devotion … appeal to the reptilian brain … and find words that work. 

You can watch the entire documentary, with transcript, at the PBS website. In particular, pay close attention to segments 4 (The Science of Selling) and 5 (Giving Us What We Want).

Lay Off of My Persuade Shoes

In 2009, I was invited to give a presentation to a trade association group of advertisers. I took it as an opportunity to challenge these “persuaders” to raise their game, and their industry, to higher levels of respect for their clients and their clients’ customers.

In the Optional Activities for Module 1 I included one segment of the presentation, A GS Perspective.

Here are the two segments that follow the GS Perspective that specfically address the advertising and PR industries, and my own personal experience with one particular advertising (some might say propaganda) campaign.

Public Relations Perspective

The script is available here.


Chesapeake Energy and Conclusion


The script is available here.

Response Side Semantics

rss-cover.jpgOne year after viewing “The Persuaders,” I was motivated to document my thoughts regarding this tension between those who seek to rule the symbols (the supply side of symbol-rulers) and those, like myself, who sought to resist the attempts to be ruled (the response side).

This article from the January 2006 issue of ETC: A Review of General Semantics, “calls out” those who wish to rule the symbols and issues a metaphorical “call to arms” to those who wish to put up the response side resistance.

You can download the PDF link below or view it within this page using the preview feature


Download Response Side Semantics

Module 5 Dicussion

What topic or illustration most resonated with you in this module regarding Who Rules Your Symbols? Discuss your evaluations, reactions, responses, etc.

Module 5 Assignment

In this module, we attempted to describe a “tension” that exists between individual evaluators (symbol users) and those who would seek to manipulate, control, or influence (the symbol rulers).

Submit a short essay of approximately 250 words with your evaluation of this “tension.” Do you agree with the premise that this is a concern to be concerned with? If so, provide examples in which someone attempted to rule your symbols. If you don’t agree that this “tension” exists or represents a serious concern, explain why you feel it isn’t.

To submit the assignment, look to the Submit Assignment link to the upper right. You can type your answer into the edit window or copy/paste from another program. You may also submit a media comment or attach a link.

Optional Activities for Module 5

Audio Resources

The National Public Radio (NPR) program, On the Media, provides a weekly update on stories related to journalism, advertising, and general interest topics pertinent to all forms of media, including the Internet. These recent segments relate to the Module 5 content.

Another NPR program, The Diane Rehm Show, has also produced several programs recently related to journalism, advertising, and the brain.


Paper/Video Presentation

I prepared the following video presentation and paper for a graduate psychology course titled “Biological Basis of Behavior.” Our textbook was Principles of Neural Science by Eric Kandel, James H. Schwartz, and Thomas M. Jessell.

What Difference Does it Make? Implications of Neuroscience for Education

What difference does it make?

When I applied to the Educational Psychology graduate program last year, I explained that my academic interests were focused on the question, “Are educational practices consistent with cross-disciplinary knowledge?” As I progressed through the program curriculum, I narrowed the scope of my “cross-disciplinary” objective to consider how the latest findings in neuroscience might inform educational theory and practice. The purpose of this paper is to provide an initial report regarding: 1) underlying attitudes or premises about how we think about the brain; 2) six findings from neuroscience that relate to learning; and 3) the consequences or implications of those findings, or what difference does neuroscience make for education?

How we think about the brain, mind, and all things psychological (constructs, behaviors, motivations, etc.) is dependent upon a critical underlying premise. That premise can be stated as a choice between accepting the notion of dualism, which differentiates the substance of “mind” from that of the brain, or rejecting dualism to instead ascribe functions of “mind” to the biological organ of the brain. This paper reflects the point of view of two Nobel laureates, Francis Crick and Eric Kandel, who reject the mind|brain dualistic dichotomy. Each ascribes the behaviors and functions of what are generally attributed to the “mind” to the brain (Crick, 1994; Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 1). In other words, from a scientific orientation, the brain exists as a biological entity whereas what we refer to as “mind” does not exist in a biological sense. The “mind” is more appropriately thought of as “the behavior of our brains” (Crick, 1994, p. 7) or “a series of functions carried out by our brains” (Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 1). Many people who do not consider themselves “scientific” may object to the boldness of this premise and counter with the argument that there must be more than just the brain to account for our thoughts, ideas, intuitions, etc. However, if one purports that position, one must be able to offer a competing theory or explanation — if not in the brain, where? From a scientific perspective, therefore, the hypothesis that “it’s all in the brain” provides a useful and appropriate attitude for understanding these six findings.

1. The brain is continually changing and, in a global sense, learning.

Anytime you engage in what is usually referred to as “learning,” you are also engaged in changing your brain. Virtually every experience you have and every behavior you exhibit results in some level of neural activity that causes structural, chemical, and electrical changes in your brain. Kandel notes that this ongoing change activity results in intellectual growth and also accounts for the impressive degree of plasticity exhibited by the brain in recovering from certain types of damage, injury, and disease (Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 1).

2. The brain constructs your sensory experiences of the world.

From a common sensical view point, we can easily lapse into the conventional understanding that we see and hear exactly what’s there to be seen and heard. We feel that our senses capture whatever sources may stimulate our attention — our eyes see, our ears hear. We accept easily understood analogies such as our visual system is like a camera and our hearing is like a tape recorder.

However, we now know that such common sensical feelings and analogies are naïve and mistaken. The “seeing” and “hearing” that we attribute to our eyes and ears is really the result of the brain processing sketchy and limited data of the outside world that is sensed, captured, and transmitted to the brain. The brain forms the experiences that you become aware of by taking this incomplete sensory data, looking for patterns that match previous experiences, making inferences to fill in the holes of missing data or unexpected patterns, before integrating the different inputs into a unified awareness.

Jeff Hawkins likens the activity in the brain (specifically the cortex) to a densely-packed network of fiber optic wires with a million points of contact. As incoming sense signals enter the brain to be processed, imagine the activated fiber optic network changing its illuminated patterns every millisecond. The patterns changes in both spatial and temporal dimensions and those changes, according to Hawkins, constitute the “currency of the brain … That’s what your brain works on. And believe it or not … your perception of the world is … really a fabrication of your model of the world. You don’t really see light or sound. You perceive it because your model says this is how the world is, and those patterns invoke the model” (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2009).

Christof Koch uses a visual demonstration to illustrate the effect known as afterimage. After staring for about twenty seconds at four brightly-colored squares (red, green, yellow, and blue) projected onto a screen, the image on the screen is suddenly changed and the viewer sees four different pastel colors — for a few seconds, then the viewer realizes that the image on the screen is actually four identical gray squares. The viewer has experienced an afterimage resulting from the visual system’s inability to immediately adjust to new input. Koch makes the point that what you see can be influenced by what you have just seen, and what you have just seen may cause you to not accurately see what is presented before you now. He concludes from this demonstration that, “ clearly this naive, realistic view that there’s a world, there’s my head and this simple mapping, it can’t be true” (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2005).

3. The brain includes a continuously-running simulator that anticipates motor behavior.

Have you ever tried to assist a waiter, burdened with a full tray of food and drinks, by taking your order from the tray, only to be rebuffed by the waiter who insists, “No thanks, I’ve got it.” Daniel Wolpert refers to this situation in a demonstration he calls the “waiter task,” which illustrates how the brain directs a simulation capability that operates in anticipation of motor behavior (Da Cunha, 2009, Episode 3). He explains that since the feedback capability in the motor system responds relatively slowly (about 250 milliseconds), for tasks that require much quicker responses (like hitting a tennis ball) the brain simulates the action and anticipates or predicts the response. So the brain anticipates the action of the muscles as well as the feedback returning to the brain in response to the action. When your waiter is holding the full tray, his motor system is controlling his muscles and exerting the proper force to suspend the tray. If you reach out and remove your drink, the waiter’s visual system and motor system brain cannot accurately estimate exactly when the weight and balance of the tray is going to shift. So depending on the particulars of how the tray is loaded, your good intentions to help may cost you and your fellow diners another thirty-minute wait, and your waiter a tray load of orders. But the waiter’s own brain simulation can anticipate exactly when his left hand is going to remove your glass from the tray such that the tray remains securely stable on his right hand.

Another brain capability related to both motor and sensory systems was identified by the discovery of mirror neurons by Italian neuroscientist Giacomo Rizzolatti. He observed that when an object such as a banana was offered to a laboratory monkey, the monkey reached for it, which triggered the firing of a certain neuron in the monkey’s brain. But Rizzolatti also discovered that a second monkey, who simply observed the first monkey reach for the object, also registered the same neuron firing in his brain. Rizzolatti isolated this “mirroring” activity to a particular type of neuron he called “mirror neurons.” In humans, these neurons are believed to play a pivotal role in one person being able to feel empathy for another. Rizzolatti also suggests they are necessary for the human ability to imitate others, enabling the perpetuation of rituals, traditions, and ultimately cultures (Da Cunha, 2010). Moreover, Kandel says there is evidence that mirror neurons may allow a child to more rapidly acquire language skills by watching the movement of the mother’s mouth as she speaks (Da Cunha, 2010, Episode 4).

4. The brain responds to stimulation, even when the stimulation is artificial.

The phenomenon known as “phantom limb” occurs when a person feels pain in the location of a limb that has been amputated. The patient experiences pain, but the attributed source of the pain is literally not there. This phenomenon manifested in a patient of neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, causing the patient excruciating pain in his phantom right hand. Ramachandran suspected that the brain might be trying to communicate through the motor system to the right hand, but in the absence of feedback from the phantom hand, the brain continue to send commands that could not be executed by the missing hand. He wondered if he could trick the patient’s brain by providing a visual illusion that provided apparent feedback. To test his hunch, Ramachandran constructed a simple box with an open top and two holes in the side in which the patient could insert his good left hand and the nub of his right arm without the amputated hand. In the center of the box, Ramachandran mounted an upright mirror such that the patient could look down at the mirror and see the reflection of his left hand, as if it were his right hand. The mirror illusion was powerful enough to fool the patient’s nervous system and the phantom pain went away, suggesting that “even pain can be a construct of the mind” (NOVA, 2001).

5. To focus attention on one thing, the brain actively suppresses attention elsewhere.

In researching the ability of the human visual system to track a moving object, neuroscientists have discovered two different types of neurons. One type of neuron focuses attention on the object, while the other works to actively suppress the background surrounding the object in order to further highlight the object. Neuroscience researchers, authors, and amateur magicians Stephen L. Macknic and Susana Martinez-Conde report that this mechanism has been exploited by magicians in the many ways in which they distract and misdirect their subjects’ attention in order to accomplish their ‘magical’ illusions (Macknic, Martinez-Conde, & Blakeslee, 2010).

6. Some language habits, such as grammar, take years to develop.

Using EEG imaging, researcher Helen Neville has shown that both adults and children as young as six years old can listen to a story and detect errors of meaning or words that don’t make sense within 200 milliseconds, localized in the posterior of the cortex. When the story narration includes grammatical errors, such as saying words in the wrong sequence or reversing nouns and verbs, adults can detect the errors even more quickly (within approximately 100 milliseconds) in a localized area on the left frontal lobe. However, the response of children to grammatical errors is slower and dispersed over a wide area of the cortex. Neville suggests that it may take 10-15 years for children to fully develop their grammatical recognition capabilities. She notes that this localized area in the left frontal lobe is adjacent to an area that appears to be critical to tool use and sequential planning: “It’s possible that one aspect of language is closely tied to tool use, especially this kind of action planning and sequencing that we have to do in order to talk” (THIRTEEN, 2010).

Researchers such as Patricia Kuhl have concluded that early exposure (prior to age 7) to non-native languages is critical for a child to most efficiently develop non-native language proficiency. She also suggests that language learning is strongly dependent upon the development of social learning skills that babies acquire when they are nine to ten months old. Studies indicate that babies of that age who are exposed to non-native phoneme sounds in the presence of others have no trouble discriminating those sounds. However, babies who are exposed to non-native phonemes from a television set do not learn to discriminate (Da Cunha, 2010, Episode 5).

Given these six findings, what difference does knowledge from neuroscience make — or could make — in educational theory and practice?

Beginning with the most general implications, two seem foundational for teachers, administrators, and policy makers. The first is that the brain(or all brains in the plural) is not a black box. Although neuroscientists would be the first to admit that much remains to be discovered and learned, much is known at present. Authority figures within education can no longer be content to cling to theories and practices based solely on speculative theories, observational studies, and “common sense.” Secondly, they should consider themselves as brain changers. To best teach, they must understand how the brains of children (and adults) change (or learn) in response to myriad environmental stimulations. Educational theory should most fundamentally be based on the fact that the brain naturally seeks to learn. Rather than thinking of education as the dispensing or depositing of “knowledge” into a child’s mind, formal education or schooling could be viewed as a socially-desirable means to guide the child’s natural brain development (learning) in a direction consistent with cultural and social ideals.

We should also recognize that even though we talk about “the brain” in generalized, or even universal, terms, each individual brain is unique. So while we can appropriately generalize about “the” brain’s anatomy, function, capability, and limitations, we should be aware that each brain is different and unique due to effects of genetics, environment, and life experiences.

At the level of the individual, this attitude of difference-within-similarity should become internalized within each child from the beginning of the formal educational process. Each child should develop an informed sense of how he/she is similar to others, but also that he/she is also different from others and unique unto him/herself. Each child should develop a sense of “to-me-ness” that acknowledges the sensations, feelings, descriptions, and experiences of “the world” he/she is aware of are created by his/her own nervous system. Each person experiences “the world” differently, no matter how similar our descriptions of our experiences of that world are.

Educational practitioners should help the individual exploit the learning capabilities inherent not only in the sensory system, but also the motor system. Combining these capabilities with those of mirror neurons, it seems clear that instructional techniques should not rely exclusively on cognitive activities, but also incorporate the manipulation of tools, instruments, and other aids, as well as watching and imitating behavioral models. While such techniques may be common in grades K-6, there is no reason why they should not continue to be effective even for adult learning. Particularly for learning non-native languages after age seven, watching a speaker may significantly facilitate learning over simply listening to the speaker.

The final implication to be made in this paper, and the most specific, applies to the development of individual language habits. If the conclusions from Helen Neville’s research are correct — that it takes years for a child to develop proficient grammatical recognition and localization — it seems logical to devote significant study to determine what kinds of grammatical structure are important to process and evaluate experiences, rather than adherence to grammatical standards that have evolved arbitrarily. Two practical examples of language habits that deserve study in this regard are to reduce reliance on to be verbs (is, am, are, was, etc.) and absolutistic terms (all, every, none, perfect, etc.) Such practices logically result from the “to-me-ness” of individual experience and the limitations of our imperfect nervous systems.

Teller, the normally mute half of the Penn & Teller magic act, makes his living by exploiting the facts, foibles, and limitations of the human nervous system. Like his fellow magicians, his on-stage objective is not merely to entertain the audience, but to lead them to the realization that “it’s really hard to understand the world” (Randall, 2011). For educational practitioners, their objective should be to make it easier for their audience to understand the world. Without a fundamental understanding of neuroscience and how “the” brain effects learning change, educators risk propagating misunderstandings of the world and, by extension, the individuals in that world. Therefore, whether or not educators embrace and incorporate the findings of neuroscience is indeed a difference that makes a difference.


Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009) Episode 1 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Great Mysteries of the Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009) Episode 2 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: Visual Perception. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009) Episode 3 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Acting Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2010) Episode 4 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Social Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2010) Episode 5 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Developing Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2005) Consciousness: a neurobiological approach (Christof Koch). Available from http://jromc.org

J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2009) Why can’t a computer be more like a brain? (Jeff Hawkins). Available from http://jromc.org

Macknik, S.L., Martinez-Conde, S., with Blakeslee, S. (2010). Sleights of Mind: What the neuroscience of magic reveals about our everyday deceptions. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

NOVA. (2001). Secrets of the Mind. Available from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/

Randall, T. (Writer, Director). (2011) Magic and the Brain. In Randall, T. (Producer) NOVA Science Now. New York, NY. PBS.

THIRTEEN. (2010). The Human Spark with Alan Alda. Available from http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=3939596#Details

Module Completion Checklist


open-checkbox21.png 1.  Did you review the Point of View Survey results, compare them to your own survey, and participate in the Discussion? (50 points)
open-checkbox21.png 2.  Did you read the explanations about Orientations and Environments and Evaluations, Meanings, and Values?
open-checkbox21.png 3.  Did you evaluate your evaluating by reading about Brain Based Evaluating and Your Inner Interpreter?
open-checkbox21.png 4.  Did you evaluate your would-be symbol rulers by viewing The Persuaders, Persuade Shoes, and reading about Response Side Semantics?
open-checkbox21.png 5.  Did you contribute to the Module Discussion? (50 points)
open-checkbox21.png 5.  Did you submit the Module Assignment? (50 points)


You’re almost done!

You’re ready to move on to the final module in the course Review and Reflection.

1: What is General Semantics?

Course Home | 1: What is GS? | 2: Allness | 3: Bypassing | 4: Linguistic Relativity | 5: Symbol Rulers | 6: Review and Reflection

This course was developed and presented on the Canvas Network by Steve Stockdale, Mary Lahman, and Greg Thompson. It is reproduced here under terms of the Creative Commons Share Alike License as published on Canvas Network from 13 January – 24 February 2014.

Module Map

Artwork by Alice Webb

Artwork by Alice Webb Art

In this first module, we’ll provide a broad introduction to the field of study called General Semantics (GS). Steve is the lead instructor this week.

As depicted in the module list, this week we’re going to introduce you to GS in this sequence:


  • Point of View Survey — We begin with a 20-question Point of View survey. The survey results and significance will be presented and discussed in Week 5.
  • Defining and Describing General Semantics — Several different viewpoints on how to briefly characterize GS.
  • Basic Understandings — A first-pass explanation, to be developed further throughout the course.


  • Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) — A short biography of the man who “wrote the book” and (perhaps unfortunately) coined the label, “General Semantics.”
  • Korzybski’s Quest —Three questions guided Korzybski’s work.
  • Map|Territory: Foundational Premises —Three premises underlie the GS theory or methodology, each an aspect of the Map|Territory analogy.
  • Abstracting-Evaluating—Integral to General Semantics is an understanding of the neurological processes Korzybski termed abstracting (or evaluating). As we will see, while his label has not be embraced by the medical sciences, his description of the processes and their implications was on the mark.
  • Discussion Assignment — We’ll ask you to share your own example that illustrates the abstracting process, worth 30 points.
  • Two Worlds —A consequence of the brain’s abstracting process is the realization that we live in “two worlds.” As reflected in current neuroscience understanding, our brain actively mediates, or constructs, what we experience as the “real world.”
  • Language(s) as Map(s) — Some of the implications and consequences of the Map|Territory analogy relate to our language habits and bahaviors.
  • Consciousness of Abstracting — A comparison of behaviors that reflect a consciousness (or awareness) of one’s abstracting and evaluating processes, vs. unawareness.


  • A variety of demonstrations we hope will make the notions of abstracting and evaluating more meaningful, at least in terms of vision and hearing.


  • Review and Reflection — A summary of key takeaways and highlights of Module 1.
  • Optional Activities — Readings, viewings, and other activities that you may find beneficial and interesting.
  • Discussion — We ask you to participate in a Discussion and share your reactions to the material presented in this module, worth 50 points.
  • Quiz — We ask you to complete a 50-point Quiz which has been structured to facilitate and confirm learning, also worth 50 points.
  • References
  • Completion Checklist —To make sure you haven’t missed anything.

This module is designed to be completed in sequence. As you complete each page or activity, you’ll see navigation buttons at the bottom to either return to the Previous page or advance to the Next page. You can always skip around if you prefer or if you need to review specific pages.

At the bottom of most pages, you’ll see links for the Ongoing Course Discussion and Your Personal journal. We encourage you to regularly jot down notes and thoughts in your journal and participate in the ongoing course discussion. Your Personal Journal is worth a total of 20 points.

Module Learning Objectives

After successfully completing this module, students will be able to:

  • Summarize the story of Alfred Korzybski and he came to develop the discipline of General Semantics.
  • Explain the abstracting process and its significance.
  • Explain the significance of the map|territory distinction.
  • Identify key differences between facts (or descriptions of observations) and inferences (or opinions, judgments, assumptions).
  • Explain how Korzybski’s 1933 understanding of how the nervous system works has been validated by 21st-century neuroscience.
  • Demonstrate familiarity with the GS vocabulary.
  • Demonstrate self-awareness of ineffective, unproductive, or self-defeating language habits and behaviors.
  • Offer your own explanation in response to the question, “what is General Semantics about?”


Concerning Expectations

Please watch this 9-minute video that addresses a few items regarding expectations. (You can click on the “CC” on the video player control bar to see the closed captions.)

Below the video we will maintain an updated list of the countries represented in the course and the chart of enrollment growth.


Countries represented in the course

If yours isn’t listed, please let us know. Updated 20 January.

  1. Algeria
  2. Argentina
  3. Australia
  4. Bangladesh
  5. Belgium
  6. Brazil
  7. Burkina Faso
  8. Canada
  9. Chile
  10. China
  11. Colombia
  12. Croatia
  13. Czech Republic
  14. Dubai
  15. Ecuador
  16. Egypt
  17. France
  18. Germany
  19. Greece
  20. Grenada
  21. Hungary
  22. Iceland
  23. India
  24. Iran
  25. Ireland
  26. Italy
  27. Japan
  28. Jordan
  29. Kazakhstan
  30. Kuwait
  31. Latvia
  32. Lithuania
  33. Macedonia
  34. Malaysia
  35. Mexico
  36. Moldova
  37. Morocco
  38. Netherlands
  39. New Zealand
  40. Nicaragua
  41. Nigeria
  42. Norway
  43. Pakistan
  44. Paraguay
  45. Peru
  46. Philippines
  47. Poland
  48. Puerto Rico
  49. Romania
  50. Russia
  51. Saudi Arabia
  52. Serbia
  53. South Africa
  54. South Korea
  55. Spain
  56. Sweden
  57. Switzerland
  58. Tasmania
  59. Thailand
  60. Tunisia
  61. Turkey
  62. U.K. (England, Wales, and Scotland included)
  63. United Arab Emirates
  64. Uruguay
  65. U.S.
  66. Vanuatu
  67. Venezuela



Point of View Survey

mandoor.jpgThis survey contains 20 statements that you’ve probably heard. In fact, you’ve probably heard them a lot since most of them can be considered as aphorisms or cliches. For each of the statements, indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed. Go with your first impression. Once you’ve marked your response and advanced, you can’t go back.

Disregard the terminology used (“question” and “correct answer”) since this ungraded survey uses the same format as a quiz. There are no correct answers, but we had to identify “correct” answers in order to award points for completion.

The survey results will be aggregated at the class level and discussed during Week 5.

NOTE: These statements may not be recognized by students who are not so familiar with American culture. However, these kinds of aphorisms or cliches or truisms probably exist in all cultures. If you don’t recognize the significance of one of the statements, see if you can think of an appropriate substitute that you are familiar with.

Disagree No Opinion Agree Strong
1. You’re either for something or against it.
2. You can’t change human nature.
3. Everything happens for a reason.
4. The will of the majority should always be respected.
5. Expect a miracle.
6. Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus.
7. To thine own self be true.
8. It’s all good.
9. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
10. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
11. Clothes make the man.
12. Love the sinner, but hate the sin.
13. Everybody has one true soul mate.
14. Time heals all wounds.
15. In the end, people get what they deserve.
16. The pen is mightier than the sword.
17. It is what it is.
18. Image is everything.
19. You get what you expect.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Defining and Describing General Semantics

What is General Semantics?

You might think such a simple question would have a simple answer. Unfortunately, in this case there isn’t a simple answer. Just like there’s really no simple answer to the question, “What is chaos theory?”

In the course description there’s a phrase that could serve as a beginning definition of General Semantics:

General Semantics—the study of how we transform our life experiences into language and thought.

The definition I used in my eBook, Here’s Something About General Semantics (download the pdf), provides a broader view:

General Semantics deals with the process of how we perceive, construct, evaluate, and respond to our life experiences. Our language-behaviors represent one aspect of these responses (Stockdale, 2009, p. 21).

Following are several different approaches to describe General Semantics. From these, you might begin to sketch a picture for yourself of what GS is about.


You can get an idea of the scope and domain of General Semantics from the titles of some of the prominent books in the field. (These are all listed in the Module 1 References.)

  • Science and Sanity (Korzybski)
  • Language Habits in Humans Affairs (Lee)
  • Language in Thought and Action (Hayakawa)
  • People in Quandaries (W. Johnson)
  • Your Most Enchanted Listener (W. Johnson)
  • The Art of Awareness (Bois)
  • Levels of Knowing and Existence (Weinberg)
  • Symbols, Status, and Personality (Hayakawa)
  • Drive Yourself Sane (Kodish & Kodish)
  • Communication and Organizational Behavior: Text and Cases (Haney)
  • The Speech Personality (Murray)
  • The Language of Wisdom and Folly (Lee)
  • The Tyranny of Words (Chase)
  • Making Sense (Potter)
  • Culture, Language and Behavior (Russell)
  • Mathsemantics (MacNeal)
  • Nothing Never Happens (K. Johnson and others)
  • Explorations in Awareness (Bois)

from Wendell Johnson

Wendell Johnson was one of the most important and distinguished of the “early adopters” of General Semantics. A clinical professor at the University of Iowa (see the Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center), Johnson wrote two wonderful books centered around GS, People in Quandaries and Your Most Enchanted Listener. The following excerpt comes from his first lecture of the Fall 1956 semester, which was broadcast over the campus radio station and recorded.

[General Semantics is concerned with the role] … our use of words, designs — symbols of all kinds — tends to play in the development of our individual personalities, our institutions, and our human societies. So we shall be concerned in the course with the disorders of our symbolic processes, which is to say the language of maladjustment — the language which reflects maladjustment and which tends to produce maladjustment. We shall be even more concerned with the kinds of language which we are able to develop or cultivate which tend to be very effective, which tend to be conducive, to what we call “normal adjustment.”

… I do not mean by adjustment some kind of self-satisfaction, some sort of blind acceptance of things as they are, but something much, much more dynamic and helpful than that. I mean by adjustment, by healthful adjustment, something that we might call the “realization of our own individual potentials for development.” I don’t mean being like somebody else, like the average man, or like the mold, but being oneself as fully as possible.

Well, there is a way to use language which tends to encourage this sort of development. Then there is a way to use language — there are probably many, many ways to use language — which tend to make it difficult to develop one’s full potential, and so we will be concerned with these kinds of language. This means we’re going to be concerned with things like speaking, writing, listening, reading, designing, and figuring with the pictures we make in our heads. We’ll be concerned with the talking we do to ourselves that we recognize as thinking, and feeling, and imagining, and wishing, and regretting, and so forth.

We’re going to be concerned especially with the language we use for talking ourselves into trouble, and that which we use for talking ourselves out of trouble. We are going to be concerned with the language that is effective for the solving of problems and for the realization of potential selfdevelopment. We’re going to be especially concerned with language in its most effective forms for the purpose of solving problems. This means we will be especially interested in the language used by scientific research workers, and also by others — outstanding novelists, poets, any of the users of language who are very effective in the solving of human problems (Johnson, 1957).

from Irving J. Lee

Along with Wendell Johnson and S.I. Hayakawa, Irving J. Lee, professor of speech at Northwestern University, earned a place among the handful of most influential early proponents of General Semantics. The following 4:46 clip comes from a 1952 series of lectures on General Semantics called “Talking Sense” broadcast in Chicago as part of the “Of Men and Ideas” program.

Several excerpts from this series will be used througout the course. Note that some of Professor Lee’s terminology is a reflection of his time – e.g., “men” rather than “people” or “men and women” – but the content of his presentations remain relevant.

from Dr. Russell Meyers

Dr. Russell Meyers also taught at the University of Iowa, but in the medical school as a neurosurgeon. He held leadership positions in the two GS organizations in the 1940s and was a principle lecturer at Institute of General Semantics seminars throughout the 1950s.

There are two premises we must operate on whenever we try to communicate. First, we must expect to be misunderstood. Second, we must expect to misunderstand. This may seem “obvious” but too few human beings act as if it were true. We are striving to minimize misunderstanding, not to eliminate it. This is true not only of inter-personal but intra-personal communication.

Communication can be competent or incompetent; it can lead to improvement or to destruction.

General Semantics is less interested in answers to examination questions than in personal behavior in day-to-day situations. It grew out of a comparison of the kinds of behavior that have led to adaptation and the kinds that have led to mis-adaptation.

Most of GS is unspeakable. It must be experienced and practiced over a period of time. Concepts basic to General Semantics:

  • Scientific method (generalized)
  • Communication
  • Evaluation
  • Creativity

Alfred Korzybski compared the efficient communication behavior of scientists to the inefficient behavior of “mental” cases. He then took those kinds of adaptive behavior that could be identified and taught and generalized them for everyday use.

The aim of GS is robust psychological health, not merely correcting or preventing maladjustment (Meyers, 1957).

from J. Samuel Bois

In The Art of Awareness, J. Samuel Bois describes a hypothetical situation to illustrate the scope of what General Semantics is concerned with. I’ve paraphrased it.

Imagine a scene in a hospital examining room. There’s a doctor, a patient, and the patient’s wife. A lab technician knocks on the door and enters, carrying a medical folder with the patient’s charts. He hands the folder to the doctor, nods to the patient and the wife, and leaves the room. The doctor silently looks through the pages of the chart. She takes a deep breath, gathers herself, and turns to the husband to say, “The tests confirm that you’ve got cancer.”

From a strictly semantic standpoint, or in terms of how the word cancer is defined in a dictionary, there is probably little ambiguity or lack of understanding among the three participants in this imaginary scene. They each share a common understanding that cancer refers to a medical diagnosis of cellular growths that may, or may not, be treated in certain ways, that may result in certain health outcomes for the patient. However, the common understanding of the definition of what the word cancer refers to is not at all the same as the emotional and physiological response of each individual person in the room upon hearing the utterance, “you’ve got cancer.”

In other words, what hearing “you’ve got cancer” means to the doctor who articulates the words is something entirely different to what it means to the patient who hears the words. And what it means to the patient is something qualitatively different from his wife’s response.

According to Bois, the study and understanding of such individual in-the-moment reactions, or happenings-meanings, “is the field of General Semantics” (Bois, 1966, p. 32).

Alfred Korzybski

The analysis of … living reactions is the sole object of general semantics … (Korzybski, 1994, p. xli).

Throughout this module we will concentrate on the work of Alfred Korzybski and his development of General Semantics.


Used with permission of Institute of General Semantics

Basic Understandings of General Semantics

Since 1998, I’ve used a framework of five major topics as a way to structure a curriculum to introduce General Semantics. This page presents an high-level overview of the inter-related components that comprise the system or methodology of General Semantics, originated by Alfred Korzybski. These components will be expanded upon and developed further throughout the course, as suggested by the outward spiral in the image below.



