What's in a Word?
Do you know what servo or katana means? How about doula or damask? A recent study into word recognition among English speakers has found that how recognisable a word is to you may depend on contextual factors, such as nationality or gender.
In this week's podcast, we discuss words and language. Is there a difference between understanding a word and understanding how it is used? Does our recognition of certain words tell us something about where we fit into society? We discuss the Shy Tory effect, Urban Dictionary, and debate the differences between American and British English. Finally, we share a few words of our own to see how recognisable they are (or not).
- Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas
- Words known better by males than by females and vice versa
- Words known much better in the US than in the UK and vice versa
- Urban Dictionary
- Shy Tory Factor
For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
Transcript
Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Tom Spence, Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. And this week we're discussing howitzers and peplums. What is, what are we talking about? I know what howitzers are, but I don't know what peplums are. I don't even know if I'm even saying it right. It's interesting you say that because that is what we're talking about. A recent study by Brisbart et al, which was published only a few weeks ago, but which gained some traction on social media, was essentially a study of word recognition. And they said had several hundred participants from a range of countries, but obviously focusing on recognition of English words. So largely UK and US participants. And they were presented with lots of words and asked, do you recognise this word? And I think the ostensible interest here is how do you make, how do you get words that lots of people understand, which is obviously very important if you want to say, for example, create instructions for things, or if you want to, you know, have warning notices and things like that, you want to make sure that is going to be as understood by as wide a range of people as possible. That's sort of the reason why this kind of research is useful and important. But actually what they found incidentally was of probably more interest to us, which was that they found a really surprising divergence in recognition of some words by, well, through the features that they collected on people, which were things like nationality and gender. A big divergence in some words between recognition by men and recognition by women. And perhaps less surprisingly, a big divergence between recognition of words by some words by Americans and English people. And I think the thing that has probably surprised people the most is quite how divergent some of these words are in terms of the extent to which they're recognised by men and women. I think that's the main bit we want to focus on, right? Well, I think it's, I don't think we've decided precisely what we're going to focus on. Okay. But it's a bit like sort of discovering, it's like invasion of the body snatchers. I think that's the feeling I had, was like, how can it be that there are these people wandering around, women, who don't recognise these words and yet mysteriously do recognise these words which just look like random noise to me. And I consider myself someone with a reasonably good vocabulary. And yet these words are just, I mean, I don't know, you know, that some of them include, these are the ones that a lot more women than men recognise. Peplum. Look, just to sort of summarise. Just to summarise. Bando. I don't know what any of those things are. There's a whole load of words that, we take a whole bunch of words, it turns out there's, some of them are more recognised by and understood by men. We're talking about a big, so 64% of female respondents recognise the word peplum. Yeah. And only 13% of men. Yeah. I mean, that's amazing to me. It is incredible. So we've got some lists in front of us of all sorts of words of, and it is astonishing actually. Mind you, loads of the, sadly for me, lots of the ones that men should recognise, I don't recognise either actually. How do we want to go about this? When do we want to start talking about these words or do we want to still frame it a bit further?
Speaker B:Well, yeah, I mean, I think it's quite interesting to think about the methodology of the study because, you know, I don't know the participation rates, how representative it was and so on, but I looked at both sets of words and my intuition said that probably a sizeable chunk of those words, if you were looking at the general population participating would, you know, I would say the majority of those words would not have been recognised by the majority of people. And that may actually be borne out by that data, but I certainly think that would have been true for they are all obscure and esoteric to some extent then, you know. And so the question is, why are they more obscure and more esoteric to some sections of the sample that they had than others? And, you know, that's the sort of interesting aspect, I think. But I posit that none of them are really common words, even howitzer, which I'm sure most people are, you know, listening to this podcast or sitting there thinking, well, I know what that is. I would still say that there would be a lot of them are and the other half scratching their head. Yeah, 84% of half of them are going on. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. But I would say that, you know, if you went out onto the street and you asked 100 people what howitzer was, you'd struggle to get the majority recognising it.
