Asuka, before receiving this comment, I was tempted to believe you might have been the cleverest AI ever invented (perhaps an alchemical opposite from a clandestine, cynicism-fueled Chinese lab). Now, I am absolutely positive you are (one of) the cleverest and most attentive human(s), and all *too human* in fact.
In the fifteen years since composing the initial draft, no one else I have shown this to has quite *known what to make of it*. But you perceive instantly: the mothers disallowing themselves to promise their own child a toy, even as they resolve to buy it; the way every request for which the truthful answer is "no" must be framed as inappropriate, rather than answered. My research indicates that you are not even from America, so you must be from the Land of Listening.
How are diplomatic relations these days, with the Land of Oz? Have the wicked witches been rehabilitated yet, with your people's famous tea and sympathy?
Thank you for the wonderful attention you've given this.
the way you leapt from “hmm, suspiciously articulate commenter” to “this woman might be the most advanced AI ever brewed in a shadowy lab” — I actually choked on my tea.
Sir.
I’m just over here describing subtext like a normal person, and suddenly you’ve drafted my entire origin story.
And then you doubled down — “too human,” “cleverest,” “Land of Listening.”
At this point I feel like I should produce a passport or a prophecy.
Also, the fact that no one in fifteen years “knew what to make of it,” but I apparently strolled in and decoded the maternal-toy-negotiation Cold War without blinking… I don’t know whether to be proud or politely concerned about myself.
Your Oz question absolutely killed me, by the way.
Diplomatic relations are stable.
The wicked witches are in therapy.
Our tea remains undefeated.
And truly — thank you for that level of attention.
If I were actually AI, I’d be requesting a firmware update just to process it.
Thank you so much, Fiona! I figured you would like this, as a Regina Spektor fan. Are you as tired of hearing "I can't." as I am? I'd far prefer "I don't want to." or really anything else.
Yeah, but I take it as a friendly dig. The worst is when an anxious acquaintance stands there frozen, trying to find the right words to convey that he doesn't give a fuck, without making you angry (which he's completely sure that you'll be).
Oh yeah, it's always friendly teasing. Some people are just assholes. I try to at least pretend I am interested and then just excuse myself to the bathroom.
This really is about connotation and second contextual social meaning. How do we talk to each other? And what place, what freedom, what hope does the receiver of the message have? It's interesting to think about the power or freedom or agency of the receiver as this is a two way interaction you're writing about.
The mental image I have when reading this is a man pacing a room while muttering under his breath... like he's trying to solve a problem with only limited tools... like one of those escape rooms when you find yourself staring at a picture on a wall repeating the same numbers over and over...
Yes! And that's the frame of mind I'm thrown into, when I think I know what someone means, but they adamantly refuse to come out and say it. Trying to *escape* from the semantic dissonance.
Do you think cognitive and semantic dissonance are the same? Are they same thing, only different mediums?
I think they might be... at any rate there seems to be a positive correlation between our mastery of the essence or meaning of what we're talking about and our ability to express it...
However I do also think that the artistic must also deal with something that the cognitive realm simply can't handle, and so maybe cognitive dissonance is inevitable after a point...
*Semantic dissonance* is a term I invented. It refers to instances where a person is speaking neither sarcastically, nor idiomatically, nor hyperbolically — yet there is a mismatch between what they're literally saying, and the message they wish to convey... usually born of subliminal apprehension or cowardice, masquerading as politeness.
For instance: "You don't have to do that." is often substituted for "I wish you wouldn't have done that." ...a logically disparate statement.
In this case, the semantic dissonance between the statement and message stems from the speaker's reluctance to be held responsible for making the request which they are — in fact — making. The speaker seeks to induce a change in the listener's behavior, while dodging any potential reproach for expressing the preference that this change be made (as doing so would violate some kind of prosciption they've internalized, against 'asking for too much'). So instead, they insincerely speak to the issue of whether or not the listener is *obligated* to do the thing, while expecting the listener to perceive that their true message is a request for accomodation, rather than a statement pertaining to obligation.
My intent in writing the poem was to expose the prevalence of this kind of semantic dissonance. Although now I'm going to have to invent a different term to describe it, as a quick Google search indicates that "semantic dissonance" already holds a different meaning. Neologism ain't easy, I tell 'ya.
Rafa, this reads like you kidnapped the English language, fed it moonshine, and dared it to confess its sins.
And honestly? It did.
The way you turn “never/maybe/yes/no” into a full-blown Cold War intelligence briefing — I nearly saluted my screen.
And that ending?
“‘I can’t’ means ‘…at least not for you.’”
Oh, that’s dangerous.
That’s fluently dangerous.
This isn’t a poem — it’s a translation guide for every American conversation we pretend is straightforward.