Through our use of languages and symbol systems such as music, math, art, etc., we can facilitate learning among our fellow planet dwellers. But we also have access to the accumulated knowledge that has been learned, documented, improved upon, and passed along from generation to generation. This unique capability to transfer and build upon knowledge has resulted in ever-expanding human progress.

We can also, however, use such symbol systems to perpetuate atavistic feuds, myths, superstitions, prejudices, etc., that result in conflict, suffering and death. What accounts for the difference in our ability to progress technologically and inability to progress sociologically?

  • Only humans have demonstrated the capability to build on the knowledge of prior generations. Alfred Korzybski referred to this capability as time-binding. We ‘bind time’ when we use language and symbols to organize and pass along knowledge from one generation to the next, as well as within a generation.
  • Language serves as the primary tool that facilitates time-binding, and language is enabled and powered by the astounding capabilities of the human cortex.
  • Time-binding forms the basis for an ethical standard by which to evaluate human behavior: to what degree does the action or behavior promote, or retard, time-binding?
  • Acknowledging our time-binding inheritance dispels us of the ‘self-made’ notion and encourages us to ‘bind time’ for the benefit of those who follow.

Scientific Orientation

The methods of science that have resulted in four centuries of advancement in medicine, engineering, physics, etc., have application for us in our daily lives. From our day-to-day experiences, we gather information, form opinions and beliefs, gather more information, form more opinions and beliefs, etc. Does the information we gather from our daily experiences support our beliefs and opinions? Do we modify those beliefs and opinions when the ‘facts’ of our experiences warrant? Do we apply what we ‘know’ about ourselves and the world around us in our daily living?

  • Our ability to time-bind is most evident when we apply a scientific approach, method or attitude in our evaluations and judgments.
  • A scientific approach involves the process of continually testing assumptions and beliefs, gathering as many facts and as much data as possible, revising assumptions and beliefs as appropriate, and holding conclusions and judgments tentatively.
  • Hidden, or unstated assumptions guide our behavior to some degree; therefore we ought to make a special effort to become more aware of them.
  • Even if testing confirms the hypothesis, continue to make observations, collect data, and check to see if the hypothesis remains valid or should be revised.
  • We live in a process-oriented universe in which everything changes all the time. The changes may not be readily apparent to us if they occur on microscopic, or even sub-microscopic, levels.
  • We should remember that there is always more going on than we can sense or experience.


One test is worth a thousand expert opinions. — Anonymous



Our day-to-day experiences are partial and incomplete abstractions of all that we could possibly see, hear, touch, taste or smell. Therefore the opinions and beliefs (or evaluations) we derive from those experiences ought to be tempered with some degree of tentativeness, uncertainty, and to-me-ness.

  • As humans, we have limits as to what we can experience through our senses. Given these limitations, we can never experience ‘all’ of what’s ‘out there’ to experience. We abstract only a portion of what’s ‘out there.’
  • Our awareness of ‘what goes on’ outside of our skin, is not ‘what is going on;’ our awareness of our experience is not the silent, first-order, neurological experience.
  • Given our ever-changing environment (which includes ourselves, and our awareness of ourselves), we never experience the ‘same’ person, event, situation, ‘thing,’ experience, etc., more than once.
  • To the degree that our evaluative reactions and responses to all forms of stimuli are automatic, or conditioned, we copy animals, like Pavlov’s dog. To the degree that these evaluations are more controlled, delayed, or conditional to the given situation, we exhibit our uniquely-human capabilities.
  • We each experience ‘what’s out there’ uniquely, according to our individual sensory capabilities, integrating our past experiences and expectations. We ought to maintain an attitude of ‘to-me-ness’ in our evaluations of our own behavior, as well as in our evaluations of others’ behavior.
We see the world as ‘we’ are, not as ‘it’ is; because it is the I behind the ‘eye’ that does the seeing. — Anais Nin


We see what we see because we miss the finer details (Korzybski, 1994, p.376).



Verbal Awareness

Language facilitates time-binding, for advancing progress within societies and cultures, as well as enabling individuals to adjust, adapt, survive and thrive within an increasingly chaotic verbal environment. We are, for the most part, unaware of the effects of our verbal environment on how we react to our daily experiences. How often do we react to words, labels, symbols and signs as if they were the ‘real’ things represented? Do we use language, or are we used by language? Who rules our symbols?

  • We can think of language as the unique capability that allows humans to time-bind, or build our learning, from generation to generation, as well as within generations.
  • However, language has evolved with structural flaws in that much of the language we use does not properly reflect the structure of the world we experience ‘out there.’
  • Among the mistakes we perhaps unknowingly commit:
    • confusing the word or symbol with whatever the word or symbol stands for;
    • acting as if the meaning of the words we use is contained solely in the word, without considering the context and the individuals;
    • confusing facts with our inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.;
    • not accounting for the many “shades of gray,” simplistically looking at things as if they were black or white, right or wrong, good or bad, etc.;
    • using language to ‘separate’ that which in the actual world cannot be separated, such as space from time, mind from body, thinking from feeling.
  • Revising our language habits by using these devices will help us become more aware and more deliberate in our everyday talking and listening. These five techniques were advocated by Korzybski and referred to as the extensional devices:
    • indexing : Muslim(1) is not Muslim(2); Feminist(1) is not Feminist(2);. Remember to look for the differences even among a group or category that presume similarities.
    • dating : Steve(2013) is not Steve(1968); Steve’s-views-on-global-warming(2013) are not Steve’s-views-on-global-warming(1988). Remember that each person and each ‘thing’ we experience changes over time, even though the changes may not be apparent to us.
    • quotes : ‘truth’, ‘reality’, ‘mind’, ‘pure’. Use quotes around terms as a caution to indicate you’re aware that there is an opportunity for misunderstanding if the term is particularly subject to interpretation, or if you’re being sarcastic, ironic, or facetious.
    • hyphen : mind-body, thinking-feeling. Use to join terms that we can separate in language, but can’t actually separate in the ‘real’ world. Remember that we can talk in terms that don’t accurately reflect the world ‘out there.’
    • etc.: Remember that our knowledge and awareness of anything is limited. We can’t sense or experience or talk about all of something, so we should maintain an awareness of the etc., that “more could be said.”

Additional devices or techniques designed to address ineffective language habits include:

    • E-Prime: eliminate or reduce forms of the to be verbs (is, are, were, am, being, etc.). In particular, reduce those that we consider is of identity (ex. John is a liberal) and is of predication (ex. The rose is red.) Download and read To Be or Not To Be: E-Prime as a Tool for Critical Thinking (PDF, 12 pages) by D. David Bourland, Jr (Bourland, 2004).
    • English Minus Absolutisms (EMA): eliminate or reduce inappropriate generalizations or expressions that imply allness or absolute attitudes. Examples include: all, none, every, totally, absolutely, perfect, without a doubt, certain, completely. Download and read Allen Walker Read’s Language Revision by Deletion of Absolutisms (PDF, 7 pages) (Read, 2004).
    • To-me-ness: Used by Wendell Johnson as a convenience to convey a consciousness of projection, as otherwise expressed by phrases such as “it seems to me,” “apparently,” “from my point of view,” and “as I see it” (Johnson, 1946, p. 61).

Sensory Awareness

You could say that we live in two worlds: our verbal world of words (and thoughts, opinions, beliefs, doubts, etc.), and the non-verbal world of our actual sensory experiences. We experience the world on the non-verbal levels, but many times our verbal pre-occupations preclude us from appreciating what we experience on a moment-to-moment, here-and-now, non-verbal basis. To what degree do we project our verbal world of expectations onto our non-verbal sensory experiences? Do we experience ‘what is going on’ in the moment, or do we see what we’re looking for, or hear what we expect to hear? Are we aware of ourselves, our non-verbal experiencing, and our limitations?

  • We ‘experience’ our daily living on the silent, non-verbal levels; in other words, on a physiological-neurological level different from our verbal awareness.
  • Our ability to experience the world is relative, unique to our own individual sensing capabilities.
  • Our language habits can affect our physiological behavior; we can allow what we see, hear, say, etc., to affect our blood pressure, pulse, rate of breathing, etc.
  • As we become more aware of our own non-verbal behaviors, we can practice techniques to achieve greater degrees of relaxation, less stress, greater sense of our environment, etc.

Charlotte Schuchardt Read

Charlotte Schuchardt Read began working for Korzybski as his literary secretary in 1939. A dance student, she became increasingly interested in what Korzybski called semantic relaxation, a guided practice of silencing one’s inner dialogue and striving for silence on the objective level. Charlotte expanded Korzybski’s methods through her work with Charlotte Selver and the Sensory Awareness Foundation.

In this clip from a 1999 interview recording by the Sensory Awareness Foundation, Charlotte explains how the non-verbal, or sensory, practices are an integral part of General Semantics (Read, 1999).


Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950)

Alfred Korzybski

Photo used with permission of Institute of General Semantics

Alfred Korzybski (pronounced kore-ZHIB-ski) was born in 1879 to a land-owning family in Poland. He was raised by servants from four different countries who spoke four different languages, growing up with a working knowledge of Polish, Russian, German, and French. In this type of multilingual environment, it came naturally to Korzybski to disassociate the word, or symbol, from the thing that the word or symbol represented.

As a student he studied engineering, mathematics, and chemistry. When the first World War erupted in 1914, he was enlisted into the Russian cavalry. Not only was he severely wounded, but he witnessed first hand the devastating effects of all the new weapons of war that debuted during this “war to end all wars” … airplanes, armored tanks, rapid-fire machine guns, poison gas.

He was sent to North America toward the end of the war when he could no longer serve on the battlefield. He supported artillery testing in Canada before transferring to the U.S. where he traveled the country speaking to groups and selling war bonds. After the war, he remained in the U.S. and married Mira Edgerly, a miniature portrait artist from Chicago.

He was haunted by his war experiences. As an engineer, he pondered this question: How is it that humans have progressed so far and so rapidly in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences, yet we still fight wars and kill each other? Or in his own words:

At present I am chiefly concerned to drive home the fact that it is the great disparity between the rapid progress of the natural and technological sciences on the one hand and the slow progress of the metaphysical, so-called social “sciences” on the other hand, that sooner or later so disturbs the equilibrium of human affairs as to result periodically in those social cataclysms which we call insurrections, revolutions, and wars (Korzybski, 1993, p. 22).


He devoted the rest of his life to this ‘fact,’ its implications, and consequences. In 1921 he published his first book, Manhood of Humanity: The Art and Science of Human Engineering. Then in 1933, he wrote the source book for the field of study we know as General Semantics—Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics.

Because our language-behaviors are so integral to human cooperation, as well as human conflict, much (not all) of Korzybski’s General Semantics directly addresses the role of language and language habits in human behavior.

Language Matters

To underscore how deeply language is ingrained as a human behavior, consider:

With language we can:

And with language we can also:

  • speak, write, read, and listen;
  • think and express our feelings;
  • analyze and solve problems;
  • establish rules, regulations, laws, policies, procedures, ordinances, and standards;
  • reach compromises, agreements, settlements, resolutions and contracts;
  • understand, to be understood, and to pass on our understandings to others;
  • dream, imagine, contemplate, cogitate, deliberate, create, innovate and ponder.
  • mislead, misinform, and misunderstand;
  • deny, suppress, inhibit, prohibit and limit what others do and say;
  • rule, dictate, terrorize, intimidate, indoctrinate and alienate;
  • generalize, categorize, stereotype, pigeonhole and profile;
  • lie, cheat, steal, quibble, libel, slander, sue and defraud;
  • perpetuate myths, superstitions, prejudices, feuds, and atavistic traditions;
  • create and exacerbate fear, anxiety, regret, guilt, jealousy, paranoia, suspicion, and hate.

(Stockdale, 2009, p. 24)


Language plays a tremendous role in human affairs. It serves as a means of cooperation and as a weapon of conflict. With it, men can solve problems, erect the towering structures of science and poetry — and talk themselves into insanity and social confusion (Lee, 1958, p.60).


Korzybski’s Quest

I think it’s helpful to consider Korzybski’s work from 1920 to 1950 in the context of three broad concerns that shaped the arc of his personal “quest” (my term, not his).

  1. What makes the human species human? In other words, what are the similarities among humans that differentiate us from other species, that distinguish the organism named Smith from his canine best friend named Fido?
  2. What accounts for the vast differences in behaviors that are exhibited among humans such that, within one generation, we can produce Gandhi, Hitler, Einstein, and Stalin?
  3. Is it possible to characterize these vast differences such that we can more rapidly increase behaviors that advance and progress humanity, while minimizing the atavistic behaviors that retard or regress humanity?
The task of engineering science is not only to know but to know how (Korzybski, 1993, p. 11).

1. What makes humans human? Time-binding

Alfred Korzybski’s education focused on the sciences, especially chemistry and engineering. He had a deep curiosity about how things worked. Therefore in considering this first question, Korzybski sought an operational definition of humans — not merely a verbal definition. What did humans do that was different from non-human forms of life?

Plants as Chemistry-binders

First Korzybski considered plants. What do plants do? Plants absorb, or bind, specific chemicals in their immediate environment — nutrients from the soil and water — and together with the effects of sunlight (for above-ground plants), reproduce cells and produce growth. Plant growth and reproduction are influenced by other environmental factors such as climate, gravity, and (of course) plant-eating animals and pollinating insects, just to name a few.

Korzybski therefore distinguished plants by their ability to bind together the elements of their environment within and to their own organisms in order to produce and sustain life. He referred to them as chemistry-binders.


Animals as Space-binders

Turning to the animal kingdom (including birds and fish), Korzybski determined that, operationally, what animals do includes everything that plants do with one crucial difference. Animals possess (to varying degrees) the ability to move about in their environment. If the source of its food or water depletes, an animal can move to another place. The ability to move about in space also provides animals with defensive, and offensive, capabilities in their relations with other animals.

Based on this defining characteristic of being able to move about throughout their spacial environment, Korzybski referred to animals as space-binders in that they ‘binded’ the spaces within their living territory.


Humans as Time-binders

MOH-cover-150.jpgIn assessing what humans do, over and above the capabilities of animals, Korzybski determined that the most critical difference is the ability to create, manipulate, record, and transform symbols. For him, however, the consequence of this uniquely-human capability was much more than just being able to think and communicate with symbols, words, signs, icons, etc.

Korzybski did not regard the human language capability itself as the defining characteristic of humans, but as the tool that enabled the capability that most differentiated humans from animals — the ability to transfer knowledge from human to human, within and across generations. Languages and other symbol systems, powered by the brain’s neo-cortex (Korzybski, 1993, p. 149) provide humans with the means to document experiences, observations, tips, descriptions, etc., which means that a child can pick up from where the parent leaves off. Knowledge among the human species can therefore accumulate and advance as a body, not simply as random lessons taught and learned by copying, mimicing, or experience.

As a plant binds its chemical environment to reproduce and grow, and as an animal binds space to survive, humans are able to bind time such that a school girl in 2014 can learn physics from Isaac Newton, dance to an 18th-century waltz, become entranced by the words of a sacred ancient text, and try to keep with Facebook’s ever-changing privacy settings. Like the plants that ‘bind’ chemicals directly into the living cells of their own organisms, and the animals that ‘bind’ their movements within their environments, humans bind time by the activities and changes of their individual brains.