Speaker C:I think that's an interesting point, though, because you've said that if you went out onto the street and asked people what a howitzer was, and that's a very different question to
Speaker B:do you recognise the word howitzer? Yeah. So you're saying, have you heard? So the methodology was, have you heard this word before? Not can you provide me with a
Speaker C:distinction? Because, for example, on the list of words that more women know than men, there are a few words there that I recognise. But even most of those I couldn't actually define. I know I've heard the word said at some point. Yeah, but that's not really what this is about,
Speaker A:though, because what this is about, I mean, you're talking about I think you were saying it's a question of definition versus recognition or something like that. Right. But that's kind of to the side, because this is really is just about the disparity between males and females in recognising or I mean, if that feels like peripheral. No, no, no. It's crucial. No. Why? Well, because what it reveals is that actually understanding a word appears to be a on a spectrum. And when we when we look at the data here, we we need to understand what it what people mean when they say yes or no. And because if we what how do you decide? But then still but then we still got to deal with the issue of males versus females. Yeah, we'll get to that. We we've got to we've got to touch on this because like Tom says, you know, there are a lot I most of the words on the female side I kind of recognise in inverted commas. But if someone said, well, can you define damask, for example, I really would. I recognise it as word. But is it an item of clothing? Is it a flower? I don't know. I would definitely say no. This still feels Let me finish. Go on. If someone says degauss. Now I'm probably in a similar position. I could not tell you the definition of degauss. But I've got enough of an idea. Like I know it's something to do with removing magnetism from an electrical object. So connect this to the male female thing then. No, we'll get to that phrase. Stop rushing ahead. I'm just saying we're talking about methodology. And it's a fundamental question that actually everyone who's seen this list has said, and which only you seem to be not curious enough to want to answer, which is what does it mean to say you recognise a word? Because to me, it's a grace. It's a it's a it's a sliding scale of recognition. And but I'm comfortable. I couldn't define I couldn't tell you the dictionary definition of degauss any more than I could tell you the dictionary definition of damask. But I'm happy to say that I recognise degauss and not happy to say that I recognise damask. Okay, so you are you saying there might be a methodological flaw here that's kind of distorting? No, I think I think all I'm saying is that we need to recognise that you either it's not a case that you either know a word or you don't. This is about it's probably gauging something like comfort levels with a word and being able to use it in a sentence. This feels like the least interesting
Speaker C:thing about this. But I think it's an important thing to understand to then say, you know, we're not saying that more women know the definition necessarily of peplum than men know the definition of peplum. We're saying that more women recognise peplum. Right. So those 13% of men who said they recognised the word peplum might not even really know what it means. So we are talking about flaws in the method. Because the methodology is clearly represented. Yeah,
Speaker A:we all we all understand it. Yeah, but it is a flaw them if the people participating don't understand. Well, it's a flaw if you're with people who might interpret this wrongly, but it's not a flaw with the study. Because as long as you understand what it is that people are saying, but I'm saying that what it is that people are saying is interesting, and we need to drill
Speaker B:into it. And I guess it's deliberately left vague a little bit like, you know, the phrase beyond reasonable doubt within a, you know, it's it's down to the interpretation of the participants. And that in itself is quite meta because, you know, they are they are interpreting themselves. Do you recognise the word recognise? Right. And how do you interpret in this context? But I think what what I think is interesting about that distinction is what it tells you about the amount you have heard and use the word yourself. Right. So so there's the the fringe case of I've heard that word a couple of times. And I know the kind of person who said that word and they were a physicist, let's say. So I know that word has got something to do with physics, you know, physics down to. Right. I've I've used that word myself many times. And I and I know it's it's meaning. And there is a continuum between. And I know that the way I interpret it is the same as the way lots of other people interpret it, because I've used it in their context and they've understood me and so on and so forth. And so what I think why this is interesting is because it tells you something about social networks. It doesn't tell you something about knowledge, although it kind of you you can infer that to some extent, but it tells you something about where you've bumped into different different words and who who is bumping into different words disproportionately to other other groups. So there is an element of identity in there, but it's also about social
Speaker C:networks. Yeah, I think in a way it's almost about exposure to the words rather than necessarily understanding of the words, which is, I think, quite a key difference. I think. Well, it's ah,
