Do Words Hurt?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Do you not think it is useless to call someone a bad word they do not understand. The only reason a person would react to a word is if they understood it and the only real reason to use a bad word to insult a person
is if they understood it.

I mean of you are seeing your doctor and he or she tells you that you have 90 days to live in a language you do not understand what purpose does that serve?

The whole purpose of words is that they convey information otherwise communication with words is meaningless.

In order to have conversation with another person some form of communication that you both can understand is necessary. The thing is though that when such criteria are met they brain does respond to offensive responses by processing the information as if they had been physically injured.

Please understand that what is often referred to as the unconscious mind relate to parts of the brain that address issues of autonomic functions (Parts of the brain that regulate how the organs work and so on).

I remember once while working in a hospital there was a patient who was from Haiti, who walked into the emergency room of a hospital with, the compliant that she had a heart attack. The RN in charge of the initial interview asked the patient who had told her she had had a heart attack.

She responded by saying that the Great followed by a persons name had told her that so she came to the hospital. The nurse was American and had no idea that when the patient was saying "Great" she meant doctor. The patient was sent to the psychiatric emergency room (where by the way I was working).

The patient ended up dying of a heart attack. She was 38 years old and in this case the fact that she used the wrong word probably had a lot to do with why she died.

Originally posted by Nikola014
I will use the quote from some movie...

"Words are, in my not so humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic, capable of both inflicting injury and remedying it."

Words are the thoughts of man (descriptive), it depends upon whether you trust these thoughts as to be held true makes the difference. You are not quoting a mashup of "Mark Twain" (Sam C) and Oscar Wilde but in ones imagination could be, throw in some E.A. Poe for the steam punk supernatural.

April 2, 2010 -- Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can hurt you too, according to new research.

A new study suggests merely saying, "This may hurt a bit," before receiving a shot may be enough to trigger a pain response in the brain long before any actual pain is felt.

Researchers found hearing words that describe pain -- such as "excruciating" or "grueling" -- activated the areas of the brain that process the corresponding sensation.

"These findings show that words alone are capable of activating our pain matrix," says researcher Thomas Weiss, a professor at the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, in Germany, in a news release. "Even verbal stimuli lead to reactions in certain areas of the brain.”

In the study, published in Pain, researchers used functional magnetic resonance tomography (fMRI) to examine how 16 healthy people processed words associated with experiencing pain. The brain scans revealed which parts of the brain were activated in response to hearing the words.

In the first experiment, researchers asked the participants to imagine situations that corresponded with words associated with pain -- such as "excruciating," "paralyzing," and "grueling" -- as well as negative but non-pain associated words such as "dirty" and "disgusting" and neutral and positive words.

In the second experiment, the participants read the same words but were distracted by a brainteaser.

The results showed that in both cases there was a clear response in the brain's pain-processing centers with the words associated with pain, but there was no such activity pattern in response to the other words.

Researchers say preserving painful experiences as memories in the brain may have been an evolutionary response to allow humans to avoid painful situations that might be dangerous.

"However, our results suggest as well that verbal stimuli have a more important meaning than we have thought so far," says Weiss.

Researchers say the findings may be especially significant for people with chronic pain disorders who tend to speak a lot about their painful experiences with their health care providers. They say those conversations may intensify the activity of the pain matrix in the brain and intensify the pain experience.