Korzybski coined the term time-binding to denote this defining capability of human time-binders, first described in his 1921 book, Manhood of Humanity. He wrote:

We know that time-binding capacity — the capacity for accumulating racial [of the human race] experience, enlarging it, and transmitting it for future expansion — is the peculiar power, the characteristic energy, the definitive nature, the defining mark, of man; … to make improvement — to do greater things by help of things already done — are of the very nature of the time-binding capacity which makes humans human (Korzybski, 1993, pp. 174-175).


All human achievements are cumulative; no one of us can claim any achievement exclusively as his own; we all must use consciously or unconsciously the achievements of others, some of them living but most of them dead (Korzybski, 1990a, p. 13).


 2. What accounts for the differences in human behavior? Evaluating

While Korzybski defined time-binding as a characteristic human capacity (or capability), he knew from first-hand experience in World War I that human behavior did not always result in “improvement” or “greater things.” Therefore he contemplated how it was that some humans sought to advance and progress “human weal” (Korzybski, 1993, p. 1) while others sought to murder, steal, and subjugate other humans for their own selfish weal.

As we will emphasize throughout the course, Korzybski drew a sharp distinction between what we experience in our lives, and our reactions to those experiences. What our nervous system can sense and experience is but an abstraction of the total possible experience, and our reactions to what happens are yet another abstraction.

Because people can expect to experience the ‘same’ event or situation differently, their reactions to the experience will inevitably be different. Influenced by his understanding of the tropism effect from biology (plant growth results from the effects of external stimulation from light, moisture, gravity, etc.), Korzybski initially coined the term semantic reaction to refer to the total response of a human to a meaningful event or experience. However, in his later work he came to use the more general evaluational reaction or simply evaluation to denote human behavioral reactions as the collective or cumulative impact of one’s abstractions. Evaluations would therefore include activities we label as judgments, conclusions, opinions, beliefs, ideologies, etc. Here is a table of terms that could be considered under the umbrella term of evaluating.

adapt administer advertise analyze
anticipate apply appraise argue
arrange articulate ask assemble
assess associate break down calculate
categorize change choose cite
classify collaborate combine compare
compile complete compose compute
conclude connect consider construct
contrast convert convince copy
correlate create criticize critique
debate decide deduce defend
define demonstrate describe design
determine develop devise diagram
differentiate discover discriminate discuss
dissect distinguish divide dramatize
duplicate editorialize employ enumerate
establish estimate examine experiment
explain express extend facilitate
find focus formulate generalize
grade group hypothesize identify
illustrate imagine indicate infer
integrate interpret intervene interview
invent judge justify label
list listen locate manage
manipulate match measure memorize
modify name negotiate observe
omit order organize outline
paint paraphrase persuade plan
point out practice predict prepare
prioritize produce propose question
quote rank rate read
rearrange recall recite recognize
recommend record reframe relate
reorganize report represent reproduce
research review revise schematize
select separate show simulate
sketch solve speculate state
structure subdivide substitute summarize
support survey tabulate teach
tell test trace transfer
transform translate validate visualize
weigh write

So in assessing the differences in human behaviors, Korzybski theorized that these differences were matters of evaluation, due to the different meanings that individuals attached to events and experiences, based on their own individual values.

In Week 5, we’ll address the “big picture” implications of his theories about the complex inter-relationships among evaluations, meanings, and values. Here are some examples that may give you a feel for what Korzybski was getting at:

  • The European Union is divided over the ongoing financial crises in Greece and other countries. Generalizing and simplifying … the citizens in Greece evaluate the crisis differently than German citizens because the austerity that is being forced on Greece means something very different to the Greek than it means to the German. The Greek and the German evaluate the situation differently because the situation means something different because they hold different values.
  • The Tea Party in the United States evaluates the significance of U.S. debt and government spending levels differently from other political groups because of the meaning that Tea Partiers give to government debt based on their values.
  • People around the world hold different evaluations about global warming/climate change based what the phenomenon means to them and what values they hold. To the citizen of the Maldives, the threat of rising oceans bears meaningful consequences because they value their way of life (not to mention their actual lives), so they evaluate the evidence and forecasts about global warming one way. The owner/operator/customers of a coal-burning electricity plant in the remote southwest U.S., they evalute the issue differently because their economic and political values are affected in different meaningful ways.
  • The ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan can be considered in terms of different evaluations based on conflicting values and meanings.

3. How to characterize a method or system that can be taught, learned, and applied?

Korzybski published his time-binding theory in Manhood of Humanity in 1921. Throughout the 1920s, he worked through the implications of his theory, including his detailed analysis and description of the abstracting process that produced individual evaluations.

ss-cover-150.jpgFor two years he observed patients at St. Elizabeth’s mental hospital in Washinton, D.C. He carefully noted the language of the mentally ill, specifically how in many instances their language (maps) did not match the ‘real’ world (territory), which reflected pathological cases of misevaluation.

In contrast to the extremes of such inappropriate language behavior resulting from misevaluations, Korzybski studied the effective and productive language behaviors of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, artists, writers, etc. He worked diligently to analyze and understand the language behaviors at both ends of these two extremes. He specifically sought a way to articulate and communicate how a misevaluation differed operationally from an appropriate evaluation.

The result of Korzybski’s investigations and contemplations were published in 1933 in the source book for General Semantics, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. In it, Korzybski:

  1. describes the biological and neurological basis for his work,
  2. offers a detailed diagnosis of the many varieties of mistakes, errors, and misevaluations that humans consistently manifest,
  3. proffers prescriptions for recognizing, minimizing, and avoiding the causes of these misevaluations, and
  4. explains methods of teaching and learning these prescriptions.

For more on the life of Alfred Korzybski, check out Bruce Kodish’s thorough and worthwhile Korzybski: A Biography (link to Amazon.com listing).

Map|Territory: Foundational Premises

Base for The Map is Not the Territory

Artwork by Alice Webb Art

Alfred Korzybski used the Map|Territory analogy to illustrate three foundational premises of his General Semantics.

The Map|Territory Analogy

1. The map is not the territory.

A map depicts only limited aspects of the territory it represents or symbolizes. For a map to be useful, it must accurately reflect the relative structure or relationships of the key features of the territory. Similarly, our language behaviors can be thought of as maps of our actual life experiences. These verbal expressions of how and what we think, feel, react, judge, assume, etc., should be in accordance with the ‘territory’ of our lived experiences. And on a pre-verbal level, we can use the metaphor to remember that even our lived experiences — what we see, hear, feel, smell, taste, etc. — are neurological constructs (‘maps’) of whatever it is in the ‘real’ world outside ourselves that we are seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting.

Of course, “the map is not the territory!”

It’s rather easy to dismiss this statement of the obvious. Got it! Let’s move on.

But let’s not be so quick to take these six words for granted. Arguably, the whole of General Semantics derives from this six-word premise and the consequences which follow. So let’s spend a few minutes considering the implications for Korzybski’s General Semantics.

The map is not the territory. What does this mean to you? Perhaps something like …

  • The word is not the thing.
  • The symbol is not the thing symbolized.
  • The name is not the thing named.
  • The referent is not the thing referenced.

In other words, a particular type of distinction is expressed: one thing is not the same thing as another thing which the one thing is represented by. More generally, an abstraction is not that from which the abstraction is abstracted. The map (an abstraction) is not the territory ( whatever is not an abstraction; but hold that thought until the summary of this page).

In the four examples above, the abstractions are characterized in terms easily recognizable as abstract terms — words, symbols, names, referents.

However, in Korzybski’s General Semantics the pre-eminent, or foundational, map|territory distinction involves two seemingly non-abstract entities.

2. The map cannot show all of the territory.

Maps are limited in size and detail. They can only depict selected items of interest or importance. Similarly, our language behaviors — our talking, listening, writing, thinking — are limited and cannot include or comprehend all of whatever we are trying to describe or understand. And on a pre-verbal level, the maps of what we are seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling account for only a fraction of what exists in the territory of the ‘real’ world.

So in Korzybski’s term, we can think of a map as an abstraction of the territory it symbolizes; the words we use to express ourselves as an abstraction of the thoughts and feelings we experience; and even those thoughts and feelings as abstractions of whatever stimulates our sensory experiences with the ‘real’ world.

3. A map is self-reflexive and made by a map-maker.

Maps, like money, don’t grow on trees. They don’t spring forth from the earth or rain down from the heavens. Maps are constructed by their makers. A human being makes a map. An individual decides the purpose of the map, the size, the scale, the features to be included, how many copies will be made, who will use it, the colors, etc. In deciding all those details, the human map maker must also determine which features will not be included, which might be exaggerated or emphasized for importance, what descriptive annotations might be helpful. And if the map-maker were constructing a map of the territory which surrounded the map-maker herself, then a theoretically-complete map would include both the map itself and the map-maker.

In terms of our language behaviors, we can remember that whatever we “reduce to language,” or whatever thoughts and feelings we abstract from our experiences, are human constructions reflecting evaluations. We are making our own maps (evaluations) of our experiences, and we can also then evaluate our evaluations. In language, since we can almost endlessly talk about our talking, we are in a sense making maps of maps of maps, etc.

Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. If the map could be ideally correct, it would include, in a reduced scale, the map of the map; the map of the map, of the map; and so on, endlessly, a fact first noticed by [Josiah] Royce (Korzybski, 1994, p. 58).



Alfred Korzybski

Abstracting, in the context of Korzybski’s model, refers to physio-neurological processes that occur on non-verbal and verbal levels. From the world of energy stimulations that envelope us, our nervous systems abstract (or select, choose, pay attention to, etc.) only a fraction. From these partial, incomplete, and fleeting sensations, the nervous system must construct our conscious or aware experiences by matching patterns of stimuli with the brain’s ‘database’ of previous experiences.

Evaluating is used in much the same way as abstracting, although I consider it a higher-level, more generalized term in that we can cognitively evaluate the abstractions that result from our abstracting.

… we take for granted that all “perceptual processes” involve abstracting by our nervous system at different levels of complexity. Neurological evidence shows the selective character of the organism’s responses to total situations … that the mechanisms of “perception” lie in the ability of our nervous system to abstract and to project.


Abstracting by necessity involves evaluating, whether conscious or not, and so the process of abstracting may be considered as a process of evaluating stimuli, whether it be a “toothache,” “an attack of migraine,” or the reading of a “philosophical treatise.” A great many factors enter into “perceiving” … (Korzybski, 1990b, pp. 686-687).

Structural Differential

Structural Differential with LabelsAlfred Korzybski developed this diagram in the 1920’s as a means to visualize the abstracting process. Originally a three-dimensional, free-standing model (for which he applied for and received a U.S. patent; imagine a colander, or strainer, in place of the ragged parabola at the top), this printed version appeared in his source book for general semantics, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems.

The parabola represents an environment (the world around us) consisting of innumerable characteristics or events, depicted by the holes, or dots (activities, people, things, etc., including what occurs on microscopic and sub-microscopic levels (Event level).

Only some of these characteristics (the hanging strings) can be detected by human senses. Those which connect to the circle (Object level) represent a specific object sensed by a specific nervous system, which has abstracted a particular set of characteristics (those connective strings) from all possible characteristics occurring in the parabola.

These initial sensory data are further abstracted and transformed as the nervous system/brain recognizes and associates the data with a word or label. The tag below the circle represents the Descriptive (verbal) level of abstracting.

From the descriptive level, the verbal abstracting process proceeds with the Inference levels that can continue indefinitely (implied by the ragged bottom tag). In other words, from our descriptions of events we form inferences, assumptions, opinions, beliefs, etc., by generalizing this experience with our past experiences.

And we can continue, indefinitely, to form inferences from inferences, which may then be subsequently recalled in future experiences, noted by the arrow and dotted line to the right.

As we become aware of these sensory experiences, we can talk about them, describe them, express how we feel, what they mean, etc.

Throughout this abstracting process, we need to remember that what we talk about is not the same thing that our brain registers as an experience, which is also not the same as our initial sensing, which in turn is not the same as the actual stimulus or event.

Abstracting is something that your body-brain-nervous-system does continually, regardless of whether you’re aware of it.

The differential in structural differential refers to a functional difference between humans and animals. An animal’s ability to abstract, depicted by the circle to the left (“Fido”), is limited; a human can continue to abstract and make inferences indefinitely, whereas animals are limited in their abilities to make inferences.

The different levels that Korzybski defines in the model refer to aspects of the overall process which seem to consist of clearly differentiated orders, or types, of activity — from perception, to nervous system construction of the experience, to cognitive evaluation, to our response or reaction.

Here’s an edited video review of the Structural Differential as explained by Korzybski. (2:48)

Significance of Abstracting

Redrawn Differential”So what?” is a reasonable question to ask at this point. What practical difference can this differential make? Let’s look at an illustrated example using my own simplified version of Korzybski’s structural differential model.

E — The parabola represents the Event level, the “what is going on” (WIGO) in the world around us. Each dot, figure, and line stands for an aspect or characteristic of the sub-microscopic process level that comprises WIGO.

O — The circle labeled for Object represents a human nervous system (let’s assume mine) interacting with WIGO. Through my sensing organs and brain, I construct the sights, sounds, smells, etc., that result in my experiences. My experiences are incomplete and unique to my nervous system.

D — The first verbal level in the abstracting process is labeled as Descriptive. What I say, think, etc., at this level about my experience should be limited, as much as possible, to just the facts as I experienced them.

I — The I tags represent the multiple levels of Inferences I might construct from my experience. These inferences will determine what meaning or significance I draw from this experience. As indicated, I can generate as many inferences, beliefs, theories, judgments, conclusions, etc., as I might care to.

It’s important to remember how time, order, or sequence plays into this model. Each level of the abstracting process occurs in a given order, i.e.:

Something happens (Event);

I sense what happens (Object);

I recognize what happens (Description);

I generate meanings for what happens. (Inferences)

We can depict a succession of these abstracting processes over time, one after the other, for every moment of our lives. In this case, with successive abstracting processes, we can see how the inferences (or meanings) we generate from every experience can factor into later experiences.

Abstracting over time

In terms of differentiation, we should note that:

  1. What happens (Event) is NOT
  2. What I sense non-verbally within my nervous system (Object), which is NOT
  3. What I can describe verbally about my sensing (Description), which is NOT
  4. The meaning(s) I generate based on what happened; etc. (Inferences)

Similarly, our experience/inference/meaning at Time(3) is not the same experience/ inference/meaning at Time(1) but due to projection and memory, what we experience at Time(1) may well affect our Time(3) experience and what that experience means.

Example of the Abstracting Process

Let’s take a situation in which a friend — call her Emily — relates with some anger an experience she just had while driving to the store … “somebody cut me off!” We can use the Structural Differential to deconstruct her experience and emphasize the different ‘levels’ between what she experienced and what she evaluated.

Abstracting Example

Event — What is Going On? Street, traffic, trees, rain, wipers … plus microscopic and sub-microscopic particles and activities that we cannot observe, but which we infer based on current science.

Object — Emily’s eyes capture (some of the) reflected light from (some of the) images in her (limited) field of view; the light is transformed (abstracted) by her visual system into nervous system signals that travel to her brain; neurons in her brain process the electrical/chemical signals and cause her to see …

DescriptionI was driving about 25 miles per hour, perhaps 50 feet from the car ahead. A dark vehicle driven by a middle-aged man emerged from my right field of view. He was going faster than me. His car suddenly accelerated and veered into the lane directly in front of me, reducing my following distance to no more than 10 feet, which meant …

Inference(1)This guy’s a rude jerk because …

Inference(2)He cut me off and almost made me have a wreck!

Inference(x)I’m too upset to go to work. I need to go home and relax with my dog.

Can you see that “he cut me off” is not what happened? Can you see that Emily’s reaction to what happened is not the same as a description of what happened?