Speaker A:but is there? Well, to what extent is that the same thing? Hold on. Fraser, all you keep saying is, oh, that's boring without saying what else we should be talking about. There's three of us here who think this is interesting and one person, i.e. you, who thinks it isn't. John the Baptist. I am. Was a voice crying in the wilderness. He was telling the truth. He was. Look, just because I'm outnumbered by more intelligent people doesn't mean I'm wrong. The tyranny of the majority. That would be a logical fallacy. Yeah. Yeah. Look, no, no, no, no. Let's get serious for a moment because I don't think this is what is most interesting about this. I just feel that you guys are nitpicking. Stop saying that. No, let me finish. Can we have our conversation on our podcast? No, no. OK, because this is I don't think this is what interesting about this. You're just getting all geeky and just talking about the methodology here and how it's and how what you think is the really interesting is this is about. Oh, I might have heard a word recognition definition. No, because Chris. But Chris brought around something interesting. Yes, which I was about to pick up. OK. Keep it interesting then. Well, what's the difference between understanding a word and being exposed to and understanding how it's used? And when we were preparing, researching what we're going to do for podcast. When you say we. Actually, it was you and me. Well, sorry, researching. No, I don't do that. But discussing the the viability of the various podcasts, which I always have a great hunch about these things. You know my hunches, right? They always pay off. No, but how do you sort of explain this stuff to me? I'd have gone, well, let's forget that one. That's not interesting. We're just getting on. I've got the notes in front. Early versus late Wittgenstein. It says men are from Venus. Women are from Mars. No, men are from. Fraser is from Venus. We're all from Mars here. How it's a peplum. Probably written here by, who came up with this topic? Me. This is, I quote, this is really fascinating, worth drilling into. Drilling into, not discussing superficially. I confess I only know I have a fairly good idea of the meaning of 10 of the female words and all but one of the male words. And then it goes on to say, and by the way, Fraser is always writing our podcast. So let's talk to him. Do you want to start talking about the words? Would you just rather say, ha ha, you know, what's verbena? Is that the level at which you want this podcast? Okay. So superficiality, before you come in,
Speaker C:Tom's got his hand up, wants to say something. I've very patiently been sitting here. It's like my parents are having an argument in front of me. It's quite distressing. You should go to bed now, Tom. But I think the, for me, I think the reason why this is important is because yes, we can clearly see there are differences between men and women. And that's an interesting thing to talk about. But I think before we talk about it, we have to understand what those differences are. And then we can start expanding on what they mean. And I think here the difference is, we're getting to the point where we're saying the difference is, you know, women are far less exposed to these, you know, physics-y words on one side and men tend to be far less exposed to these more kind of fashion and clothing related words on the other side. Not necessarily can write a dictionary definition of them. And I think that is then our launch point into, once we understand what the data represents, we can understand what the structures of the data are
Speaker A:telling us. Well, that I agree with, but I don't see how that's connected to the recognition definition thing. Anyway, anyway, look, let's move it on. I mean, well, do you want to mention some of these words? Because our listeners might not have read this study. Absolutely. This is what I want to get on to. But Chris, you were about to say something. Do you want to come in?
Speaker B:Well, I just triggered a thought and I don't know to what extent. I haven't looked at the detailed article behind this, but I don't know to what extent there is an element of cultural expectation playing into the idea of recognition, right? So in the same way as, you know, people will, you know, in surveys will distort their, you know, inputs to surveys because of what they feel they should do. You know, the shy Tory effect and all that kind of stuff. I wonder the extent to which men, when presented with a set of words, go, well, I know, I know that one's a bit sciencey. Yes, that's something I know because, you know, that's and then they see something that, again, they recognize to the same extent, more or less, that they feel is to do with interior design or something. And they are less willing to put themselves forward. So I don't know the extent to which the methodology has aimed off for self-reporting biases based on individuals, you know, gender or indeed national perceptions of what it is to be that identity and what words you should know.
Speaker A:Yeah, it just feels to me that we should have done a podcast and called this podcast about survey methodologies and things to account for. Tom, what were you about to say?
Speaker C:So I was going to say, I think that's an interesting point. Don't you shush me. But anyway, go on. So I think that's an interesting point from Chris there. And I think it also probably ties into the fact that, for example, as Nick said, he might not be able to define degauss or chenille. But, you know, he spent time around people who have been using the word degauss. It feels more like the kind of word that people in his tribe use. He's heard it. He recognizes it. He recognizes those syllables as being a word. And so he can say he recognizes it. Whereas people that Nick spends time with don't necessarily talk much about chenilles.
Speaker A:Well, they do, but just not with me. I think that's the thing. Let's get on to the juicy stuff. OK, Nick. You mean the words? Yeah. OK, so the top 10 words where there's a difference between male recognition and female recognition are... We've got a similar list, by the way, for Americans and British people, which is also interesting. And talking about the difference is going to be interesting as well. What's the difference between the male and female difference and the American and English difference? So top 10 male words. Howitzer, thermistor, azimuth, femtosecond, milliamp, aileron, servo, degauss, boson and checksum. And then the female words... By the way, we're all male here. Quick. And let's be honest. How many of those did each of us recognize on the first glance, Tom?
Speaker C:I would say I recognize nine out of 10. Couldn't define them all, but I recognize nine out of 10. I didn't recognize aileron.
