What do you think?
Rate this book
People in Quandries The Semantics of Personal Adjustment
"This is a book about the problems we have in trying to live with ourselves and with each other...this point of view emphasizes the aspects of scientific method that are useful in daily living."
532 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1946
5 people are currently reading
332 people want to read
About the author
Wendell Johnson
29 books8 followersDr. Wendell Johnson was an American psychologist, conducted the 'Monster Study'.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
move-it
February 22, 2015Recommended in Norman Lewis's
Word Power Made Easy
April 21, 2009
The first 50 pages suggested, like many books, that clarifying insight would answer restless questions harbored by many of us about "the problems we have in trying to live with ourselves and with each other" (first sentence).
"The ideals of the maladjusted are high in three chief respects. In the first place, they are high in the sense that they are vague. Being vague, they are difficult to recognize; being difficult to recognize, they appear to be elusive. It is the consequent misfortune of the individual whose ideals are vaguely defined that he has no sure way of determining whether or not he has attained them. He maintains, therefore, the disquieting belief that he has failed and he becomes increasingly convinced that his ideals are difficult to reach. Ideals that are difficult to achieve, although it may be primarily because one remains uncertain of whether or not one has achieved them, have the practical effect of high ideals."
IFD disease: idealism to frustration to demoralization (Common among college students! Hahaha)
The "Verbal Cocoon" derives from bad questions, based in either/or, absolutist, "Aristotelian" A/not A questions. Johnson goes on to define what makes a good question (not constituting: should, ought, how, right, wrong, cause why and "is" questions - hard to summarize here), good science, and qualities of behavior observed in verbal communication that show a disconnect between words and specific nature of problem in reality.
For example, speaking about "Content Rigidity," in which one is detached from reality in only being able to converse about specific topics, I enjoyed Johnson's sentence: "It is not merely a mark of 'culture' or a badge of leisure. It is downright healthy, to express and cultivate a wide range of interests." (Pg 254)...."The most highly developed verbal specialists in the world are to be found in the insane asylums"
Or, about the semantic disconnect of "Evaluational Rigidity," in which chronic pessimists and perennial Pollyanas project unconsciously, and to extraordinary degrees the same overall opinion regardless of the specifics of the circumstance, he writes, "We see as it were through verbal filters" (Pg 261)
One must ask, "What sort of observations, or reported observations, would serve to answer [such and such:] a question?"
The second half of the book is largely outdated science, giving a point of comparison of "normal" by contrast with extreme cases of maladjustment found in psychoses and pyschoneuroses. Overall, the practical application of Johnson's semantics gave less than the theory initially bode. It also didn't seem to hold itself to the scientific standards he had proposed. Well, I'd recommend the first 80 or so pages.
"The ideals of the maladjusted are high in three chief respects. In the first place, they are high in the sense that they are vague. Being vague, they are difficult to recognize; being difficult to recognize, they appear to be elusive. It is the consequent misfortune of the individual whose ideals are vaguely defined that he has no sure way of determining whether or not he has attained them. He maintains, therefore, the disquieting belief that he has failed and he becomes increasingly convinced that his ideals are difficult to reach. Ideals that are difficult to achieve, although it may be primarily because one remains uncertain of whether or not one has achieved them, have the practical effect of high ideals."
IFD disease: idealism to frustration to demoralization (Common among college students! Hahaha)
The "Verbal Cocoon" derives from bad questions, based in either/or, absolutist, "Aristotelian" A/not A questions. Johnson goes on to define what makes a good question (not constituting: should, ought, how, right, wrong, cause why and "is" questions - hard to summarize here), good science, and qualities of behavior observed in verbal communication that show a disconnect between words and specific nature of problem in reality.
For example, speaking about "Content Rigidity," in which one is detached from reality in only being able to converse about specific topics, I enjoyed Johnson's sentence: "It is not merely a mark of 'culture' or a badge of leisure. It is downright healthy, to express and cultivate a wide range of interests." (Pg 254)...."The most highly developed verbal specialists in the world are to be found in the insane asylums"
Or, about the semantic disconnect of "Evaluational Rigidity," in which chronic pessimists and perennial Pollyanas project unconsciously, and to extraordinary degrees the same overall opinion regardless of the specifics of the circumstance, he writes, "We see as it were through verbal filters" (Pg 261)
One must ask, "What sort of observations, or reported observations, would serve to answer [such and such:] a question?"
The second half of the book is largely outdated science, giving a point of comparison of "normal" by contrast with extreme cases of maladjustment found in psychoses and pyschoneuroses. Overall, the practical application of Johnson's semantics gave less than the theory initially bode. It also didn't seem to hold itself to the scientific standards he had proposed. Well, I'd recommend the first 80 or so pages.
September 27, 2013
This was a difficult book to read. My friend challenged me to read this book.
By the time I was through, I had a much more refined and precise understanding of language, communication, and the neurological impact of our communications.
It takes commitment to read this book, and, when you come out the other side, you will understand communications better than 99% of the world.
By the time I was through, I had a much more refined and precise understanding of language, communication, and the neurological impact of our communications.
It takes commitment to read this book, and, when you come out the other side, you will understand communications better than 99% of the world.
March 31, 2020
Back in the 1930s, Alfred Korzybski, a Polish engineer, wrote a book Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics which I found unreadable the few times I tried. But back then it was a big deal. Nowadays, most people have never heard of him and if you google his name, you'll find he is mainly known for having said "The map is not the territory."
My introduction to Wendell Johnson was a quote I liked (can't remember where I saw it) "A similarity is a difference that doesn't make a difference." It turns out it comes from the book I am reviewing (not verbatim but close). Before I started to read it, I was unaware that Mr Johnson was a "follower" of Korzybski, and that he wrote a book that I was capable of reading which covers the gist of what Korzybski had to say. (Korzybski read this book and it has his blessing.)