One of the powerful lessons of general semantics, illustrated by the use of this type of model to analyze the abstracting process, is that we can better train ourselves to respond conditionally to what happens to us.

We humans don’t have to react with a conditioned response like Pavlov’s dog, reacting to a substitute stimulus as if it were ‘real’ — but we often do.

Our language helps confuse us, because we tend to say things like, “Ooh, it made me so mad!” We allow the it — the event, the what happens, the stimulus — to determine our response. You need to remember that between the stimulus and your response, there is a YOU who, to some degree, can control your response:


Time(1) ——-> Time(2)——-> Time(3)

Again, ‘time’ is an important aspect of our conditional responses. Remember the old adage encouraging you to count to 10 before getting mad? There’s a lot of merit to be gained by practicing your ability to consciously — conditionally — delay your responses.

Summary of Abstracting


  • Abstracting refers to ongoing physio-neurological processes that occur on non-verbal levels.
  • We can verbally differentiate certain phases, or levels or orders, of the abstracting process to analyze our behaviors and reactions: EVENT is not OBJECT is not DESCRIPTION is not INFERENCE, etc.
  • We can acknowledge that our abstracting occurs at different times … we should expect different results, reactions, responses, etc., from different experiences occurring at different times.
  • We have human limitations that constrain all of our experiences — we never experience all of what happens.
  • Similarly, we can never say all or describe all about our experiences; more could always be said. Etc.
  • What we experience is, to some degree, a function of our past experiences (feedback, projection, etc.).
  • What we experience is a function of the unique capabilities and limitations of our own individual nervous system.
  • We should therefore expect not only to see things differently, we should expect to evaluate and react to things differently.
  • When we delay our responses and react conditionally, we tend to behave more sanely, more rationally, more appropriately to the facts of the situation and our experience.

When we react immediately — when our responses are conditioned and controlled by the stimulus (the ‘thing’) — we behave like Pavlov’s dog and subject ourselves to control by others. You can use this model and process whenever you want to analyze the behavior, responses, reactions, etc., of a particular individual in a specific situation. (Personally, I find this type of analysis works best when the particular individual happens to be my ownself.) Remember that the structural differential model, or any similar model, represents the process of abstracting. 4 Steps of Abstracting

The more you apply this process to analyze your own abstracting, evaluating, inference-making, belief-generating, etc.:

  • you will become more aware and conscious of your own abstracting;
  • you will better differentiate between: 1) what happens; 2) what you sense of what happens; 3) what you describe of what your senses sense; and 4) what you infer from what you’ve described;
  • you will respond more conditionally to what happens in your life;
  • you will experience less conditioned responses (less like Pavlov’s dog);
  • you will delay more of your responses, leap to fewer conclusions, snap to fewer judgments, and make fewer inappropriate assumptions;
  • you will ____________ (fill in your own benefit).

Here’s another clip of Irving J. Lee talking about abstracting and evaluating.

passbox.jpgYou’ve finished the article that explains the Structural Differential and the abstracting-evaluating process. In that article, I use the example of Emily and her “somebody cut me off” story to illustrate how her statement that somebody cut me off did not accurately map the territory of her actual experience while driving.

For 30 points, share a story from your own experiences, or make up a story, that could be used to illustrate the process by which we abstract from an event, to an experience, to a description, to inferences. Please keep your stories short, no more than 200 words.

After you’ve posted your story, feel free to comment on other stories.

Two Worlds

As a consequence of our abstracting-evaluating processes, you can say we live in two worlds — the world that exists out there beyond our skin, and the world in here within our skin. What each of us knows about the world out there is constructed by our in here nervous systems based on our individual sensory interactions with the world out there.

As early as the 1920s, Korzybski extended the mathematical and linguistic notions of abstraction to refer to the biological and neurological functions by which our senses-brains-nervous-systems abstract (or construct) our experience of the world “out there.”


In this video (created using silent movie footage and separate audio recording), Korzybski emphasized the role of abstraction in how our internal nervous system makes sense of our external world.

Although these recordings are from the1940s, Korzybski had worked through the premise and consequences of abstracting by 1923 (Korzybski, 1990, p. 33). In a series of lectures at Olivet College in 1937, Korzybski explained:

I showed you that disc that was made up of rotating blades—it was really rotating blades, not a disc. That disc did not actually exist. Your nervous system manufactured it inside your heads. This applies to all ‘matter.’ All you see is a nervous construct that you have made up. It is a process. Anything you see is made up of rotating electrons. What you feel is not what you see. It turns out that anything we can see is only a stimulus to our nervous system and therefore the ‘object’ we see had ‘reality’ only within us, although the outside electronic image has independent reality (Korzybski, 2002, p. 122).


And yet, the ‘fact’ that humans construct or abstract their experiences of the external world of ‘reality’ has still not been absorbed by most educated adults. As evidence, following are four attempts by 21st-century neuroscience authorites to educate the public about this specific distinction that Korzybski matter-of-factly recognized 90 years ago.

1) Christof Koch

Formerly the head of the Koch Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology and currently the Chief Scientific Officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, Christof Koch is the author of The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach (Koch, 2004). In 2005, he delivered the the annual J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Lecture in Los Alamos, NM, where he presented several visual demonstrations.

In the 2:27 clip below (which I have edited for instructional purposes; the effect is shown twice, then the audio is repeated a third time with on-screen captions) he illustrated the visual effect known as afterimage. Following the demonstration, he summarized the significance of the effect:

It belies the simple notion there’s a one-to-one relationship between the outside world and my inner mental experiences. … So clearly this naive, realistic view that there’s a world, there’s my head and this simple mapping, it can’t be true. (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2005)


Koch later expands on this distinction between the “outer world” and our “inner mental experiences” and underscores the fact that our brains construct our perceptions:

Conscious perception is, in a sense, a con job of the brain. It suggests there’s a stable world out there and there’s a very simple relationship between what’s out there in the world and what’s inside our head but in fact it’s a very complicated relationship. It [conscious perception] is actively constructed by our brain. We’re now beginning to understand that what I see in my head is actually constructed by my head, by my neurons (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2005).


2) Jeff Hawkins

Jeff Hawkins invented the Palm Pilot personal digital assistant (PDA), co-founded Palm Computing, and later founded the Redwood Neuroscience Institute which became the Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience (now associated with the University of California at Berkeley). In 2004, he co-authored with Sandra Blakeslee the best-selling book, On Intelligence (Hawkins & Blakeslee, 2004).

In 2009, he delivered the J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Lecture to the affluent, well-educated audience of Los Alamos, NM. His address was titled, “Why can’t a computer be more like a brain?” He ended his presentation with a question period. In response to the final question, Hawkins felt it necessary to reiterate this important, “hard to believe,” out there | in here distinction.

(referring to the continual firing of neurons in the cortex and the brain’s recognition of patterns) That is the currency of the brain. That’s it. That’s what your brain works on. And believe it or not, I said this in the beginning and I’ll say it again, your perception of the world is not … it’s really a fabrication of your model of the world. You don’t really see light or sound. You perceive it because your model says this is how the world is, and those patterns invoke the model. It’s hard to believe, but it really is true (J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee, 2009).


Here’s the video clip (1:48).

In their book, Hawkins and Blakeslee expand on the point:

All our knowledge of the world is a model based on patterns. … This is not to say that the people or objects aren’t really there. They are really there. But our certainty of the world’s existence is based on the consistency of patterns and how we interpret them. There is no such thing as direct perception.


Can we trust that the world is as it seems? Yes. The world really does exist in an absolute form very close to how we perceive it. However, our brains can’t know about the absolute world directly.


The brain knows about the world through a set of senses, which can only detect parts of the absolute world. The senses create patterns that are sent to the cortex, and processed by the same cortical algorithms to create a model of the world. … Through these patterns the cortex constructs a model of the world that is close to the real thing, and then, remarkably, holds it in memory (Hawkins & Blakeslee, 2004, pp. 63-64).

3) Eric Kandel

Dr. Eric Kandel won the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his study of memory. Beginning in the fall of 2009, he co-hosted a special series of interviews with Charlie Rose on the brain. As of October 2013, more than 25 episodes have aired ranging from the anatomy of the brain to consciousness to emotions to diseases to creativity. Here is a linked listing of all the episodes with video excerpts and synopses for each episode.

In the second episode of the series (Da Cunha, 2009b) that focused on the human visual system, Dr. Kandel felt this notion that the brain “re-constructs” (Kandel’s term) our sense of the world was worth emphasizing both at the beginning and end of the interview. Without using Korzybski’s terminology, Kandel2009 provides a succinct, updated description of abstracting1923. Here’s the 1:13 excerpt.

4) Stephen Macknik and Susanna Martinez-Conde

Neuroscience researchers and co-authors of Sleights of Mind: What the neuroscience of magic reveals about our everyday deceptions, put it this way:

The spooky truth is that your brain constructs reality, visual and otherwise. What you see, hear, feel, and think is based on what you expect to see, hear, feel, and think. In turn, your expectations are based on all your prior experiences and memories.

Magicians understand at a deeply intuitive level that you alone create your experiences of reality … they exploit the fact that your brain does a staggering amount of outright confabulation in order to construct the mental stimulation of reality known as “consciousness.” This is not to say that objective reality isn’t “out there” in a very real sense. But all you get to experience is a simulation. The fact that consciousness feels like a solid, robust, fact-rich transcript of reality is just one of the illusions your brain creates for itself. Think about it. The same neural machinery that interprets actual sensory inputs is also responsible for your dreams, delusions, and failings of memory. The real and the imagined share a physical source in your brain (Macknik & Martinez-Conde, 2010, pp. 8-9).

Catching up with Korzybski?

Even though Koch, Hawkins, Kandel, Macknik, and Martinez-Conde don’t refer to abstracting or evaluating, their descriptions of the process by which we create or re-construct our sense of the outside world validate Korzybski’s foundational premises. Amazingly, what Korzybski grasped almost instinctively or intuitively 90 years ago has been verified, confirmed, and now accepted by neuroscientists … and yet they themselves still feel it necessary to use phrases like:

  • “It’s hard to believe but it really is true.”
  • “We’re now beginning to understand that what I see in my head is actually constructed by my head, by my neurons.”
  • “It makes us realize how magical the brain is.”
  • “The spooky truth is that your brain constructs reality …”


A. We need to acknowledge and take into account the characteristics of these two worlds.


B. We need to understand that even our most basic sense experiences of the out-there world are created by our brains.


C. We need to maintain awareness, and take responsibility, for the neurological fact of this foundational distinction — what we experience in here is not what’s out there to be experienced.

In Korzybski’s terminology, we need to maintain a consciousness of abstracting, beginning with the understanding that everything we experience represents an abstraction of something else. In a very real sense, all we can ‘know’ are abstractions and associated neurological constructions.


… we used and still use a terminology of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, both extremely confusing, as the so-called ‘objective’ must be considered a construct made by our nervous system, and what we call ‘subjective’ may also be considered ‘objective’ for the same reasons (Korzybski, 1990c, p.650).


Language(s) as Map(s)

Artwork by Alice Webb

Artwork by Alice Webb Art

The Importance of Constructing Proper ‘Maps’

Humans can build on the knowledge of prior generations. Alfred Korzybski referred to this capability as time-binding. Language serves as the principle tool that facilitates time-binding. Language also serves as a guiding influence in shaping our world view and life experiences.

We can apply the map-territory analogy to evaluate our language habits and behaviors. As a map represents a territory, so our language symbolizes our thoughts, emotions, ideas, opinions, and experiences. To the degree that the maps we construct accurately portray the structural relationships of the territory, they serve us well.

If, however, the maps we construct inaccurately depict  the relationships among the territory of our experiences, they can result in trouble. To best serve our own time-binding interests, our verbal ‘maps’ ought to be congruent and consistent with the realities of our non-verbal ‘territories’.

On the previous page, we learned that current brain scientists agree that what we have naively believed were direct experiences of ‘reality’ we are instead experiences that we construct within each of our own brains, minds, and nervous systems.

How does this knowledge affect our language habits and behaviors?

We ought to easily recognize, then, that ancient notions such as objective or absolute reality do not accurately reflect the limitations of our nervous systems as they interact with the outside world. Therefore language structures, patterns, or terms that rely on this false-to-fact notion that what I experience (or say) “is” the same as what exists “out there” in the world misrepresent, mislead, and misinform. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group … We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. — Edward Sapir (Carroll, 1956, p. 134)


Language Misbehaviors

No language is perfect. Every language, being man-made and not inherent or inerrant, has structural flaws and cannot properly reflect the structure of the world we uniquely sense and experience. If we accept the view that language(s) shape, influence, affect, etc., how a given culture constructs the ‘realities’ of that culture’s experiences, behavioral norms, world view, etc. (Ramachandran, Sapir, and others), then it behooves us as individuals and societies to acknowledge these flaws and revise our language habits and behaviors accordingly.

In addition to these structural flaws, individuals are prone to commit errors that result from lack of awareness of the abstracting/ evaluating process, conventional language habits and usages, or careless inattention.

Some of the symptoms of language misbehaviors include:

  1. We uncritically accept our perceptions of the world ‘out there’ as complete, accurate, and “the way it is.”
  2. We fail to consider the perceptions and perspectives of others who see “the way it is” differently than we do.
  3. We confuse the word itself with what the word stands for.
  4. We act as if words have ‘meanings’ on their own, without respect to individuals and context.
  5. We mistake or confuse facts with inferences, assumptions, beliefs, etc.
  6. We simplistically consider issues in terms of either-or, black or white, right or wrong, good or bad; we do not account for “shades of gray.”
  7. We tend to look for and recognize similarities more than differences, which results in mistaken generalizations, stereotypes, biases, etc.
  8. We forget or overlook the fact that every person and every thing changes over time.
  9. We use language to verbally ‘separate’ what cannot be separated in the real world (ex. mind from body, thoughts from feelings, style from content, form from function, “pure” reason or emotion, etc.).

Developing New Language Behaviors and Attitudes

Our language habits can affect our physiological behavior; we can allow what we see, hear, say, etc., to affect our blood pressure, pulse, rate of breathing, etc. As we become more aware of our verbal and non-verbal behaviors, we can practice techniques to achieve greater degrees of relaxation, less stress, greater sense of our environment, etc.

When we respond automatically, without exercising control over our response, we allow the stimulus to condition or determine our response. In other words, we behave more like Pavlov’s dog than an aware human being when we let someone or something “push our emotional hot buttons.”

Korzybski referred to two aspects of these behavioral implications of our internal language habits. He continually stressed the importance of what he called “cortico-thalamic” integration (Korzybski, 1994, p. xxvi). By this he meant that there needed to be a balanced integration of the new brain (the cortex) and the old or reptilian brain (which in the terminology of the time he referred to generally as the thalamus – what we now understand to be the amygdala). In other words, he described how, with proper awareness, one could use the capabilities of the cortex to temper, dampen, or even override the emotional or reactive responses of the thalamus/amygdala.

He emphasized that aware humans have the ability to respond conditionally to both non-verbal and symbolic stimuli. In other words, we have some degree of control over our response to a specific stimulus.

This is the gist of what current neuroscientists and psychologists now refer to with new terms, as evidenced in this excerpt of four clips from the PBS series “This Emotional Life” with Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert (Sweet & Gilbert, 2010).

If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimation of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment. — Marcus Aurelius

We cannot command the wind, but we can adjust our sails. — Anonymous


Our ability to achieve “maximum humanness” and evolve to our human potential is a function of how accurately our language behaviors (what we do) reflect and are consistent with what we know. Therefore can evaluate our language behaviors according to criteria such as how well we:

  • maintain an ongoing attitude of “to-me-ness;”
  • hold our opinions, judgments, beliefs, and assumptions with a degree of tentativeness and willingness to change if new information or experiences warrant;
  • live comfortably with uncertainty;
  • exercise a healthy degree of skepticism and inquisitiveness;
  • strive for more description and less opinion, as approriate to the occasion;
  • strive for more unique and personal observations in our pronouncements, and fewer cliches, stock phrases, aphorisms, and conventional wisdoms;
  • look for differences among similarities, as well as recognize similarities among differences, seeing both the forest and the trees, depending on the circumstances; and
  • maintain a deserved sense of humility and minimize know-it-all attitudes.

Consciousness of Abstracting

One of the expressed goals in General Semantics is what Korzybski referred to as “consciousness of abstracting.” In other words, the objective of learning anything is to apply it in some way to one’s own circumstances, and one way to apply GS is to maintain an ongoing awareness of the abstracting process.

That’s all well and good, but then one can ask, “what is it exactly that I’m supposed to be conscious or aware of?” After all, abstracting, as you may have observed thus far in the course, can be a rather … abstract … notion to grasp.

Therefore the following table may help summarize some of the key differences between maintaining an awareness of your own abstracting processes, compared to remaining unaware of abstracting.



Presumption of Allness, what is experienced or sensed is exactly what is there to be experienced. Aware of the abstracting process and limitations of the nervous system, recognition that one can never know or experience all about anything.
Conditioned responses, jump to conclusions, make snap judgments. Conditional responses, delayed reactions.
Bypassing – presuming that meanings are in words, that listeners presume speakers should use words the same way the listener uses them. Meanings are found in individuals and how they use words; ask what does the speaker mean? Definitions in dictionaries, meanings in people.
Two-valued, either-or, right-wrong, good-evil thinking. Multi-valued thinking, acknowledging shades of grey.
Talking is prone to absolutisms, certainty, closed-mindedness. Talking recognizes limitations of abstracting process, open-minded, tentative, acknowledges degrees of uncertainty.
Confusion between facts and inferences/observations, low standard for what is treated as fact. Prone to treat inference statements as if they were factual statements. Aware of differences between facts and inferences, sets a high bar for facts: 1) must have already occurred; 2) must be personally observed/experienced; 3) as close to certainty as humanly possible.
Assumptions are bad and should be avoided. Assumptions are inevitable and useful for time-binding, but need to be acknowledged and brought to awareness as much as possible.


Seeing (Visual Abstracting)

On this and the following pages, we present a variety of images, media files, and articles that illustrate different aspects of abstracting and evaluating.

Take care to note your reactions to the images and videos seen below in your Personal journal or in the Ongoing Course Discussion.

1. Visualizing Abstracting

Used/published with permission of the artist, Paul Dennithorne Johnston.


2. Benham Disc

This 3-minute video has no sound.


3. Vision Explained

From the Charlie Rose Brain Series (Da Cunha, 2009a), Dr. Eric Kandel and the panel explain how the visual system works, without using the word abstracting, but they summarize in detail the abstracting process that Korzybski articulated.

4. Vision Confusion

Also from the Charlie Rose Brain Series ((Da Cunha, 2009a), these examples illustrate how our eyes-brain-visual-system is not a perfect recorder of how we convert our “out there” sensations into “in here” sensory experiences.

In some cases, our brains have been trained to interpret certain visual stimuli in very specific, and sometimes misleading, ways. In other cases we can recognize certain images (such as faces) with very sketchy and ambiguous inputs.

In other words, the result of what we abstract is not the same as the object of what we are abstracting.


5. Seeing what’s not there

Too often we tend to think of the abstracting process only in terms of a reducing filter, selecting and rejecting the sensory stimuli. We forget or overlook a key part of the process – even at the neurological level, our brains have to make inferences and guesses as they try to make sense of what we sense. As demonstrated with the Benham disc, sometimes what the brain constructs and reports is only a rough approximation of the ‘territory.’

Here is another example. Can you count the black dots in this image?



Dimples and Bumps

As one illustration of these visual abstracing principles, look at the following image. This image includes what might be considered as “dimples” which appear to recede into the image, and “bumps” which appear to come out of the image. How many “dimples” and how many “bumps” do you see?


Now rotate it 180 degrees. How many “dimples” and how many “bumps” do you see from this perspective? (It’s the same image, just turned upside-down.)


Dimples and Bumps in the ‘Real World’

The two photographs below were grabbed from this story on CNET.com. Each depicts a satellite image as it was shown in the article, paired with the same photo rotated 180 degrees. What differences do you see, based on the orientation of the photo, with respect to relative height? Is the Citadel of Aleppo on a hill or in a crater? Is the Colorado River elevated above its surrounding terrain or at the bottom of a canyon?

Citadel of Aleppo, Syria


Colorado River, United States



Contribute to Ongoing Course Discussion      Add to your Personal Journal

Hearing (Auditory Abstracting)

Take care to note your reactions to what you hear below in your Personal journal or in the Ongoing Course Discussion.

1. Hearing Explained

From the Charlie Rose Brain Series (Da Cunha, 2013c), Dr. David Corey explains the hearing process. Again, he doesn’t use the term abstracting, but he describes the process that Korzybski highlighted 90 years ago.


2. A Listening Demonstration

This video illustrates that sometimes we need pointers to direct our sensing.

3.  My Tinnitus

mri-250.jpgAbout four years ago, experiencing the quiet and stillness of a full moon and late night in the high desert south of Santa Fe, NM, I noticed that it wasn’t quite as quiet as I expected. I was hearing something … something like a high-frequency buzzing in my left ear.

After extensive testing at the nearby veteran’s hospital (including an MRI), it was clear I was experiencing tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, a fairly common affliction associated with aging. My hearing wasn’t degraded in any way, it’s just that I have this continual whine in my left ear, predominantly, which isn’t really noticeable unless it’s quiet.

The medical community have a variety of theories about what causes tinnitus, but nothing conclusive. The only real treatment is to wear something that looks like a hearing aid that emits a masking tone (not dissimilar from noise-canceling headphones), but even that has mixed results.

It’s very strange. I hear something, but what I’m hearing isn’t “out there” … it’s something that my own brain is creating. And it’s not like hearing some other audible internal process like when your stomach growls, or … well, I won’t list other internal bodily processes that you hear on occasion. But it’s a very personal reminder to me that my brain is creating everything I experience – even when it’s self-created.


3 Buckets

Consider this demonstration in terms of differentiating between what happens on non-verbal levels as compared to what can be verbalized. What do the results of this activity suggest about verbal constructs such as absolute and relative?

If you have access to three buckets or large bowls, water and five minutes, you can gain some insights to the relative nature of your conditioning by doing this exercise.

Helping Hands and Buckets Put cold water in one bucket, or bowl, placed to your left, comfortably hot water in a bowl to your right, and lukewarm (“just right”) water in a middle bowl. Place your left hand in the cold water and your right hand in the comfortably hot water. Keep your hands submerged in the water for about a minute. Then raise both hands and place them in the middle bowl.

What do your senses tell you about the water temperature in the middle bowl?

You’re probably sharp enough to speculate what happens. (But go ahead and do it for yourself anyway.) Your left hand, conditioned by the cold water, tells you that the middle water is “warmer”; while your right hand, conditioned by the comfortably hot water tells you the middle water is “cooler.” You have only one stimulus – the middle bowl of water – but you have two different sensory responses. Which one is “right” or “true”?

Just like the left and right hands in the experiment, we are each ‘conditioned’ by our past. Each of us has lived through our own unique, no-two-the-same life experiences. To every new situation or experience, we bring our own unique perspectives and attitudes resulting from our past experiences. We therefore can’t help but experience each situation uniquely from anyone else. If we fail to recognize this – if we expect others to see or feel or smell or otherwise experience something exactly the same as we do – then we forget the lesson of the three water buckets:

This (warmer water to the left hand) is not that (cooler water to the right hand); or
This (high school experience of a student from Harwood Junior High) is not that (high school experience of a student from Euless Junior High);
This (what I find “pretty”) is not that (what you find “ugly”).
This (what I find “funny”) is not that (what you find “revolting”).
This (what I find “offensive”) is not that (what you find “satirical”).


In General Semantics, the behavior we label identification is normally to be avoided, or at least recognized. We talk about it as a misevaluation in that when we identify, we confuse or mistake our impression or reaction to something as the something itself. Put another way, we allow the stimulus to determine our response, without deliberately or conditionally evaluating the stimulus (like Pavlov’s dog). Examples of identification include:

  • Mistaking the word as the thing, or the map as the territory. With a map in hand, some people will presume the map is correct and the land around them “should” be like the map. An extreme example would be someone eating a menu because the pictures of the food look so tasty.
  • Have you ever been disappointed when you arrived at a hotel by your Deluxe accommodations?
  • I read a product review recently on Amazon.com recently in which an outraged reader wrote a negative review of a plastic product made by a company called Steelmaster. This, even though the reader acknowledged the product was described as being made of plastic.
  • Imagine someone who is allergic to something, like a flower. If you gave that person a very real-looking silk flower, and the person had an allergic reaction, that would be identification.
  • Someone who eats an unfamiliar food, then later has a rather upsetting reaction when informed what the food was, isn’t reacting to the food. The person is reacting to the sound of the name of the food. The verbalized name is associated (identified) with a previous or imagined terrible experience and that drives the reaction.

Can you recall or imagine other examples of identification? Feel free to share them in the Ongoing Course Discussion.

Phantom Limb Pain

Following, however, is an example of identification that resulted in a positive and therapeutic result for someone experiencing “phantom limb” pain. This features Dr. V.S. Ramachandran from the 2001 PBS documentary, “Secrets of the Mind.”


The Marshmallow Experiment

Dr. Walter Mischel’s famous “Marshmallow Experiment” relates to his study of children’s ability to delay gratification. However, one of the secondary findings, according to Mischel, is that this identification mechanism can be manipulated to increase, or decrease, a child’s ability to delay gratification.

In this clip from The Charlie Rose Brain Series, Dr. Mischel explains the experiment and its findings. The discussion about the experiment begins at the 2:00 point. The description of identification (he doesn’t use Korzybski’s term) begins at 7:40 mark.



Maps without Territories

In his Your Most Enchanted Listener (Johnson, 1956b), Wendell Johnson explores the special kind of talking we do with ourselves. He called this “inner speech” and observed that, “The worlds we manage to get inside our heads are mostly worlds of words.”

As we have emphasized throughout this first module, we can evaluate our language behaviors in the way we can judge the effectiveness of a map – do our behaviors properly and appropriately reflect the ‘territories’ of our lived experiences?

Johnson’s observation begs the question, what happens when all we put into our heads are words? When those words/maps have no corresponding experience/territory, what then?

The examples on this page illustrate that we are prone to certain kinds of evaluations and behaviors in the absence of any “out there” stimuli.

1. Higher levels of abstracting

From the PBS Series “The Human Spark” (Lipworth & Chedd, 2010) narrated by Alan Alda featuring Daniel Povinelli discussing differences between humans and chips to evaluate highly-abstract thoughts and concepts … like “heavy” and “light.”


2. Inventing the unobservable

From the same documentary, Povinelli discusses one difference between humans and chimps that may not always be productive. Can you think of some examples?



3. Attention hijacking

Daniel Goleman, in a radio interview with Diane Rehm on National Public Radio, describes one example of how we can let the words in our heads, in partnership with our brain’s older structures, create worlds of their own.

from the online transcript:

GOLEMAN: Well, here’s the problem. The way the brain was designed worked very well in ancient days when we lived in jungles, and we, you know, there was a Saber-tooth tiger and we had to have this radar for threats called the amygdala on watch all the time because you never know when that rustle in the leaves is going to mean you better run if you’re going to survive. Today that same brain mechanism is looking for threat constantly, and it reacts to symbolic threats as though they were real biological ones.

REHM: Give me an example.

GOLEMAN: For example, someone doesn’t answer your email. You’re expecting something right away and you start obsessing about it, and in fact you start to review everything that’s happened in the relationship for the last week and what you may have done wrong that made them mad at you. In other words, you make the assumption that there’s an emotional emergency and what happens is the amygdala can hijack your attention so that you’re thinking about that instead of, you know, the work you’re supposed to be doing or the person you’re with, whatever it is. But that’s the way our brain is wired.

Questions to ponder:

  1. Is there a difference between Goleman saying “the way the brain was designed,” as opposed to him saying, “the way the brain has evolved”?
  2. What are the limitations of using the metaphor that our brains are “wired”?
  3. Can you think of examples that illustrate this ability to create highly abstract evaluations can reflect both the best, and the worst, of human thinking?
  4. Do the above comments of Daniel Goleman support or refute the sentiments in the clips from This Emotional Life that you saw on the Language(s) as Map(s) page? (re-posted below)


What is a ‘weapon’? (the perils of zero-tolerance thinking)

Taylor Hess ExpulsionAs maps are not the same as territories, so are words not the same as the objects, things, or life events they represent. When we act as though the words have priority over the things the words stand for, we often cause problems for ourselves, or others.

In 2002, a 16-year-old high school honor student at L.D. Bell High School in Hurst, TX, was expelled from school for a year and sentenced to the Tarrant County Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program.

His offense? He had helped his parents move his grandmother’s belongings on a Sunday afternoon. The next Monday, while his pickup truck was parked in the school parking lot, a security guard found a bread knife in the bed of the truck.

Local newspapers reported that the school district administration insisted that the young student had been expelled for bringing a “weapon” onto campus. In the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School murders in Colorado, a Texas Education Code statute mandated a “zero tolerance” one-year expulsion from school. The law explicitly defined by statute what constituted a “weapon.” The bread knife, the common tableware type of knife, met the statute’s definition of a “weapon.” Therefore, by the school district’s interpretation of the state statute, the student “brought a weapon onto campus.”

Not only did the student bring a “weapon” (by definition) onto campus, but according to one school district official, by the very act of bringing the “weapon” onto campus (in the bed of his truck in the student parking lot), “I do feel he put students at risk, whether he knowingly did that or not.” Of course this benign bread knife, hiding in the bed of a pickup truck in the far reaches of the sophomore parking lot, posed a “threat” to campus students — by definition.

Perhaps so in the verbal world of carefully scripted legislated words written on papers collected in notebooks stacked on shelves in offices in the state capitol. But in the ‘real world’ of real weapons, real threats, and real harmful intentions, this benign bread knife posed no threat … other than to the future education and life for a 16-year-old honor student. Read the news account (pdf).

Questions to ponder:

  1. Do “zero-tolerance” laws and regulations serve a productive purpose in societies?
  2. In the case of a law such as this one, is it better to leave “weapon” undefined, or to explicitly define it as specifically and descriptively as possible?
  3. Do you agree with the evaluation of the school district official that Taylor, whether he intended to or not, did “put students at risk”?

Was Uncle Bruce a Nazi? (or, the meaning of symbols)

A second uncle of my great-grandfather became a graphic artist and moved to New York City as a young man. While perusing my family mementos, photos, and scrapbooks one day, I found a handmade Christmas card that “Uncle Bruce” mailed to my great-grandparents in 1924.


The card features a silhouette of a family in their decorated home, seen through the grill of a frosted window. Hanging in the window frame are several different seasonal ornaments and symbols. Featured prominently in the center of the window, I was taken aback to see an unmistakable … swastika!

Was Uncle Bruce a Nazi?

Rudyard Kipling Book CoverWell, no. After just a few minutes of online research, I discovered that, prior to Hitler’s German National Socialists party appropriating the swastika symbol for its own branding, the symbol had been used as an expressive symbol for good fortune, good luck, good wishes, etc., for centuries.