Words really hurt




LM you should try a search on the term "do words hurt", both in a search engine and at YouTube.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Nope wrong again, the definition of words is ”a speech sound or series of speech that communicates a meaning”
Your new incorrect theory eliminates WORDS and turns them into something that communicates NO meaning!
You can’t be talking about words.
You can’t change the definition of words to something other than words.
You said words can’t hurt us which would mean we would all have to not understand word’s meanings.
But how to talk in your world of words without meaning.
We all understand the words that hurt us and ones that are kind do not harm us.
Again, I tell you in this world words are not separate from their meanings.
I am saying that the speaker of those words know the meaning of the words and is responsible ( knows they can wound).
The misunderstanding, harming others and yourself with your voice/words, comes from the very misunderstanding of who you are.
If you know you are not separate from another( and you are in a state of love) you have no thoughts or feelings of anger, greed passion or desire which leads to using words that do not hurt others.
Yes in this world it is the words loaded with meaning that are used to express thoughts that can and that do harm and hurt.
Your world where human beings do not understand what they are saying and do not understand what they are hearing is nothing but a fantasy.
Your new argument has the same problems of the old one.
You are the first person I have ever heard that has tried to separate words from their meanings(separate them from where they are used in this world) and in this make the speaker unresponsible for the words he/she uses.
You cannot seriously be now blaming our understanding of what words mean for the harm people inflict on each other using insulting harmful words.

How do you propose with your new theory that our understanding causes pain?
Understanding never causes us pain .Ignorance yes.

I don’t know how you separate words from their meaning, or who does in this world, do you think the bully’s engage in this meaningless word communication when they insult depressed people online and do you also use words without thinking of their meaning ?

reply to post by Kashai


From your article:

The results showed that in both cases there was a clear response in the brain's pain-processing centers with the words associated with pain, but there was no such activity pattern in response to the other words.

Words associated with pain, not the cause of pain. Remember, correlation does not imply causation. This causes magical thinking.

Bronisław Malinowski's Magic, Science and Religion (1954) discusses another type of magical thinking, in which words and sounds are thought to have the ability to directly affect the world. This type of wish fulfillment thinking can result in the avoidance of talking about certain subjects ("speak of the devil and he'll appear"), the use of euphemisms instead of certain words, or the belief that to know the "true name" of something gives one power over it, or that certain chants, prayers, or mystical phrases will bring about physical changes in the world. More generally, it is magical thinking to take a symbol to be its referent or an analogy to represent an identity.

Sigmund Freud believed that magical thinking was produced by cognitive developmental factors. He described practitioners of magic as projecting their mental states onto the world around them, similar to a common phase in child development.[12] From toddlerhood to early school age, children will often link the outside world with their internal consciousness, e.g. "It is raining because I am sad."

Psychology Today

Just as thoughts and objects have power, so do names. Language's ability to dredge up associations acts as a spell over us. Piaget argued that children often confuse objects with their names, a phenomenon he labeled nominal realism. Rozin and colleagues have demonstrated nominal realism in adults. After watching sugar being poured into two glasses of water and then personally affixing a "sucrose" label to one and a "poison" label to the other, people much prefer to drink from the "sucrose" glass and will even shy away from one they label "not poison." (The subconscious doesn't process negatives.) Rozin has also found that people are reluctant to tear up a piece of paper with a loved one's name written on it. Arbitrary symbols carry the essence of what they represent. Along a similar vein, "the name Adolf dropped off very sharply in the 1940s," Rozin points out.

Inn the next paragraph of your article.

Researchers say preserving painful experiences as memories in the brain may have been an evolutionary response to allow humans to avoid painful situations that might be dangerous.

It seems it is the memory that is the cause.

reply to post by BDBinc

Do you think words float in the air with something called "meaning" attached to them? When you read something on paper do you see something called meaning anywhere on that paper? No. The meaning is all yours.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

No, in my world words have meanings.I already told you if to you words have no meaning you are not even talking about words.
The thread was do words hurt.
The definition of words is ”a speech sound or series of speech that communicates a meaning”
Twisting what I am saying will get you no where.
Words communicate a meaning. That meaning can be negative and hurtful and harm or it can be kind and can soothe. You cannot separate the meaning of the words as it is part of the definition of word.

reply to post by BDBinc

No, in my world words have meanings.I already told you if to you words have no meaning you are not even talking about words.
The thread was do words hurt.
The definition of words is ”a speech sound or series of speech that communicates a meaning”
Twisting what I am saying will get you no where.
Words communicate a meaning. That meaning can be negative and hurtful and harm or it can be kind and can soothe. You cannot separate the meaning of the words as it is part of the definition of word.

