But when it comes to academics, the story is totally different. Academics know too much in a surprisingly limited slice of the world. And fairly enough, my research is also a very thin slice of the reality (Of course, I have to leave some work for other aspiring Ph.D.s to do. Grin).
- Well, there's a 4th planet in the 267th dwarf solar system of the Messier 82 of the M81 group system..
- Ah, so you are using the galactical theory of dwarf planets!
- No, wait. on that planet..
- Ah, so why don't you use the theory of on external galactical surfaces?
- uhm, well, it's not exactly what I am looking at. On that surface, there are different species..
- So why don't you just use cosmobiology?
- Well, it's ...yeah, it is cosmobiology, but these species are called stones
- I don't understand..
- yes, so these stones are actually carbon-based living creatures
- I knew it! You are researching the carbon-based theory of life!
- No. These creatures are distinguished by colour: blue and yellow stones..
- Wait, so you are into the spectral analysis?
- Noooo, not at all. The thing is these colours are actually the attributes of time. The same stone is visible on that planet by an observer, but when its colour is blue, it is not actually present, it is its temporal shadow..
- I have never heard of such theory. You must read "Time and Astronomy", it explains everything about what you are trying to do...
That being said, my research has nothing to do with forms of life or colours (well, almost nothing) but a colourful metaphor makes my burden lighter (despite the stones). I am not complaining, after all, I am interested in communication.
P.S. The whole conversation is totally made up. Of course.
...and so there is some advantage gained in the conversation by leading with your theory. It puts them on the defensive unless, of course, they already know all about it. Good to select some obscure theory or one that is so complicated that folks steer clear! Communicable Action has worked really well for me. Hardly anybody knows it but most everybody has heard of it's author. General Systems has spawned so many theoretical children that you could assemble any number of rabbit holes and arrange them sort of like "whack a mole," the time honored arcade game; and when someone picks on your General Systems sub-theory, you just duck down the hole and come back up in another. That will keep them guessing.
ReplyDeleteHahaha, Larry! Yes! Duck into one hole and come back in another is an easy way out. But I don't want folks to steer clear, I actually want everybody to understand, without any fancy theory names.
ReplyDeleteIn what way did the Communicative Action theory worked for you? Do you mean that it's too complicated and people avoid to discuss it?