In fact, Rudyard Kipling featured the symbol prominently on the front covers and title pages of several early editions of his books, at least through the 1920s. Was Kipling a Nazi? Even before there were Nazis?

We need to remember that every symbol — every word, sign, icon, code, etc. — was created by humans. Just as there is no, to my knowledge, piece of music or art that spontaneously emanated with inherent (and inerrant) ‘meaning,’ there exists no symbol with inherent and inerrant ‘meaning.’ As the American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce is attributed with saying: You don’t get meaning; you respond with meaning.

SwastikWhile traveling in India in 2007, I learned there is a neighborhood known as “Swastik” in the ancient city of Ahmedabad, home of Gandhi’s Ashram. From a professor at a city university I heard a story that the swastika symbol, according to Indian tradition of more than three thousand years, depicted the life-sustaining image of a water wheel.

From my standpoint, I’m not particularly interested in where or when the symbol originated. I find it important to remember that the symbol we recognize and call a “swastika” can convey — or, perhaps more appropriately, can evoke — different meanings among different people in different contexts. The symbol itself carries no inherent meaning or sense of goodness or evil or luck.

As George Carlin said of “dirty words” … they’re innocent! It’s the people who use the words or symbols that you have to worry about (Carlin, 1990).

Questions to ponder:

  1. Can you think of any examples of words or symbols whose meanings have evolved over the years?
  2. Can you predict what current word or symbol usages might change over the next 20-30 years?

Driving with an old map


Map of St. LouisIn 1999, I drove from Texas to Chicago. While passing through St. Louis, I called some friends to meet for lunch. They gave me directions to a particular expressway intersection. I looked at my road atlas — the atlas I had owned for 20 years, the one that I’d used to drive all over the western United States.

The atlas of highway maps that had all kinds of notes and mileage and phone numbers scribbled on it.

The one I would never even think about leaving at home when I traveled.

But there was a problem. The expressway intersection to which I had been directed by my friends wasn’t on my map. One of the expressways did not exist when my map was published — it had only recently been constructed. My map was out of date. The freeway system (or territory) had changed, but my map hadn’t. I needed a new map if I wanted to meet my friends for lunch.

Too often we rely on static, outdated ‘maps’ that don’t fit the current situations, circumstances, conditions, or ever-changing ‘territories’ of our daily lives.

Questions to ponder:

  1. Do any of your ‘maps’ need to be updated?
  2. What kinds of attitudinal maps have you changed over the years?

Module Review and Reflection

Dare to be naive (Fuller, 1975, p. xix).

Foundational Premises of General Semantics


Any language, to be most effective, must incorporate what we know (from scientific investigations) about the world around us and what we understand about ourselves. Therefore it’s important to discern the world “out there” (beyond our skin) from the world “in here” (within our skin).

  • Our awareness of ‘what goes on’ outside of our skin is not the same as ‘what goes on.’
  • Our ability to experience the world is relative, unique to our own individual sensing capabilities (or sensory acuities), past experiences, and expectations.
  • Every person abstracts and evaluates their life experiences differently, based on their prior experiences, genetics, their their environments.
  • Our environment, the world around us (including ourselves), is ever-changing. We never experience the ‘same’ person, event, situation, or thing more than once.
  • We have limits (due to evolution, genes, physics, etc.) as to what we can experience.
  • We can never experience all of what’s to experience. We abstract only a portion of what we can sense. We experience incompletely on all levels (macroscopic, microscopic, sub-microscopic, cosmologic, etc.).
  • We sense and experience on silent, non-verbal levels, from which we speak, think, infer, etc.

What Happens ? What I Sense ? How I Respond ? “What It Means”

  • These facts lead to the inevitable conclusion that, for our language behaviors to be most effective, they must reflect our knowledge about ourselves and our world. We must apply all of our knowledge to our language habits, evaluations, and how we view ourselves in our world.


Scientific Orientation

I want to emphasize that the the system or methods of General Systems, including the language habits and behaviors which are espoused in this course, are not random tips, hints, secrets, or common sense aphorisms. These methods and recommendations flow from the premises and logical consequences that are consistent and integrated throughout General Semantics.  Again, we want to reiterate that GS begins with a scientific orientation.

The application of a scientific approach or method has proven to be the most effective problem-solving process yet created by humans. Therefore it makes sense to apply a scientific approach in our evaluations and judgments about ourselves and our experiences.

This means that we should continually test our assumptions and beliefs; continually gather new facts, data, and observations; revise our beliefs and assumptions as appropriate; and then hold our conclusions and judgments tentatively, in accordance with our own experiences, pending the possibility that new data, new experiences, might necessitate new theories or new assumptions to be tested.


Unstated or hidden assumptions of which we are unaware can often drive our behaviors and attitudes. One of the oft-repeated “conventional wisdoms” we hear is the admonition to avoid making assumptions. The joke goes, “You know what happens when you assume, right? You make an ASS out of U and ME!”

This aphorism is problematic from my GS perspective, in addition to just being lame humor. Making assumptions and inferences is not only unavoidable, but a vitally-important human capability. Some of our most intelligent and productive human behaviors depend on our ability to intuit, correlate with past experiences, match patterns, and dozens of other activities akin to “making assumptions.” In short, we cannot NOT make assumptions.

The key takeaway is here that rather than trying to avoid assumptions, we need to make a special effort to recognize and become more aware of our assumptions, inferences, beliefs, etc. An activity to highlight how much we unknowingly infer about simple situations is the uncritical inference test.

GS as an Overlay to Evaluating

General Semantics itself can be considered a special type of map.

As the man-made invention of latitude and longitude enabled predictable navigation across (and above) the earth possible, you can think of GS as providing an overlay to guide one’s evaluating processes.


Map of Latitudes and Longitudes provided by World Atlas with permission.



In other words, you can apply the GS principles to:

  1. making better verbal maps;
  2. evaluating the maps that others make;
  3. evaluating your own evaluations.

Neil Postman on Korzybski

Neil Postman held the position of Paulette Goddard Professor of Media Ecology at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Education, and former Chair of the Department of Culture and Communication. He authored 17 books on education and culture, such as Amusing Ourselves to Death, Teaching as a Subversive Activity with co-author Charles Weingartener, and Conscientious Objections: Stirring up trouble about language, technology, and education.

Less well-known about Postman is that he edited the quarterly journal, ETC: A Review of General Semantics, from 1976-1986. During his tenure, I think it’s fair to say that his views about Korzybski changed. From an initial ambivalence about Korzybski, Postman came to appreciate and even admire him by the time he wrote the following.

postman-CO-cover-183.jpgLike psychoanalysis, general semantics lends itself, too easily, to the predilections and idiosyncrasies of its practitioners, and there has been no firm consensus about the path it should follow. Moreover, general semantics is not easy to fit into conventional academic territories. It is simply too broad in its scope to be contained within a single discipline, for it is part philosophy, part epistemology, part psychology, part linguistics, and several other “parts,” all of which when taken together comprise the university curriculum. In a world of specialists, general semantics appears too diffuse, too divergent, too holistic to suit the modern style of academic thought. In a word, to study and teach it is not likely to further one’s chances for tenure.

And yet, although [Alfred] Korzybski’s name is relatively obscure at the moment, his impact has been felt. Some of his terminology and many of his insights have found their way into semiotics, psycholinguistics, educational psychology, media studies, and, of course, semantics. Many people in the nonacademic world – in business, government, social work, psychotherapy – employ Korzybski’s methods with great effectiveness and freely acknowledge their debt to him. But beyond all this, it is indisputable that together with such figures as C .S. Pierce, William James, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and I.A. Richards, Alfred Korzybski helped to heighten our awareness of the role of language in making us what we are and in preventing us from becoming what we ought to be but are not yet (Postman, 1988, p. 146).

Steve Stockdale

This 6-minute excerpt is from a 56-minute lecture I presented at the University of Nevada Las Vegas in 2004 (Stockdale, 2004). Note: adjust your volume lower, this recording is pretty loud.


General Semantics



Optional Activities

monitor.jpgDepending on your interests and curiosities, you may find some of these additional readings, videos, and activities worth investigating.


Difference between Facts and Inteferences

This 27-minute lecture is one of six episodes of “Talking Sense,” a series presented by Northwestern University professor Irving J. Lee in 1952 on Chicago television. This lecture provides wonderful insight into Lee’s high standard for differentiating facts from inferences with several excellent examples.

2006 General Semantics Course Review

An edited 25-minute Powerpoint presentation by Steve Stockdale to review the Fall 2006 General Semantics course at Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth, Texas. The video summary, in three parts, was necessary after the final class of the semester was canceled due to inclement weather.

General Semantics Overview

Applications for Students

After You’ve Studied General Semantics

A General Semantics Perspective

This 9-minute narrated Powerpoint presentation by Steve Stockdale is excerpted from the 50-minute presentation, “Lay Off My Persuade Shoes (external link),” to the American Advertising Federation chapter in Amarillo, Texas, in 2009. The script follows the video.



Let’s look at the author of Perspective #2, Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski was born in 1879 to a land-owning family in Poland. He was raised by servants from four different countries who spoke four different languages. So he grew up with a working knowledge of Polish, Russian, German, and French. In this type of multi-lingual environment, it came naturally to Korzybski to disassociate the word, or symbol, from the thing that the word or symbol represented.

As a student he studied engineering, mathematics, and chemistry. When the first World War erupted in 1914, he was enlisted into the Russian cavalry. Not only was he severely wounded, but he witnessed first hand the devastating effects of all the new weapons of war that debuted during this “war to end all wars” … airplanes, armored tanks, rapid-fire machine guns, poison gas.

He was sent to North America toward the end of the war when he could no longer serve on the battlefield. He supported artillery testing in Canada before transferring to the U.S. where he traveled the country speaking to groups and selling war bonds. After the war, he remained in the U.S. and married a woman from Chicago.

He was haunted by his experiences during the war. As an engineer, he pondered this question: How is it that humans have progressed so far and so rapidly in engineering, mathematics, and the sciences, yet we still fight wars and kill each other?

He devoted the rest of his life obsessed with this problem. In 1921 he published his first book, Manhood of Humanity. Then in 1933, he wrote what became the source book for the field of study we know as General Semantics …. Science and Sanity.

general semantics definedNow, I realize that the focus of this presentation is not General Semantics. But since I’ve taught the subject for the past four years to “mass communications practitioners” I’d like to say a few words about it because it does represent a perspective that I think is important.

The definition I’ve come to use with my university students is this: General semantics deals with the study of how we perceive, construct, evaluate and then express our life experiences through our language-behaviors.

Note that I’ve connected language and behavior with a hyphen and refer to language-behavior. I think most people usually talk in terms of language AND behavior as though the two are separated and not associated. But in General Semantics we consider language as something that humans, something that you and I as individuals, do … it’s a part of our behavior just as much as our breathing, our eating, our laughing, our crying, our working or playing.

We do language. And because our language-behaviors are so integral to human cooperation, as well as human conflict, Korzybski spent his life observing, understanding, and documenting this process of perceiving, constructing, evaluating and then responding.

He developed a model or a diagram for visualizing and understanding what he referred to as the abstracting process. But as a way to introduce that, I want to first show you a similar model that you might already be familiar with.

I learned this as the “Information Theory” model. It’s simply a pyramid divided into four sections:
The largest section on the bottom is labeled “data”. Above that is a smaller section labeled “information.” Then a smaller section labeled “knowledge”, and then a top section labeled “wisdom.” (Sometimes the “wisdom” section isn’t included, and other labels could be substituted for it.)

But the point of the model is to show the relationships that: from much data, we derive (or to use Korzybski’s term, we abstract) usable information, from which we can further abstract what we call knowledge … and then wisdom.

So it’s as though we filter out the data that doesn’t concern us, we keep and use what does, and from that we construct “information” that we find meaningful. Then we further filter what we’ve labeled as information that results in what we label knowledge.

Here’s a quick example. Take everything that I’m saying as a part of this presentation, as well as every slide and media clip. Every word and every image can be considered a single item of data. As you observe and listen, some of the words and images will amount to nothing more than noise … but some of it (I hope, a lot of it) will register with you as something that’s relevant or meaningful as information. And when it’s over, perhaps you’ll say that you learned something and feel more knowledgeable.

Now let’s look at Korzybski’s model as similar to this Information model, after we’ve turned it upside down. Each level compares generally to its corresponding level in the Information model.

GS process of abstractingRemember that this GS model is diagramming or ‘mapping’ the process of how we perceive, construct, evaluate, and respond to our life experiences.

The first step in this process of experiencing is that … well, there’s some kind of an experience. Something Happens. It’s important for us to realize and be aware that, as humans with finite sensory abilities, we cannot know or experience everything that happens. There are limits to what we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. So there’s a lot more that happens … there’s a lot a more DATA … than what we can experience.

Secondly, through our senses we interact with our environment. Within the limits of our sensing capabilities, we detect whatever is happening. But it’s important to remember that not only can we not sense everything, but what we do sense is to some degree unique to our individual sensory abilities. We each have a different sensory acuity when it comes to our vision, our hearing, our taste discrimination.

And it’s also important to remember that what we sense is not “what happened” … our sense experience is an imperfect abstraction of what happened that’s been filtered, you could say, or constructed by the nervous system.

The next part of the process, labeled as “evaluation,” represents the first verbal level in which we can describe, or cognitively recognize, what our senses tell us about the experience. But again, what we can say or think or write about the experience, is NOT the experience itself.

The fourth level then, after the descriptive phase, is labeled as “meaning” … what the experience means is something more or different than just how we describe it.

So to summarize this process of abstracting:

  • What we can sense is NOT what actually happens.
  • What we can describe is something other than what we actually sense.
  • What an experience means is something more than just what we can describe. What an experience means is the result of this filtering, or abstracting process in which each stage represents a different activity of a physiological process.

As an example, let’s consider again what’s going on in this room. The “goings on” or “things that are happening” are experienced by each one of you as different individuals. Each of you sees and hears what goes on slightly differently than anyone else.In the diagram, you see four individuals experiencing the same happening. But we start to see differences in their individual abstracting processes at the evaluation stage, or the third level of describing what they experienced. Let’s say they were each asked to write a simple report of “what happened” during today’s meeting.

Jane may give a detailed summation of each part of the meeting, as if she were preparing the minutes. John might comment only on the business that was conducted and simply state there followed a program. Elvis might describe what he selected from the lunch buffet in detail, skip over the business matters, and summarize points from my presentation. So each individual’s report might be colored or flavored differently.

But then in the final step of the process we can really see the differences between each our hypothetical observers. What they individually got out of this meeting, or what the meeting meant to them, varies a great deal.

In this case, “You” enjoyed it, without any reaction one way or the other. Jane, however, loved it. John didn’t really care for it and lost interest, but while his thoughts drifted to a problem he has at work he had a brainstorm he can’t wait to go back to implement. Elvis was left wondering about how any of this related to shoes.

So that’s a basic introduction to the abstracting process that’s central to the GS understanding of how we perceive, construct, evaluate, and respond to our life experiences.

Historical Note on the Structural Differential

A mash-up by Steve Stockdale that adds images to audio excerpts from Alfred Korzybski’s recorded explanation of how he was inspired to create the structural differential as a means to visually represent the abstracting process.

On the “Power of Words”

Do Word Actually Possess Power? — Four short video clips that illustrate different considerations of the question.

The Tyranny of Categories

During their reporting on Hurricane Ike in 2008, the Weather Channel’s on-air presenters and remote reporters faced a peculiar linguistic dilemma.