That's exactly what I said. Words on a paper carry for you this mystical and supernatural thing called meaning. Yet you fail to admit the meaning is your own. You even said it yourself, "meaning can be negative and hurtful and harm or it can be kind and can soothe". So words don't hurt now? It's the meaning?

I haven't twisted anything. You've twisted your own meaning to force-fit your claims that a supernatural power called meaning travels from one communicator to the next causing pain. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. And I'll have to leave you with your superstitions.

It's not the words that hurt, it is who is saying them that makes it hurt.

If a stranger calls me vile names, I don't care so much. But if a loved one did, it would hurt.

The "hurt" isn't attached to the specific word, but by who uses them and what the intent is behind them.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You really do not understand what magical thinking means and it certainly has nothing to do with someone getting angry or upset over a bad word. Magical thinking is a symptom for several clinical conditions.

It is important to note that magical thinking must be considered in context. For example, a belief in the paranormal could be seen as magical thinking. However, many religious and cultural traditions believe in the existence of spirits, demons and other entities. A person from such a background should not be diagnosed with magical thinking based solely on a belief in such entities.

Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between scientific hypothesis, which is normal, and abject belief in a situation, which may demonstrate magical thinking. Many people enjoy pondering improbable possibilities and situations. It is not magical thinking to put forth a theory, provided that the person expresses understanding that the theory is not necessarily “rational” by today’s scientific logic. Never forget that at various points in our history, “science” has told us that the Earth is flat, man cannot fly and people cannot govern themselves. Once considered radical and even magical thinking, these ideas now form some of the basic concepts for our world.

Source

A word used is meaningless without the person being able to define it and it is philologically relevant to respond to insults with a sensation of pain, just as it is to salivate when faced with your favorite meal.

Sincerely LM you need to upgrade your background into the subject of what Magical thinking is, before you make claims without foundation.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Nope.
Words are not open for the hearers to add a different meaning to what they have already.
Words carry with them something thing called meaning.
If your brain is injured in certain parts words can loose meaning and you cannot communicate. When understanding of words meaning is gone obviously (in these extreme cases) even words with hurtful meanings are not cognized and would not hurt.
The meaning of words is in language and is defined .
Words meanings can be negative and hurtful and harm or they can be kind and can soothe.
I don’t change the definition/meaning of words when I hear them and people don’t have a different understanding of the word’s meanings.
Word meanings are not “superstitions” they are how we communicate.
It is never our understanding of words that hurts, its how those words can be used, ones with hurtful meanings and when words get used by a self hating person( lacking self restraint) they communicate insult and hurt .
There are not two meanings for the word RED just one. Bully’s use words that have a harmful meanings . It is not open to you to redefine WORDS.

In a language word meaning is fixed, the words have meaning, when the speaker speaks the hearer can understand the speakers thoughts. Do you really think that when internet bully’s verbally insult and abuse depressed people online they are using words that are not defined in our language or that can be understood as to be not insulting and not hurtful communication of thoughts.
The transmission of hurtful thoughts in the form of words hurt thinking/feeling human beings.

reply to post by Kashai

Magical thinking is a form of reasoning that learns causative relationships through correlation alone. Science and the scientific method are designed to elucidate causal relationships through careful controlled experiments; magical thinking, given a correlation with an observed effect, pulls a causation out of thin air. For example, coming to believe that a particular piece of jewelry is lucky because a few good things happened when it was worn.

Bronisław Malinowski's Magic, Science and Religion (1954) discusses another type of magical thinking, in which words and sounds are thought to have the ability to directly affect the world.

This sounds like you in a nutshell.

You have yet to prove words are the cause of pain and are guilty of many scientific and logical fallacies.