Speaker B:OK. Chris? Yeah, I've heard the majority, but I would say in terms of defining...
Speaker A:No, and let's just say not just heard, but think you kind of know what it means. Let's just say that. So you stick with your nine, you stick with your...
Speaker B:I would say kind of know what it means. I would say about half.
Speaker A:OK. Nick? Nine. My one I would struggle with is azimuth. OK. Which I know it's got something to do with angles and planets or something, but that's about it. OK. I actually know 10 of them and I could have defined every single one of them. So the female ones. Peplum, tool, I don't even know how to pronounce that, chignon, bandeau, freesia, chenille, kohl, spelt K-O-H-L, verbena, doula and ruche. I know three, I think. Oh, I reckon I know probably more of those. I'm a bit worried because I only know about three of the men. I might go as far as that. I sort of know four or five of them. But I mean, that's definitely a lower bar of sort of know.
Speaker C:There are two that I absolutely definitely know. And I'd say, yeah, another two or three that I feel like I maybe recognise.
Speaker B:OK. All right. So exception of me, we're all falling into this quite nicely. No, I think I recognise more of the second. I could define more of the second list.
Speaker A:OK. Really? Oh, well, define. Yeah. So, I mean, what is, what, let's just, how many of these? So we got on the male list, we've got military equipment. We've got kind of electric, electrics and electrical equipment. We've got aileron, which is to do with aviation, servo, mechanics, degas, boson. They're all to do with physics and electricity. I like a femtosecond. And on the, yeah, it feels like it should be in the other list. And then the female list. I mean, as I said, I sort of deliberately avoided looking these up, but I know that doula is a childbirth assistant. Verbena, we think is a plant. It's a plant. Yeah. Coal is a type of iron maker. Chenille, a fabric of some kind. Yeah. Freesia is another plant, is it?
Speaker B:Well, it's got, it had two E's on the list, right? I mean, there's the freesia flower, but I didn't think it had two E's.
Speaker A:Maybe it's just an alternative spelling. Bandeau, what's that?
Speaker C:I think it's a piece of clothing. A chignon? Again, I think that's some kind of fabric.
Speaker A:They're all quite Frenchy, aren't they?
Speaker C:I'm not sure about tulle, but again, it says fabric.
Speaker A:And a peplum, we think is a fold in some dress. So, yeah. Now, but men and women interact with each other, right? We know that. That's true. That's happened. But as who was saying about the tribes, it's like there is a secret. This is exposing the secret private language of those tribes, because men for years have been pretending that when they go down the pub, they talk about football. But actually, they talk about electricity and apparently, you know, women talk about clothes. I mean, it sounds a bit cliched, but, you know, is that is that something that is?
Speaker B:I think I think it's pretty. I just feel like it's dangerous to draw too many conclusions. Agreed. From that study, because I think it's self-reported. So I feel like.
Speaker A:Yeah, but that's cancelled out on both lists. These are the ones with the biggest difference. And male overconfidence, for example, about recognition is going to be reflected in both sides. So it's not that.
Speaker B:Well, except that except that they will they will view those words differently. They'll know which they'll know which area they come from and which ones they should be associating with. And I think that plays.
Speaker A:So you think like a bloke is going to be more going to feel more of an egocentric requirement to say, yes, I know what a femtosecond is. Exactly. If he doesn't know what a peplum is, it's like, well, it's no slight on his masculinity, but not knowing what a boson is. But they obviously get beaten up behind the toilets.
Speaker B:And if that were true, what that suggests is that everybody has enough recognition of all of the words to sort of know. But I mean, there's also like all those French sounding words, right? You already get a sense of, well, you know, a lot of fashion vocabulary comes from French, you know, so if it sounds Frenchy, that's maybe that's maybe a more feminine sounding word. So I don't really recognize those ones. That's that's a hypothesis which I think needs.
Speaker A:OK. All right. I want to move on. Don't worry. I want to move on in a certain direction in a minute. I don't know which direction, but I want to hear from Tom first.
Speaker C:So I just had one interesting observation on this, which is one of the words that I was most confident in knowing the meaning of on the female words list was coal. And the reason I know that is because of science. It's a bleed over because alcohol comes from alcohol because it's the Arabic word for eyeliner, and, you know, a lot of chemistry words come from alchemy, which is itself from Arabic, because that's where a lot of the early advances were. So I think that almost plays in a little bit to the tribes bit that we've been talking about. Because it's just a roundabout way to it. Exactly. It's the bleed over from the topics on the other side is part of the small insight I have into the second list of words.
