Underparameterized terms.md

A term I use in my head for a type of manipulation that involves omitting crucial parameters in use of a term in order to mislead others into giving a sentiment much more credit than if those parameters were considered in good faith.

I borrowed the term from type systems in computer science, where a type might have an incomplete definition due to some missing parameters and be unusable. Unlike computers, humans rely on statistical usage a lot, and thus work out many harmful “default settings” that later get abused by those who know what they are, or, worse, can influence what they are.

One of |communication issues I find most sad.

Obligation

My favorite example of this is the casual use of words “should”, “must” and other variations of them, which commonly omit the purpose and/or beneficiaries of the stated obligation.

In Russian (my native tongue) the words “must” and “owe” are one and the same “должен”, with that word originating from “долг” (debt). In English “$actor must $action” focuses on the call to action without justification and “owe” usually points at beneficiaries in a form of “$actor owes $#action to $beneficiary”. Beneficiary, purpose and justification may sound like different parameters and too much to disclose with every use of these common words, but they’re quite commonly connected enough that stating all of them is redundant and unnecessary.

Normalizing statements of obligation without clearly defined justification sets people up to be manipulated with these types of statements to act in favor of beneficiaries that can’t provide justification that would get a person to genuinely agree.

Resistance

Resisting these kinds of manipulations can involve noticing the problematic words and asking follow-up questions for the missing parameters — forcing the other party to either uncomfortably admit the attempt at manipulation or (more commonly, sadly) resort to other tactics of convincing you such as emotional pressure.