If "words hurt" as you assert, they should also hurt your eyes when you see them, and your ears when you hear them. Is this the case? Try it on yourself.

Also if "words hurt" as you assert, then anything, including animals, trees etc. should feel pain. Is this the case? Try it on a dog.

Also if "words hurt" as you assert, then the words should still hurt despite not understanding them. Is this the case? Try it on someone who doesn't speak the language.

Also if "words hurt" as you assert, the words, no matter what the context or tone of delivery, should hurt no matter what. Say to someone an insult 3 separate times, once in a soft whisper and a straight face, once jokingly and cheerful, once with hateful tones and mannerisms. If one instance hurts more than another, it is not the words. If they hurt all the same, it is the words that hurt.

Also if "words hurt" as you assert, if I were to list off every "bad word", merely to compose a list of "bad words", you would be in writhing pain by the time you finished reading it. Would this be the case?

Also if "words hurt" as you assert, if went and saw a movie filled with "bad words", you would be writhing pain by the time you finished watching it.

You should look into some linguistic classes.

reply to post by BDBinc

Words carry with them something thing called meaning.

If this is true, couldn't this meaning blow away while talking on a windy day?

Oh I forgot...they're magic.

You win.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Actually linguistics is very important to psychology with respect to how people define terms and address them.

Bing Dictionary

in·sult

1.be offensive to somebody: to say or do something rude or insensitive that offends somebody
2.show contempt for somebody or something: to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of somebody or something
3.offensive words or action: a remark or action that offends somebody, usually because it is rude or insensitive
Synonyms: affront, slight, slur, rudeness, offense

All that is required for a person to be insulted is for them to treat a word as offensive. At which point the brain functions in the same manner as when one is harmed in some way physically. This is not something a person has any real control over, in no different a way a person can feel pain from being physically harmed.

Humans respond to for the most part to insults directed at them although many people do feel offended when insults are used and not used against them (like in the media). Animal brains and human brains are different
enough as they do not have speech centers and rely on non-verbal communication to interact.

The fact that humans respond this way definitely means they are in pain.

Take the example of the reaction of a man to a woman who finds him attractive, same difference, with the exception that feelings are negative.

Any thoughts?

I feel that the topic is again straying into semantics and risks once more turning into a circular argument.

I will try again to offer alternative terminology in the hopes of remedying this for all participants, regardless of their position. What is really being argued by both sides is the same thing in terms of the facts relevant to the debate in my opinion. The principle conclusions and terminology are what differ. There is a way to bridge both arguments and allow the debate to move forward rather than getting bogged down in semantics in my opinion.

This is my attempt at facilitating that:

Those arguing that words "carry" meaning are really arguing that provided the recipient of the words in question adheres to the specific parameters of the language being used, then definitions (and I would encourage the use of the term "linguistic definitions" rather than meaning, as it eliminates at least some modicum of subjectivity - though by no means all) are both implicitly and interpretively automatic.

The argument is not that words somehow magically transmit meaning through the air and into our minds, but rather that words (and other symbolic tools of definition association) are our species' chief means of communication and that upon their reception, those versed in the given language and trained to adhere to its parameters, automatically generate definition associations with said words. However, I would point out that as words can have multiple definitions, and as language is constantly evolving, LesMisanthrope's point also applies here as well, which is that there is a degree of cognizance and influence over these generated definitions which we are capable of exerting. (I would likewise point out however that the degree to which this is possible will also vary somewhat from person to person.)

Once these linguistic definition interpretations have been generated, they can in turn provoke - and this is where it becomes even more subjective and where LesMisanthrope's argument becomes important - potentially unwittingly automatic and virtually instantaneous emotional responses...but also the possibility to consciously influence said emotional responses. I do not feel it can be successfully argued that there is no capacity on the part of human beings to consciously exert influence over these responses. Both this subjectivity and the possibility of cognizant prevention of such a response is where LesMisanthrope's argument becomes apparent, and distinguishes emotional response from the pure definitions of words. (However, again, I would point out that there is variability in this capacity.)