They, and their viewing audience, have been trained to communicate about the power of a hurricane based on a system of five categories. The sole, and arbitrary, basis of the five categories is sustained wind velocity.

Watch what happens when Ike’s sustained winds persist at the 110 miles/hour (177 km/hour) reading, which happens to be the arbitrary dividing line between Category 2 and Category 3.

  • Does it really matter to the audience whether or not the storm is Category 2 or 3?
  • Does it matter to the hurricane?
  • Can you see how these human-created categories (or labels, genres, classes, etc.) can sometimes take on a life of their own in terms of how humans react to them?

You may want to turn your volume down for this one, it’s pretty loud.


Uncritical Inference Tests

These two uncriticial inference tests are based on the work of William V. Haney. Carefully read the brief story which follows. Assume that all of the information presented in the story is definitely accurate and true. Next, read the statements following the story. If the statement is definitely true based on the information presented in the story, check the TRUE column. If the statement is definitely false based on the information presented, mark it FALSE. If the true or false answer cannot be determined based on the information presented, check NOT SURE. You may refer back to the story whenever you wish. But you must answer the questions in order, and once answered, you can’t go back and make changes.

Stephanie’s CD (by Steve Stockdale)

Stephanie and her friend walked into the music store after lunch. Stephanie wanted to buy the new CD by the group, “No Girls Allowed”. There was only one other person in the store when Stephanie and her friend arrived. Stephanie asked, “How much is this CD?” Stephanie’s friend said, “Here, let me see it. I don’t think he heard you. This tag says it costs $11.99.”


1. Stephanie wanted to buy a CD.
2. Stephanie and her friend ate lunch together.
3. Stephanie owns a CD player.
4. There was only one boy in the store.
5. Two girls walked into a music store.
6. There are no boys in the “No Girls Allowed” group.
7. Stephanie and her friend are teenagers.
8. The store’s owner didn’t hear Stephanie because the music was too loud.
9. Stephanie had enough money to buy the CD.
10. The “No Girls Allowed” CD cost $11.99.
11. The owner of the store is a woman.
12. Stephanie wanted to buy a CD as a gift.
13. One of the CDs costs $11.99.
14. There were two boys in the store.
15. The clerk was hard of hearing.


Hospital Grand Opening (by Andrea Johnson)

It was the grand opening for Saudi Arabia-Mayo Hospital when AJ Jones entered the administration office. Jones walked from desk to desk pleasantly greeting the new employees.  One person sat at her desk with her back turned to Jones.  She didn’t acknowledge the greeting; in fact she kept her eyes cast downward.  Jones looked at her desk nameplate, which said “Raheena,” frowned and walked briskly out of the office.


1. Jones is the new hospital administrator.
2. Raheena doesn’t speak English.
3. The new hospital is connected to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.
4. Jones greeted new employees as he walked from desk to desk.
5. AJ Jones entered the administrator’s office.
6. It was the grand opening for Saudi Arabia-Mayo Hospital.
7. Raheena hates Americans.
8. Raheena is shy and a little hard of hearing.
9. Raheena did not acknowledge Jones’s greeting.
10. Jones made an inference about the woman who did not acknowledge his greeting.

Pretty easy? Did you notice how you projected information into these simple stories that wasn’t stated as ‘fact’? In every encounter or situation we face, we bring our past experiences to it in the form of unstated, usually unconscious assumptions and premises. We draw inferences based on these assumptions about the situation as if they were fact. Many times we cause problems for ourselves and others when we confuse our inferences with the ‘facts’, and when we don’t recognize our projections as projections.

Review and Reflection

Now that you’ve been introduced to general semantics, participate in this Discussion topic. Provide a short answer (no more than 2 sentences) to these questions.

  1. What is the most surprising or unexpected thing you learned this week?
  2. What is the most significant or meaningful thing you will take away from this week’s material?
  3. What material or information are you skeptical about or just don’t accept as valid?
  4. After you post this reply, read the responses from your classmates and reply to at least two of them – one that you like or agree with, and another that you disagree with. Each comment should be limited to one complete sentence.

Module 1 Quiz

1. Which of the following statements is most relevant to General Semantics?

  1. The territory is always a figment of the map maker’s imagination.
  2. A map is not required to be structurally similar to the territory.
  3. A map cannot depict all of the territory.
  4. A map can be an exact replica of the territory.

2. Korzybski was inspired by his experiences in which war?

  1. Spanish Civil War
  2. Spanish American War
  3. World War II
  4. World War I

3. Which statement best reflects the notion of abstracting as Korzybski used the term?

  1. What we see is not all of what’s there to be seen.
  2. Our thoughts, words, and deeds are always different from what we intend.
  3. Everything is abstract, nothing is concrete.
  4. The world is an illusion; nothing is real, everything is imagined.

4. Which statement supports the contention that there is a difference between the “out there” world and our “in here” experience of that world?

  1. All of these statements support the contention.
  2. “The spooky truth is that your brain constructs reality, visual and otherwise.”
  3. “Your perception of the world is … really a fabrication of your model of the world.”
  4. “The eye is not a camera.”
  5. There is not a “one-to-one relationship between the outside world and my inner mental experiences.”

5. Which statement comes closest to expressing the gist of Korzybski’s theory of time-binding?

  1. Unbounded by time constraints, animals will eventually become symbol manipulators.
  2. Time is a man-made construct, but we have become bound by it.
  3. Because of our symbol manipulating capabilities, humans can build on the knowledge of previous generations.
  4. Time heals all wounds, so eventually time will address all human problems and conflicts.

6. Which of the following statements is most correct regarding the scientific method?

  1. Even if your test results support your hypothesis, that doesn’t mean the hypothesis is true or proved.
  2. If your test results support the hypothesis, by definition the hypothesis is true and becomes a fact.
  3. Even if your test results don’t support your hypothesis, you might still be able to design a better test that would support what you’re trying to prove.
  4. The most important aspect of an experiment is to believe strongly in your hypothesis.

7. The significance of recognizing that we live in a “process-oriented universe” is best stated by which of the following statements?

  1. Everything is changing all the time, even if we cannot see the changes, therefore we should hold our evaluations tentatively.
  2. The universe is predictable once humans use time-binding to discover all of the true processes that underlie the physical and metaphysical worlds we live in.
  3. Everything is changing all the time, even if we cannot see the changes, therefore we should cling tightly to our beliefs and never doubt our certainty.
  4. Everything we experience happens according to a pre-defined process, therefore there is no such thing as “free will.”

8. If you and I observe the same stimulus at the same time, what might account for any differences we report in our descriptions of the stimulus?

  1. We’re observing from different perspectives.
  2. We may have different sensory capabilities or acuities.
  3. Our prior experiences may lead to different observations and evaluations.
  4. All of these statements are correct.

9. The extensional device of indexing uses ______________ to remind us that _______________.

  1. subscripts or index numbers; individuals within a group, class, or label are each unique
  2. quote marks; we should be careful not to judge others prematurely
  3. quote marks; we should recognize that every label lies a little
  4. subscripts or index numbers; individuals within a group, class, or label are the same and indistinguishable from each other.

10. The extensional device of dating uses ______________ to remind us that _______________.

  1. etc.; it’s okay to change our minds over time
  2. dating: regardless of when their life experiences happen, time-binders will maintain unchanging beliefs and evaluations
  3. dates; we should strive to not change
  4. dates; the same person or thing will change over time

11. The extensional device of etc. uses ______________ to remind us that _______________.

  1. etc.; there is always more that could be said or experienced.
  2. subscripts; there are always other members of the group of category to consider.
  3. quote marks; we should be careful about ending a statement prematurely.
  4. dates; it’s okay to change your mind at a later time.

12. Why might you want to avoid using absolutisms?

  1. By definition, absolutisms are absolutely true in all cases so they should NOT be avoided.
  2. If you want your language to reflect the tentativeness and uncertainties that are inevitable aspects of your evaluating processes.
  3. We should always avoid using words that end in “ism”.
  4. Because the fewer words said, the better.

13. _____________ serves as the primary tool that enables _______________.

  1. E-prime; humans to avoid absolutisms
  2. Time-binding; humans to continually re-invent the wheel
  3. Language; time-binding
  4. Chemistry-binding; humans to move through space

14. Ricardo was supposed to pick up Suri at 8:00pm for dinner. By 8:20pm, the normally punctual Ricardo had still not arrived. Rather than become overly worried, angry, or upset with Ricardo’s tardiness, Suri patiently waits. From a GS-perspective, Suri’s evaluative response can be best attributed to her:

  1. consciousness of abstracting and limiting her inferences.
  2. passive personality and not wanting to let Ricardo know she was worried.
  3. date-timing her reaction and inferring that it’s not unusual for dates to be late.
  4. ambivalence about Ricardo because she didn’t care much for artists.

15. Recognizing that we each individually evaluate events from our own unique perspectives and according to our own personal histories and sensory abilities, can be referred to as:

  1. to-me-ness
  2. emotional intelligence
  3. individual truthiness
  4. theory of intensional relativity

16. We should avoid making assumptions, inferences, or judgments, because we all know what happens when you ASSUME anything.

  1. True
  2. False

17. “You’re either with us or against us” is an example of a multi-valued orientation.

  1. True
  2. False

18. Alfred Korzybski was a communist because he fought for Russia in World War I.

  1. True
  2. False

19. A primary objective of GS is that you should strive for absolute precision in your language behavior and always use the right word according to the most recent dictionary.

  1. True
  2. False

20. The best way to practice the principles of General Semantics is to concentrate on spotting errors in other people’s evaluations and language behavior.

  1. True
  2. False

Module 1 References

searchlight.jpgBois, J.S. (1957). Explorations in awareness. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Bois, J.S. (1966). The art of awareness. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa.

Bontrager, O.R. (1957). Notes by Kenneth Johnson from the 1957 summer seminar-workshop. Institute of General Semantics Archives, Fort Worth, TX.

Bourland, D.D. (2004). To be or not to be: E-prime as a tool for critical thinking. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 61-4, 546-557.

Carlin, G. (1990). Doin’ It Again. HBO Comedy.

Carroll, J.B., ed. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Chase, S. (1938). The tyranny of words. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009a)  Episode 1 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Great Mysteries of the Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2009b)  Episode 2 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: Visual Perception. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Da Cunha, C. (Director). (2013c)  Episode 27 of the Charlie Rose Brain Series: The Acting Brain. In Rose, C. ( Host and Executive Producer), & Vega, Y. (Executive Producer) The Charlie Rose Show. New York, NY. Charlie Rose LLC.

Fairchild, D. (1938). The world was my garden: Travels of a plant explorer. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Fuller, B. (1975). Synergetics. New York: MacMillan.

Haney, W.V. (1973). Communication and organizational behavior: Text and cases (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2004). On intelligence: How a new understanding of the brain will lead to the creation of truly intelligent machines. New York: Holt Paperbacks.

Hayakawa, S.I. (1949). Language in thought and action (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Hayakawa, S.I. (1963). Symbol, status and personality. New York: Harvest/HBJ.

J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2005) Consciousness: a neurobiological approach (Christof Koch). Available from http://jromc.org

J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Committee (Producer). (2009) Why can’t a computer be more like a brain? (Jeff Hawkins). Available from http://jromc.org

Johnson, K.G., Senatore, J.J., Liebig, M.C., and Minor, G. (1974). Nothing never happens. Beverly Hills, CA: Glencoe Press.

Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Johnson, W. (1956a). General Semantics course lecture, recording of radio broadcast by WSUI, Iowa City, IA. Institute of General Semantics Archives, Fort Worth, TX.

Johnson, W. (1956b). Your most enchanted listener. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Incorporated.

Koch, C. (2004). The Quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Englewood, CO: Roberts & Company Publishers.

Kodish, B.I. (2011). Korzybski: A biography. Pasadena, CA: Extensional Publishing.

Kodish, S.P. & Kodish, B.I. (2001). Drive yourself sane: Using the uncommon sense of general semantics (2nd ed.). Pasadena, CA: Extensional Publishing.

Korzybski, A. (1990a). Fate and freedom. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (p. 13 ). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Korzybski, A. (1990b). The role of language in the perceptual processes. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (pp. 685-720). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Korzybski, A. (1990c). What I believe. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (pp. 645-662). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Korzybski, A. (1990a). Article Title. In Kendig, M. (Ed.) Alfred Korzybski Collected Writings 1920-1950 (pp. ). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Korzybski, A. (1993). Manhood of humanity (2nd ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics (5th ed.). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

Korzybski, A. (2002). General semantics seminar 1937: Olivet College lectures (3rd ed.). Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.

Lee, I.J. (1941). Language habits in human affairs. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Lee, I.J. (1952). Talking Sense video series. Purchased from Institute of General Semantics.

Lee, I.J. (1949). The language of wisdom and folly. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Lee, I.J. (1958). On language and general semantics. General Semantics Bulletin, 22-23, 59-60.

Lipworth, J. & Chedd, G. (Executive Producers). (2010). The human spark. Thirteen/WNET, New York.

MacNeal, E. (1994). Mathsemantics: Making numbers talk sense. New York: Viking.

Macknik, S.L. & Martinez-Conde, S. (2010). Sleights of Mind: What the neuroscience of magic reveals about our everyday deceptions. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Maslow, A.H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Meyers, R. (1957). Notes by Kenneth Johnson from the 1957 summer seminar-workshop. Institute of General Semantics Archives, Fort Worth, TX.

Murray, E. (1944). The speech personality. Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott Company.

Postman, N. (1988). Conscientious objections: Stirring up trouble about language, technology, and education. New York: Vintage Books.

Potter, R.R. (1974). Making sense: Exploring semantics and critical thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Globe Book Company, Inc.

Ramachandran, V.S. (2004). A brief tour of human consciousness: From impostor poodles to purple numbers. New York: Pi Press.

Read, A.W. (2004). Language revision by deletion of absolutisms. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 61-4, 456-462.

Read, C.S. (1999). Video interviewed available from the Sensory Awareness Foundation.

Russell, C.G. (2004). Culture, language and behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Institute of General Semantics.

Stockdale, S.E. (2009). Here’s something about general semantics: A primer for making sense of your world. Santa Fe, NM: Steve Stockdale.

Stockdale, S.E. (2004, October). An overview of general semantics. Retrieved November, 2013, from

Sweet, J. & Gilbert, D. (Writers). (2010). In J. Sweet, S. Streeter and A. Bloom’s This emotional life. PBS NOVA.

Weinberg, H.L. (1991). Levels of knowing and existence (3rd printing). Englewood, NJ: Institute of General Semantics.

More References and Resources

The following references and resources provide more opportunies to learn about General Semantics beyond this course.

Institute of General Semantics


Module Completion Checklist

checkbox.jpg Sorry, clicking in the box still doesn’t do anything — it’s just an image.
open-checkbox21.png 1.  Did you complete the Point of View Survey? (20 points)
open-checkbox21.png 2.  Did you complete all the assigned readings?
open-checkbox21.png 3.  Did you view all of the videos?
open-checkbox21.png 4.  Did you take a look at any of the Optional Activities?
open-checkbox21.png 5.  Did you contribute to your Personal Journal and the Ongoing Course Discussion?
open-checkbox21.png 6.  Did you contribute to the Abstracting-Evaluating Discussion assignment? (30 points)
open-checkbox21.png 7.  Did you contribute to the Module Discussion assignment? (50 points)
open-checkbox21.png 8.  Did you successfully complete the Module Quiz? (50 points)



You’re ready to move on to Module 2: Awareness and Action – Allness.