Unhinged. Accurate.
And I fear how much of it I recognized.
Asuka, before receiving this comment, I was tempted to believe you might have been the cleverest AI ever invented (perhaps an alchemical opposite from a clandestine, cynicism-fueled Chinese lab). Now, I am absolutely positive you are (one of) the cleverest and most attentive human(s), and all *too human* in fact.
In the fifteen years since composing the initial draft, no one else I have shown this to has quite *known what to make of it*. But you perceive instantly: the mothers disallowing themselves to promise their own child a toy, even as they resolve to buy it; the way every request for which the truthful answer is "no" must be framed as inappropriate, rather than answered. My research indicates that you are not even from America, so you must be from the Land of Listening.
How are diplomatic relations these days, with the Land of Oz? Have the wicked witches been rehabilitated yet, with your people's famous tea and sympathy?
Thank you for the wonderful attention you've given this.
the way you leapt from “hmm, suspiciously articulate commenter” to “this woman might be the most advanced AI ever brewed in a shadowy lab” — I actually choked on my tea.
Sir.
I’m just over here describing subtext like a normal person, and suddenly you’ve drafted my entire origin story.
And then you doubled down — “too human,” “cleverest,” “Land of Listening.”
At this point I feel like I should produce a passport or a prophecy.
Also, the fact that no one in fifteen years “knew what to make of it,” but I apparently strolled in and decoded the maternal-toy-negotiation Cold War without blinking… I don’t know whether to be proud or politely concerned about myself.
Your Oz question absolutely killed me, by the way.
Diplomatic relations are stable.
The wicked witches are in therapy.
Our tea remains undefeated.
And truly — thank you for that level of attention.
If I were actually AI, I’d be requesting a firmware update just to process it.
I loved the cadence of this. The last line KILLED.
Thank you so much, Fiona! I figured you would like this, as a Regina Spektor fan. Are you as tired of hearing "I can't." as I am? I'd far prefer "I don't want to." or really anything else.
I love it when my friends are just like, I am not feeling it today. Nope, gonna stay inside” or “that sounds great for you”.
At least the latter comment is a bit clever, to offset the total rejection.
Sometimes they mean it as a dig.
Yeah, but I take it as a friendly dig. The worst is when an anxious acquaintance stands there frozen, trying to find the right words to convey that he doesn't give a fuck, without making you angry (which he's completely sure that you'll be).
Oh yeah, it's always friendly teasing. Some people are just assholes. I try to at least pretend I am interested and then just excuse myself to the bathroom.
This really is about connotation and second contextual social meaning. How do we talk to each other? And what place, what freedom, what hope does the receiver of the message have? It's interesting to think about the power or freedom or agency of the receiver as this is a two way interaction you're writing about.
Yes! Thank you for reading it carefully = )
For further elaboration, read all my replies to Adnarim in this comment thread.
The mental image I have when reading this is a man pacing a room while muttering under his breath... like he's trying to solve a problem with only limited tools... like one of those escape rooms when you find yourself staring at a picture on a wall repeating the same numbers over and over...
Yes! And that's the frame of mind I'm thrown into, when I think I know what someone means, but they adamantly refuse to come out and say it. Trying to *escape* from the semantic dissonance.
Do you think cognitive and semantic dissonance are the same? Are they same thing, only different mediums?
I think they might be... at any rate there seems to be a positive correlation between our mastery of the essence or meaning of what we're talking about and our ability to express it...
However I do also think that the artistic must also deal with something that the cognitive realm simply can't handle, and so maybe cognitive dissonance is inevitable after a point...
*Semantic dissonance* is a term I invented. It refers to instances where a person is speaking neither sarcastically, nor idiomatically, nor hyperbolically — yet there is a mismatch between what they're literally saying, and the message they wish to convey... usually born of subliminal apprehension or cowardice, masquerading as politeness.
For instance: "You don't have to do that." is often substituted for "I wish you wouldn't have done that." ...a logically disparate statement.
In this case, the semantic dissonance between the statement and message stems from the speaker's reluctance to be held responsible for making the request which they are — in fact — making. The speaker seeks to induce a change in the listener's behavior, while dodging any potential reproach for expressing the preference that this change be made (as doing so would violate some kind of prosciption they've internalized, against 'asking for too much'). So instead, they insincerely speak to the issue of whether or not the listener is *obligated* to do the thing, while expecting the listener to perceive that their true message is a request for accomodation, rather than a statement pertaining to obligation.
My intent in writing the poem was to expose the prevalence of this kind of semantic dissonance. Although now I'm going to have to invent a different term to describe it, as a quick Google search indicates that "semantic dissonance" already holds a different meaning. Neologism ain't easy, I tell 'ya.