What LesMisanthrope is arguing is that the subjective interpretation of the intent behind those words, and more pertinently to the argument, the emotional response to that inferred intent, are within our sphere of cognizance and influence, and thus not automatic, meaning that the words are not directly causative in and of themselves for said emotional response. The argument here is not that words cannot be part of series of events or actions which produce emotional discomfort, but rather that words in isolation, as an ontological entity, cannot cause harm without the other aspects of said series of events or actions.

We can visualize this process as a chain.

Intent on the part of the speaker (based on subjective psychology/neurology as well by the way; the speaker is not necessarily any more objective than the listener) -> Words spoken (may or may not successfully or accurately convey the intent and definitions the speaker sought to express, incidentally) -> Words received by listener (listener also subject to psychology/neurology, perception both illusory and objective as are all humans) -> Listener automatically associates words with definitions (but these definitions are to a degree subjective because of the different possible definitions of the words, and the subjective biases or psychological/neurological factors that output said definitions) -> Emotional response (also subject to the above.)


So factually, I agree with LesMisanthrope if the argument is framed as such. Words are not preeminent or directly causative of pain in isolation.

However I disagree with the argument that it therefore follows that human beings should seek to limit their emotional response to words (at least internally.) I do however think a good compromise would be to consider that it can be advantageous to a) limit our outward emotional responses to words (particularly where such responses contribute to conflict,) and b) to find minimally confrontational ways to express said emotional responses and discuss them with others. (And indeed to discuss them at all. Too often, in my opinion, we do not talk to one another about what we feel and why in a productive context.)

Nor do I agree that it is always possible to exert successful (or any) influence on the emotional output. And I still maintain that this logic can be extended to include human dynamics other than communication. What about actions that don't directly inflict physical harm (betrayal of trust, deceit, theft, etc.)? And my aforementioned death-of-a-loved-one analogy. But I digress.

I think both sides may be ignoring certain nuances of the debate that can actually help make it a more copacetic discussion with less disagreement than people think. (Precisely because of the subjective biases we're discussing in the first place.)

So ends my attempt at intellectual diplomacy. Carry on.

Peace.

reply to post by AceWombat04


The issue of if thoughts are subjective is also debatable (but that's another topic).

In this case though the physiological responses are apparent and the long term effects of verbal abuse are often compared to responses related to being kidnapped.

From a religious standpoint words and actions have consequences and while LM chooses not to believe this, that does not make it true.

Matthew 5:21-22
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.


Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


I would have to allow him to quantify his own argument. My purpose is not to advocate for any particular member of the debate, but rather to try and elucidate where the positions are not quite as vehemently contradictory as they may seem, and nuances that I feel may be being ignored by the holders of various positions that are relevant to the discussion in my opinion. (And to voice my own position, of course.)

I would posit the possibility that he does acknowledge that words are a part of a process and a dynamic wherein harm can and does result, but is merely distinguishing ontologically between that process and words in isolation as being the direct causative agent of said harm. That would allow both for the possibility of the kind of conscious mediation of emotional response to words that he advocates, and the resultant harm others are arguing.

I can't speak for him though, of course.

Peace.

reply to post by AceWombat04


How strange you get so bothered by trolling, yet since words meanings to you are so subjective why didn't you just interpret subjectively what trolls words say ( make it mean something different to what their words mean).
In your intellectual diplomacy which "facts" or LM's are you agreeing with?
That bully's victim's subjectively misinterpret the words and when the bully's tell someone that their thinking is "3rd grade" the hearer it should have the meaning of the words changed.
We are not talking about words in a different world, words that self producing without thinking feeling human beings. We were not outside this world, and we were not meaning trees and animals word's but thinking feeling human beings.
Like LM you raise thoughts that isolate words, make their meanings much more subjective than they are .
As though in the cases of online bully's it was just a case of the hearer misunderstanding the words!!