Speaker A:I mean, I mean, you know, should it be? Is it surprising or controversial if there is a sort of different tribal language? Like, we're all very familiar with the idea of teenagers having their own private words. Admittedly, the existence of urban dictionary is rather cracked open the vault on that one for grown ups. I mean, we can just look it up now. What these battling words mean to the great embarrassment of kids. But, you know, that's not surprising idea that that different groups with different characteristics have, you know, talk about different stuff and use different words. But I think there is something I did. We can perhaps move on to the American British one. But I think it is worth saying it's not just different vocab. It's not different vocab, but the same kind of thing. These are things that I don't I mean, a peplum is apparently some kind of garment or fold in a piece in a garment or something. I mean, it's not something I even knew existed as a concept. But but if we look at the difference between the American words and the British words, do we have so the top five, sorry, the top 10 UK specific words. So these are words that so the top of the list, TPEX, right? And 7% of Americans know what that is. And 91% of British people know what that is. Extraordinary difference. I think it's surprising to me, I think. But then we have Byro, Tombola, Chippalata, Dodgum. It's actually impossible to imagine this being said in an American accent in a way. Yob, Gazump, Abseil, Naff and Curbside. And then we look at the American words and we've got Manicotti, Zitty, Tilapia, Garbanzo. I mean, I can't say the word Garbanzo without putting an American accent on. Kebab, which actually is an American spelling of a kebab. Kwanzaa, Crawdad, Hibachi, Sandlot and weirdly acetaminophen. Now, if you look at it, so look, these are all things that we know. I mean, stuff leaks out immediately, doesn't it on this? Well, the thing is that these are American words for things that we already have words for. Yeah, I mean, but also that most of them, a lot of them are food. And second, they're actually coming in from other languages. Food and drugs. Obviously a migrant thing going on there. But on the British side, it's more to do with branding, what we call stuff. Is that all? Well, again, European language influences like Tom, like Biro, they call a ballpoint in the US. But you've got Tombola, Chipolata, Cormor. I've read Dodgem, Yob and Gazump are also. They call it a bumper car. Hindi or something. But no, listen, I mean, sorry, and this is maybe stating the obvious, but what's clearly the difference between this list and the male-female one is, I think the male-female one, that's different. They're talking about an individual thing that's a thing on itself. Whereas this is just different words for the same thing. With the exception of the food, actually, on the left. They're not, they're not. I don't think there's anything that is the same thing, but with different words on both sides. There is, because things like Tippex, Biro, Dodgem, Yob, Gazump.
Speaker C:I think what Fred's saying isn't that the same word is on both sides. But it's, I think he's saying that, you know, the concept of Tippex is understood in America.
Speaker A:Oh, so he's repeating what I said five minutes ago. Correction fluid. Got it. OK, yeah. So that's what I said when I said I didn't know that a peplum was a thing. Yeah. But I do know if someone explains to me what a tamale is, well, if I didn't already know, which I kind of do, then I would go, oh, yeah, I'm not repeating what you said. I'm explaining it more clearly. OK, thanks. And then in turn, I explained it more clearly. No, no, no. In language that Nick can understand. What do we want to say?
Speaker B:There should be a Fraser and a Nick set of words. Yeah, that would be really good.
Speaker A:We're in danger of kind of going a bit too off piste here. Who's, let's have, let's get some structure. Chris, I want you to sort of, then we'll have Tom, then Nick.
Speaker B:So I was going to say, is there a substantive difference between an American not knowing what Tippex is, right, which is a product, OK, which we use to describe. Correction of food. Correction of food, right. So they know what that is, but they don't actually know what Tippex is, right. They've not heard of Tippex. So they don't know that meaning associated with that word. Is that different from us? So they don't know Tippex exists effectively, right. Is that different from somebody not knowing that there is a particular garment? Is that, is that, or that there is such a weapon called a howitzer? You know, it's not like the people who don't know what howitzer is don't know that there is such a, that kind of weaponry exists, right. They just don't know the name. Yeah, I may, I may have seen a peplum, but no one pointed at it and said that's a peplum. Orwellian, right. And this idea of, you know.
Speaker A:How could you commit murder if murder doesn't exist? Exactly. Yeah. But also it feels like the answer is both yes and no. Yes, there is a difference because of what we've just explained. One's a, one's a thing. One's about knowing a thing exists or not. And one's about knowing a potential word for that thing. Right. But also maybe it goes back to this point, and maybe this is what you're saying. Actually, it's still about tribes in a way, even though point one.
