Summary

The author advocates for the use of disclaimers in writing to prevent misinterpretation and to clarify intent, drawing on communication insights from Deborah Tannen, Ph.D.

Abstract

The article, titled "500-WORD RANT #5," discusses the challenges writers face in conveying their intent and the potential for their work to be misinterpreted. The author, reflecting on their own experience as a humorist and satirist, suggests that writers should include disclaimers to ensure their messages are understood as intended. Inspired by Deborah Tannen's research on gender-based communication differences, the author emphasizes the importance of clear communication and understanding between writers and readers. They propose a "Sincerity Advisory Warning" to alert readers when the content is serious, aiming to improve communication and possibly their writing stats. The author highlights Tannen's findings that most men and women have distinct communication styles, suggesting that learning and respecting these differences can prevent misunderstandings and conflicts.

Opinions

The author feels that their expertise in humor and satire has led to a perception of them as a clown, regardless of whether this label is deserved.
They express confusion over the disparity between their own perception of their humor and the response received by top humor writers.
The author believes that the "Humor" tag on Medium may be misused by some writers to attract attention, even when their content is not humorous.
They suggest that a disclaimer, such as a "Sincerity Advisory Warning," could help readers better understand the writer's intent.
The author agrees with Deborah Tannen's work on communication patterns, emphasizing that most men and women communicate differently, with men focusing on problem-solving and hierarchy, and women on emotional validation and networking.
They argue that misunderstandings often arise from not recognizing these communication differences, leading to unnecessary conflicts.
The author calls for an end to zero-sum communication games, advocating for more sincere and open dialogue.

500-WORD RANT #5

Writers Need to Include Disclaimers

A vital lesson in communication by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D.

Don’t be misinterpreted! I’m offering custom-designed, personalized writing disclaimers at a low, low cost.

Today, I wrote an article on creativity, based on over 20 years of professional experience in advertising. In response, my spiritual sister in humor wrote a funny comment, and I realized:

I am branded as a clown, deservedly, or not.

Look at my profile. While some people don’t think I’m funny, I was a Top Writer in Satire and Humor, for some inexplicable reason.

I use the word inexplicable for two reasons:

I don’t get the enormous response received by the real Top Writers in Humor. (Perhaps the algorithm counted all my stories with the “Humor” tag, took pity on my ineptitude, and gave me a participation trophy); or,
The “Humor” tag has nothing to do with being funny. There are successful writers in one genre who add the “Humor” tag, even when they’re not funny. Kind of like the idiot (thank God women are smart enough not to breach this particular bastion of gender inequality) who takes a dump on a cafeteria table and thinks he’s funny because one person laughs nervously while the rest of the group is groaning or stifling the urge to vomit.

The point is, her response made me realize the difficulty writers face to make their intent clear.

Maybe we need to create disclaimers in our writing, so people won’t misinterpret what we’re trying to say.

With that in mind, I designed a Sincerity Advisory Warning. I will display it whenever I have something serious to say.

Humorists will be forewarned to stay away, while fearful newbies will know I am creating a haven for them to learn meaningful lessons.

This is a win-win for everyone involved.

And it might improve my stats.

On a more serious note, don’t we need a better way of communicating intent?

Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., wrote one of the best non-fiction books ever. She studies the unique linguistic patterns employed by MOST women and MOST men.

I capitalized the word MOST because the vast majority of people don’t hear qualifiers and get angry, thinking we’ve said something negative about them.

On the other hand, some members of oppressed groups purposely leave off the MOST, to incite some readers to push back. Then they can mock that member of the “oppressors” for being so tone-deaf.

MOST men communicate in terms of solving problems and hierarchy.

MOST women communicate in terms of validating emotions, and building a network.

Both styles are valid.

If we just learned each other’s language, we wouldn’t be so quick to shut down voices carrying messages that sound wrong.

More often, it’s a case where our interpretation is wrong, and a friendly conversation between friends or lovers turns into a fight where there was no disagreement.

Let’s stop playing zero-sum games with others to speak and listen with sincerity.