Nobody said human beings do not have self control, why not apply that at the speakers(bully's) end and agree that they understand their thoughts and that they can hurt others with their words/speech.
Why do you also say a word with a set negative meaning spoken by a bully should be cognized differently by the hearer. Why transfer responsibility from the speaker. Using words like subjective bias as though things don't have have names/words and these names and meanings are all changed when subjectively interpreted.
Since the words/speech has meaning why think the hearer is responsible for eliminating and changing the bully's negative thoughts. At the level human beings are at it is better and simpler to suggest to take self responsibility and not use hurtful, negative words to others.
I think since the use of some words can hurt( and have been proven to) that it is the responsibility of the speaker not to bully.
Stress tests have been done with double blinds to measure the effect of negative words on both the speaker and the hearer . Guess what, words with negative meanings stress both the speaker and the hearer. This is just one of the words hurt that the OP denys.
The instant response elicited by words are from memory is very much unconscious for most human beings and these are the ones that we are discussing. Both you and IM suggest these unconscious brain responses (and mind) responses to words should be controlled by the bully's depressed victim.I find that outrageous and also what a bully would say to shift responsibility for his hurtful and unkind words.
LM separates words from the speakers thoughts, he thinks thoughts can hurt but not words, yet words are the communication of thoughts from one to another.
You and he can keep arguing that in a word's set meaning there is plenty of subjective room for the hearer to redefine the words( to misinterpret or not understand) but in this world what bully's say to "weaker" human beings is full of the speakers original hurtful meaning.
I disagree with you & LM that words can exist without a speaker and hearer and the topic we were discussing was including a speaker(bully) and a hearer of unkind words. The words are the thoughts of the speaker(bully) and cannot be separated or isolated as they would not have been spoken without the thoughts/feelings of said bully.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by Kashai

 

I would have to allow him to quantify his own argument. My purpose is not to advocate for any particular member of the debate, but rather to try and elucidate where the positions are not quite as vehemently contradictory as they may seem, and nuances that I feel may be being ignored by the holders of various positions that are relevant to the discussion in my opinion. (And to voice my own position, of course.)

I would posit the possibility that he does acknowledge that words are a part of a process and a dynamic wherein harm can and does result, but is merely distinguishing ontologically between that process and words in isolation as being the direct causative agent of said harm. That would allow both for the possibility of the kind of conscious mediation of emotional response to words that he advocates, and the resultant harm others are arguing.

I can't speak for him though, of course.

Peace.

Aha but in this discussion you are the first to bring of the issue of subjective vs. objective experiences.

reply to post by BDBinc


You may be misinterpreting my post. (Irony, given the topic at hand?) I have explained where I disagree with LesMisanthrope. See www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not agree with or advocate bullying, verbal abuse, intentionally insulting or offensive use of words, etc. And on the basis of the arguments I've made in the above posts, I also don't agree that it is always possible (or even necessarily desirable) to consciously mediate emotional response to words. Believe me. As someone who suffers from social anxiety, is prone to depression, and is highly sensitive, I am well aware of the influence that words can exert (directly or indirectly) on my feelings and wellbeing.

I am merely attempting to facilitate getting beyond the semantic disagreements of the debate taking place in this topic with the hope of the actual discussion itself progressing. To answer your question, the part of his argument that I agree with factually is that words in isolation - without the rest of the process I described in my post - do not automatically inflict pain. That doesn't mean I believe they can't be or aren't part of a larger process that does and that people should not act with compassion when choosing their words.

All I'm saying is that you and I are making a moral argument, whereas he seems to be making a purely ontological one. And people seem to be debating the semantics of that distinction rather than the distinction itself and its implications for the discussion and everyone's arguments.

This is the kind of nuance, non-zero sum facet of this discussion that I'm talking about when I say some people may be ignoring nuances that could make this discussion a lot less contentious. Your response to my post is an example.

Peace.