Speaker B:Yeah. I mean, it's a bit, it's a bit like the difference. And then there is this difference, right, between US and UK English, right? It's a bit like the difference between not being able to speak German, right? But you know all the things that Germans talk about. Or then suddenly finding that there's some tribe somewhere that operates in a way using items and artifacts that you had no idea existed. But fundamentally, is that different? That's the question that I think is quite interesting. I want to hear from Tom.
Speaker C:So I think, not only is that a very interesting question, but I think we actually have some evidence from this study that we can use to start making an answer towards it. And I think that evidence is that we've almost got a question, you know, knowing a different language and knowing different vocabularies within the same language, and knowing the entities that exist behind those. And if you look at the US-UK list, which we've discussed, and I think we've agreed, is much more akin to a different language. You see, the differences are much larger. And Nick mentioned that only 7% of US respondents knew what Tippex, or recognized the word Tippex, or 91% of UK respondents. And the differences are similar in scale. We're talking about 70% differences for a lot of these words. Whereas if you go and look at the list of words known better by women than men and vice versa, the differences there are more like 30%, or at a push, 40%. So you have much wider difference in recognition when people are talking about different words for the same thing, because they already have a word for that. They don't need to know another one. Whereas when you're talking about different vocabularies within the same language, effectively, there's a much narrower gap in recognition. And I think that that difference in the delta, effectively, could be the starting point for establishing whether there is a conceptual difference between those two differences.
Speaker A:We've got a lot of differences of differences here. Nicely put, Tom. Although we're talking about percentage points rather than percentages. Oh, well done, Fraser. Thank you. There's a reason why I was promoted to senior economist at one point in my career. Nick, what have you got to say? I didn't actually have anything to say. I was mid-thought. I was actually mid-thought. That's the first time. Chris, have a go. Sorry, how many hundreds of episodes have we done? And that's just you've got to keep that in. Yeah.
Speaker B: e study I could find was from: Speaker A:Let's go to Tom. And then one way or another, we need to wind up with something, Tom.
Speaker C:So that was also my first thought when I looked at these. I thought, oh, well, it represents the gender disparity in, for example, STEM. But looking at the numbers, we've got, for example, degauss in the men's list. 60% of men recognise that word, but 60% of men don't have physics degrees, right? So I think it says something interesting, both about the, you know, the kind of seed of people who are taught those words, but then also about the bleed over. Because you could imagine a world where, you know, 10% of the population actually know really what degauss means and that 10% of the population kind of use it enough that other people understand it. But that bleed out into the general population could easily, yeah, it could easily be equally, you know, distributed between men and women. But evidently, the spread of these words from those small communities isn't symmetrical. It spreads more to men than it does to women.
Speaker B:Well, and presumably it goes through social networks and social networks themselves have gender disparities built into them.
Speaker C:And I think that is the interesting takeaway from this is that we can see from these words that there are these disparities built into social networks as well as into academic disciplines.
Speaker A:I mean, we are only hypothesising about reason because I think, look, just to define a bit more precisely this difference which we're talking about, I think there's the sort of, do you know that this sign refers to some set of objects, right? The sign, the word, do you know, garbanzo, like, do you know that that refers to some set of objects is a different question to could you sort those objects out in real life, right? So to understand what a garbanzo is or what we would call a chickpea, if I presented you with a variety of peas, you would have to be able to sort the chickpeas out from the other chickpeas. And if you'd never heard the word garbanzo, I'd still say, well, OK, but you're a garbanzo guy through deep down because you can actually perform the act of separating a garbanzo and recognising it in real life. Now, so who is it important to be able to do that for? And you can imagine a bean manufacturer or grower, a farmer, I suppose they're called, got them in my mind. Yeah, being able to really distinguish between multiple types of pea and bean and possibly even between subspecies of chickpeas stroke garbanzos. And they would have a very rich garbanzo based vocabulary, which I wouldn't share. And in fact, I would, you know, I wouldn't recognise the words and I also probably wouldn't recognise the things. But that's because they need to make those distinctions. Now, you know, when I look at the word peplum, not only do I not know what it is, I'm not sure I'm, you know, but when I read the definition, even then I'm not sure I'm going to be confident about going out and saying, yep, that's a peplum and that isn't. But and I also don't have any desire to do that. Like I'm not interested in knowing what a peplum is. It's a bit like me in analysis. But I also but at the same time, I've got loads of board gaming concepts which I can recognise in a board game that a non board gamer wouldn't understand. So I think I think it's, you know, ultimately not driven by just by exposure. It's about need and need is to do with, you know, the desire to communicate about that thing. So it's not just necessarily exposure. It might be, you know, driven by differences in what people are fundamentally interested in. Nice. Listen, a few things. First of all, this feels almost endlessly fascinating. We could double this podcast episode and keep going with this. That's what I feel. Secondly, actually, I quite like the way, although I still stand by my previous comments, I quite like the way that you guys are interrogating the data here. And that's what it feels like. We converted it. No, it doesn't mean that I want to do it or it doesn't it doesn't even mean I think that it's a worthwhile exercise. But I kind of like watching you sort of, you know, what's the word? Well, let's call it what I did interrogate it. Third thing, actually, it actually it sits quite nicely with what this podcast is all about. Right. Analysis and decision making. Maybe we're not looking at the decision making so much. Maybe we are. But boom, that's right there. That's the analysis. Yeah. So we need to we need to finish up. What was your tell me what your and what is your suggestion?
Speaker B:Yeah. So I was just saying I thought of sort of a few words that I a couple of words, really, that I thought would distinguish between some of our podcast. Gotcha.
Speaker A:And Nick, what was your one? Yeah, I was going to suggest some words, words that you think, you know, that other people won't know. I'm not going to know any words. But anyway, let's proceed. Chris, go for it.
Speaker B:Yeah. I had thought about some words that I thought would draw distinctions between our podcast participants before. Us. Us. Us four. Yes, us four. So, for example, Nick, do you know what a false nine is? No. Right.
Speaker A:This is a sporting term.
Speaker B:Yeah.
Speaker C:Tom, I bet you know what a false nine is. Do you want to define it? Yeah, go on, please. It's a centre forward who plays in a less advanced role than a traditional centre forward in football. A little, you know, more outside the box and kind of a link up role to bring wingers into play. Typically scores fewer goals than a traditional number nine, but maybe gets more assists. No, he's wrong. It's a kind of vegetable.
Speaker B:That's right. So, you know, that's obviously based on me knowing that Tom has an interest in football. You had a vague interest. So you recognise the term. This is a good thing you were talking about. You would have said you recognised it. Nick would have been in the camp not recognising it. So, yeah. The other one, this might work or might not, depending on Tom's knowledge, but Dealey Boppers. Yeah. Do you know what Dealey Boppers are?
Speaker A:Oh, awesome. I have no idea. Oh, Chris, this is masterfully done. Well done. Yes.
Speaker C:Because absolutely me and Nick and you would definitely know what this is. I wouldn't even say I recognise it.
Speaker B:Oh, good. Well, I'm glad that worked. My response would be.
Speaker A:And let's not say, right?
Speaker B:That's your homework. Yeah. Yeah. Go away and find out what Dealey Boppers are.
Speaker C:What about our poor listeners? Well, they could go and do some work as well.
Speaker B:If they don't know, they shouldn't be listening. That was it, really. But I thought that illustrated the point quite well in terms of distinction between interests, experience and so on. Yeah.
Speaker A:Beautifully done. Nice, Chris. Nick, yeah, as we're all thinking, we all think about a word that we think we know that others don't. Is that about right? Yeah, I've got a. I'm feeling really nervous now. See, I'm trying. This is really interesting. This reminds me of that. There's a game like this, isn't there? Where you, I don't know if you've ever played Dixit. Dixit is a game where you have to come up with a clue that you know that only some people will get. So I've got a suggestion. I think this one is designed to get one hit, right? Meeple.
Speaker C:Yeah, I know what a meeple is.
Speaker A:I know what a meeple is. Two hits. No. Yeah, because you've secretly become a board game, haven't you, with your family? That's the one that only board game people will get. And so it's no surprise that Fraser didn't get it. What about the word. You're always trying to make me out as some person who. I've got witnesses. I'm not interested in board games. Recently, I sat through five bloody hours of storming Normandy with you into a 40 hour game. All right. I mean. Okay. Anyway. That's pretty dedicated. Didn't have any meeples in it, though.
Speaker C:Does anyone else here know what Grignard is? No.
Speaker A:A Grignard or a Grignard?
Speaker C:Grignard.
Speaker B:No. I might put that in the category of recognised, but tell me what it is and then.
Speaker C:So I thought the best way to go about this, judging by the list of words we've been looking at, was to go for technical subject matter. So I used my chemistry background. It's a type of reagent that you use for attaching alcohol groups onto other compounds. Do you know what? For years, I've been searching around for a word for that now.
Speaker A:Thank God.