I put "follower" in quotes because Korzybski's movement, known as "General Semantics" is not exactly a cult but has a following like one. For him and Johnson, they were doing science but it never quite made it into the main stream, not because it was wrong, so much as because it was different. At any rate, a lot of what they have to say is both instructive and should be better known if you could separate it out from some of their more cult-like utopian beliefs. I will try and do some of that here in this review.
Basically, General Semantics is an attempt to make language less ambiguous and reflect reality, or failing that, to make speaker and listener aware of how it neglects to do so. It is an attempt to create a technology that would make arguments that are actually not arguments at all but misunderstandings more easily detectable and resolvable. This is extended to arguments within ourselves--i.e. mental confusion, and even to a form of psychotherapy to systematically unconfuse us. The underlying idea is that most (all?) quandaries exist not in reality (the territory) but in how we talk/think about them (the map).
Another way to say this is that sanity will come if we approach the world as scientists and insanity is there because so often we don't. If we are confused or disagree about the world, there should be some sort of experiment we could perform to find the truth, at least in principle (some experiments would be impractical or physically impossible in which case we could agree there is no possible answer to disagree about). And if there were not such an experiment, that the source of confusion/disagreement is "merely" semantic. Or else the statement of the problem is ultimately meaningless.
If this sounds to you like the philosophy known as logical positivism or its practical application, you'd be right. The timing (1930s) matches nicely too.
As a method of psychotherapy, General Semantics is similar in spirit to CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). In this form a treatment, one is taught to recognize and give up ones cognitive distortions--false beliefs about the world leading to unnecessary bad feelings.
There are (at least) two problems with this solution, the first being that it presumes all difficulties are cognitive.
Enough difficulties are cognitive that general semantics techniques (and CBT techniques) should be more widely known.
The problem arises when these techniques are expected to solve those difficulties which are outside their scope, especially when the fault of the difficulty is assigned to the persons on whom it fails to work. (e.g. "You are being irrational!") Johnson understands this and thus his treatment of stutterers is directed on lowering their anxiety and self blame.
The second problem, one that has gotten much attention in philosophical circles yet I rarely see addressed outside of them, is the belief that values can be derived from facts. In actuality, people can agree on all the facts but differ on what is morally right or wrong. General Semantics could still make it clear that the argument isn't resolvable.
Similarly, you can agree with the facts I present about this book yet disagree with me about its worth.
On yet another note, one thing I enjoy about reading books like this is to marvel at the certainty with which its understanding is expressed and think about all we're similarly certain about eighty-something years later.
My introduction to Wendell Johnson was a quote I liked (can't remember where I saw it) "A similarity is a difference that doesn't make a difference." It turns out it comes from the book I am reviewing (not verbatim but close). Before I started to read it, I was unaware that Mr Johnson was a "follower" of Korzybski, and that he wrote a book that I was capable of reading which covers the gist of what Korzybski had to say. (Korzybski read this book and it has his blessing.)
I put "follower" in quotes because Korzybski's movement, known as "General Semantics" is not exactly a cult but has a following like one. For him and Johnson, they were doing science but it never quite made it into the main stream, not because it was wrong, so much as because it was different. At any rate, a lot of what they have to say is both instructive and should be better known if you could separate it out from some of their more cult-like utopian beliefs. I will try and do some of that here in this review.
Basically, General Semantics is an attempt to make language less ambiguous and reflect reality, or failing that, to make speaker and listener aware of how it neglects to do so. It is an attempt to create a technology that would make arguments that are actually not arguments at all but misunderstandings more easily detectable and resolvable. This is extended to arguments within ourselves--i.e. mental confusion, and even to a form of psychotherapy to systematically unconfuse us. The underlying idea is that most (all?) quandaries exist not in reality (the territory) but in how we talk/think about them (the map).
Another way to say this is that sanity will come if we approach the world as scientists and insanity is there because so often we don't. If we are confused or disagree about the world, there should be some sort of experiment we could perform to find the truth, at least in principle (some experiments would be impractical or physically impossible in which case we could agree there is no possible answer to disagree about). And if there were not such an experiment, that the source of confusion/disagreement is "merely" semantic. Or else the statement of the problem is ultimately meaningless.
If this sounds to you like the philosophy known as logical positivism or its practical application, you'd be right. The timing (1930s) matches nicely too.
As a method of psychotherapy, General Semantics is similar in spirit to CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). In this form a treatment, one is taught to recognize and give up ones cognitive distortions--false beliefs about the world leading to unnecessary bad feelings.
There are (at least) two problems with this solution, the first being that it presumes all difficulties are cognitive.
Enough difficulties are cognitive that general semantics techniques (and CBT techniques) should be more widely known.
The problem arises when these techniques are expected to solve those difficulties which are outside their scope, especially when the fault of the difficulty is assigned to the persons on whom it fails to work. (e.g. "You are being irrational!") Johnson understands this and thus his treatment of stutterers is directed on lowering their anxiety and self blame.
The second problem, one that has gotten much attention in philosophical circles yet I rarely see addressed outside of them, is the belief that values can be derived from facts. In actuality, people can agree on all the facts but differ on what is morally right or wrong. General Semantics could still make it clear that the argument isn't resolvable.
Similarly, you can agree with the facts I present about this book yet disagree with me about its worth.
On yet another note, one thing I enjoy about reading books like this is to marvel at the certainty with which its understanding is expressed and think about all we're similarly certain about eighty-something years later.
Want to read
July 11, 2009Published 1945
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews