Are you a Most-enator or an All-ifier?

#1 Posted by Sheila on May 15th, 2009 9:24 am | link

I suppose I’m an All-ifier, because I figure if I mean “most, but not all”, I’ll qualify what I’m saying accordingly. Is that why we have words like “generally”, “usually” and “mostly” in the first place?

I drove my previous boss nuts with this, because I would refuse to speak in absolutes unless I was completely certain. So I would say things like “it appears to be” instead of “it is” because I was willing to acknowledge that I didn’t have all the information. My boss would make assumptions and then get grumpy when those assumptions were proven wrong.

I suppose it’s for the best that he eventually fired me, because it was exhausting to have to tiptoe around his sensibilities.

#2 Posted by Michael on May 15th, 2009 12:57 pm | link

I’m not sure. Part of me is an All-ifier: if you say you don’t like fish (and when I say I don’t like fish), I’ll assume you don’t like fish.

However, I will also assume that there are exceptions (as there are for me. Mmmmmm, Sushi) – but since I don’t know what your exceptions are, it doesn’t matter.

If it is important for me to know the exceptions, I’ll probe for them.

#3 Posted by Duff on May 15th, 2009 1:16 pm | link

Great example! I love language and communication for these very types of situations.

#4 Posted by Clare K. R. Miller on May 15th, 2009 2:50 pm | link

Wow, I never thought about it! How interesting. I’m definitely an All-ifier. I assumed when I read your first few sentences that you meant no pizza caused it; I would assume that Devi didn’t like any fish. Like Sheila, I would qualify the statement if it wasn’t absolute! I guess that also fits into my “I value precision in language” motto. Good, now I have uses for it that don’t just mean I’m being a smart-ass.

Though to be fair, I wouldn’t assume you’re not attracted to any men, because you can’t have met all men, and I’ve known too many lesbians who’ve ended up dating men. That’s not a criticism–I love how fluid sexuality can be. But I also know how fluid sexuality can be, so I don’t expect absolute statements about sexuality to actually be absolute.

#5 Posted by Pace on May 15th, 2009 4:04 pm | link

@Sheila: Yes, working with someone who has a different communication style from you can be really difficult.

Kyeli and I talked about this a lot when we edited the book. We’d often choose “Most-enator” language, saying something more firmly even though there are exceptions, because it gets the point across more clearly. Trying to write effective prose while mentioning all the possible exceptions is nigh impossible.

@Michael: Thanks, good to know!

@Duff: We do too. (:

@Clare: *nods* Also, a lot of people make the usual error when it comes to sexuality. If, for instance, you identify as a lesbian but you’re attracted to the occasional man, you’ll be more likely to assume that others’ identifications are more fluid. But if your own sexuality identification is very black and white with no exceptions, you’ll be more likely to assume that others’ labels are more firm and more likely to be surprised when they’re not.

#6 Posted by Elly on May 15th, 2009 5:24 pm | link

Pizza: “No type of pizza causes this problem”
Fish: “I don’t generally like fish.”

I view the first as problem-solving / diagnosis (“None, the ethernet isn’t the problem!”) whereas the latter is a preference (“I don’t like using wifi”). With preferences, I’ve learned that there’s a lot of flex – someone who doesn’t like fish might still like certain fish dishes, or be okay with fish but just doesn’t enjoy it much, or might discover something new. With problemsolving, I generally assume that this will not happen (“Oh, hey look, a THIRD ethernet cable we had previously not noticed! And it’s the fault!”)

Actually, for pizza, I’d assume “the set of known pizza” or, well, a pizza typical to the one that prompted the remark. If it was a regular old pizza, this wouldn’t rule out odd things like a wheat-free vegan pizza, even if that was within the set of known pizza :)

So, hmmm, sort of “the set of reasonable assumptions that can be made about the set.” (without going in to “reasonable is subjective”, I think that captures it ^^)

Me, I would have said, “Huh, we can rule out this pizza but not others – interesting! I wonder what the difference is?” :)

#7 Posted by Elly on May 15th, 2009 5:25 pm | link

@Clare: I think I tend to view fish and sexuality as both being fluid, whereas the pizza thing presumably isn’t, yeah. That’s a nice way of putting it :)

#8 Posted by Clare K. R. Miller on May 15th, 2009 5:28 pm | link

@Pace: Yeah, that makes sens about viewing sexuality as fluid. I guess it’s particularly easy for me since I’m bisexual–I do tend to think that everyone else is at least a little bit bisexual!

@Elly: That cracks me up. Fish and sexuality are fluid! Pizza is not! Maybe it would be more accurate to say preferences are fluid and allergies are not? ;)

#9 Posted by Oliver Danni on May 16th, 2009 2:19 am | link

I’m definitely an All-ifier, and I frequently find myself very uncomfortable with Most-enation. Even reading what you just explained about how you Most-enate things, I don’t quite understand how it works, and believe me, I’m trying to understand! I run into it, for instance, when I’ll say “I don’t like raisins”…like, I really really really don’t like raisins, if I say “I don’t like raisins”, I really really mean it. If I mean “I sometimes like raisins” or “I’m willing to put up with raisins”, I’d say that. But a lot of times I’ll say “I don’t like raisins” and someone will go “oh, there aren’t that many raisins in this cookie” or “but this salad is so good, you won’t even notice the raisins!” (This is totally not hypothetical…this literally happens to me at least once a week, and has for years.) Maybe I’m making the usual error here, but I just can’t see how “I don’t like fish” could legitimately mean “except for the times when I do like fish”. “I generally don’t like fish” or “I don’t like most kinds of fish” are legitimately Most-enated statements, but if someone tells me “I don’t like fish”, I’m not going to offer them fish unless they tell me otherwise (and of course, insert something vegan in place of the fish, since I wouldn’t feed someone a fish anyway!), because if I did I would expect them to say “I told you I didn’t like fish”, not “Oh, it just so happens that I do actually like that one kind of fish, how did you guess?”

#10 Posted by Pace on May 16th, 2009 9:55 am | link

@Oliver: It goes to show how powerful the usual error can be, eh?

#11 Posted by Victoria Brouhard on May 17th, 2009 12:07 am | link

Wow…totally fascinating.

I’m defninitely an all-ifier.

Also, I’m completely guilty of the Usual Error, because it didn’t really occur to me that others might be most-enators.

And an even deeper Usual Error is that I’m surprised Pace is a most-enator. I could be totally wrong, but I figured part of my all-ifier-ness came from my IT background, which is something Pace and I have in common. (Therefore, she would be an all-ifier, too…)

This post definitely bent my brain! Really good stuff!

Victoria Brouhard’s last blog post..What’s Happening, Hot Stuff?

#12 Posted by Pace on May 17th, 2009 9:27 am | link

Oh, your intution’s not far off the mark, Victoria. I was definitely an all-ifier when I was a professional geek. When I started focusing more on writing and less on coding, I learned that writing prose in all-ifier mode creates stuff that sounds like a tech manual. So I learned to speak most-enator, too. (:

#13 Posted by Green on May 17th, 2009 10:27 am | link

I’m definitely an all-ifier. Mostination seems a lot like not describing things clearly. If you say “I don’t like soda” I’m not going to offer you a soda- any kind of soda. The word you used was soda, not cola or pepsi or anything flavor or brand specific. I tend to assume that whatever people are telling me is as specific as they mean it.

BUT… if someone tells me “I don’t like vegetables” than my reaction is likely to be “You don’t like ANY vegetables?” “Well, I like some. But only cooked. I can’t stand raw vegetables.” And I don’t think my reaction would be violent or anything, as if they’d been deliberately misleading me. I’d just chalk it up to not understanding.

I also tend to do this number: “I don’t like green vegetables. Well, no, I like vegetables, but only when they’re cooked. Carrots are the only vegetable I can eat raw, except for spinach in salads. But mostly I prefer… Wha? Oh, yeah, I would like to try the potatoes. Thanks.”

So like I said, I’m an all-ifier, but it doesn’t often make a huge deal to me.

#14 Posted by kate on May 18th, 2009 4:55 pm | link

Is there a clarif-enater position available? or may that alone makes me a Most-enater because if someone just says ‘i don’t like fish’ then i will always follow-up with a clarifying statement of ‘all fish? or just some kinds of fish? what about canned tuna? does that count?’ (and this may be why i end up in long conversations on random topics… )

How does this work with positive statements? Do folks tend to be more all-enator for ‘i love tomatoes!’ and then just assume all kinds, raw, cooked, juice, etc. are enjoyed? Or do you mostinate with ‘i assume that means some, i am sure there are versions of tomatoes you don’t enjoy’ and just move on?

I ask because I realized that I would normally follow-up with a ‘what are the exceptions’ type of question when someone says they don’t like/want/enjoy/etc. something and yet accept a generalization when they say they like/want/enjoy/etc. something since I assume there are exceptions.

#15 Posted by Pace on May 18th, 2009 5:08 pm | link

@Kate: That’s interesting! I hadn’t thought that it might vary for positive vs. negative statements. It reminds me of a lyric from a song by Amy Steinberg: “…hate is so undeniable, so reliable. I say ‘I hate you’ and how easily you take that to be true. But I say ‘I love you’, you can’t believe me, you think I’m deceiving, being fake. That is the grand mistake.”

#16 Posted by Robin on May 18th, 2009 8:30 pm | link

Hah! this is interesting. I think food is also a different thing. When someone like my husband says “I don’t like X”… I used to think I couldn’t serve him X at all cause he wouldn’t eat it. However it’s not true. So now I need to say do you not like X like asparagus (kill me before you serve it to me cause I hate it) or not like X like chicken (not my favorite but I’ll eat it if you serve it to me if you serve it a way I like it).

Foods can even be removed from the I don’t like it list, which was unheard of in my experience.

For me, if I really really don’t like something it is rare for me to change it. Like olives. I’ve tried. I just can’t deal with them. I hate them.