Speaker C:But crucially, I picked a word that doesn't sound too chemistry. If I'd said alkyl. I forgot what the word was. Everyone would have thought, oh, that sounds like chemistry. Grignard.
Speaker A:Because it sounds like sort of Nordic, the one that you say.
Speaker C:It's actually the sort of the guy who developed Grignard chemistry was called Grignard. Olaf.
Speaker A:And so it's named after him in that area. Okay. I mean, that's kind of cheating, isn't it?
Speaker C:Well, I mean, you wouldn't be saying it was cheating if you knew it. I think that's being a sore loser.
Speaker A:I've got one which maybe Fraser will get. And if you guys, I can't remember the extent to which you played music of any kind. Is this bootylicious? No, capo. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Would you guys know what a capo is? Or what's sometimes called a capo.
Speaker C:How is this spelled? C-A-P-O. Yeah, it's a rank in the Mafia. It is. It is, actually. That has gazumped you somewhere.
Speaker A:But actually, I know that Nick's talking about something else. But it actually goes back to this list. If that was in America, that would be a capo.
Speaker C:I would have said that I had recognized that word, though. And you would have been wrong, interestingly.
Speaker A:But then they would have to test you on the survey thing.
Speaker C:But that's the thing, I would be right because I recognized the word C-A-P-O. But I don't know the same meaning.
Speaker A:Do you know what it is, Chris? No. Okay. I mean, let's keep it out there. We're not going to say, but I know we're talking about the same thing. Yeah, yeah. We'll show each other our capos when it's finished, when these guys are out of the room.
Speaker B:Any other words? I have a word that I think nobody here will recognize. And only a particular subset of people will recognize.
Speaker A:It's a shout out to those people.
Speaker B:It's a shout out to those people. The word is riffard.
Speaker A: layground slang term from the: Speaker B:It's an Exonian term. Oh, okay. Only people in Exeter will know the word riffard.
Speaker C:I think it's just a word for a bit of a plonker.
Speaker A:Don't be such a riffard. I suppose we'll have to look that up, but it might not be on the internet. I think it's the kind of thing that might not be on the internet.
Speaker B:It might be. Rural dictionary.
Speaker A:Hit us with it.
Speaker B:What is it? What's a riffard?
Speaker A:Oh, I don't know.
Speaker B:It's basically a term for a low class individual. And there's a road called Riffard Road in Exeter. But it became more broadly used for low class English.
Speaker A:I got three words. I think two of them, I think there's a chance you'll probably know. I think it'll probably be easy for you. I think one you definitely will not know, although maybe Nick. So first of all, Bocca. Sometimes called Bocca. Bocca Juniors? How's that spelled? B-O-C-A. B-O-C-C-A. Yeah, I know what Bocca is. Okay. Do you know what it is, Nick? It's actually a Japanese word, I believe. I feel like it's a food, but I can't go much further than that. So you know what it is. No, I mean, I can see in your eyes that you know what it is. No, I don't think so. Interesting. Okay. And there's a reason, right? Why I would know it. Yeah. This one I think is pretty simple, but let's see. Saudade? Saudade? Yeah, I know what that is. You don't know that? Okay, it's a Portuguese word. I'll give you that. Of which there's no direct translation in English, but I'm sure if you looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary, it would be in there. Food stuff? No. Music style. Yeah, I mean, that certainly ties into that. And one I think none of you will know, and I'm going to bet my... I'm going to... What am I going to bet on this? A thousand pounds. A thousand pounds. You heard it here. But I get a thousand pounds, yeah, so... No, I'm not entering into that bet. That would be ridiculous. And we better finish up on this. Mardy. M-A-R-D. Oh yeah, I know what that is. You do? It's a Lincolnshire word. Well, that's what I was going to say, because you've got Lincolnshire connections, because it's a word I've only learned in the last year.
Speaker B:Like Mardy is in the mood. Like somebody is Mardy. A Mardy cow.
Speaker A:Yeah, usually Mardy cow. Okay. I didn't know it before. Well, you lost three thousand pounds there. Well, that's interesting, because actually, I think at least one person knew each of the one of my words.
Speaker B:It's a Yorkshire word as well. Is it? Yeah, Mardy. Because it's the first time I've heard of it.
Speaker A:Right. But I thought no one would know Mardy. Anyway, interesting. All right, that was fun. Stop there, yeah? Why not? Cool. You Mardy bastard. So we'll stop there. Thank you as always for listening to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. I've been here with Nick Hare, Tom Spence and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time, goodbye.
