Word Anatomy Course # 101

In this basic Word Anatomy Course #101, we'll have a look at some of the most common attributes describing people. Some idioms that the most of us take for granted do not necessarily contain the idea that we believe they do. Unveiling their hidden nature may become as a surprise for many of us. Especially, the message of some descriptive words about human behavior and characteristics may change completely when the anatomy of the expression comes under close scrutiny. Nowadays, a growing number of people would like to know what they really are saying, and why are they doing what they do. Perhaps for this reason the course has gained such an unprecedented popularity that the material has already been translated into French, Swedish and German, and the work on the Mandarin language has been recently started.

Introduction and examples 

The true nature of a single word is exposed when the actual character string is dissected, fixated, cut, politically dyed and displayed between two transparent video screens. The separated random syllables are then analyzed under a high magnification internet microscope. The consistency of the results is confirmed by making an extensive literature review. An educated individual might see this processing just as unscientific as any cutting of a random rat, but these skeptics will most often be returned back to earth as they come up with the results, and compare them with the real life. Even in professional circles this method is often mixed with "word rooting" although by using this method, the original common meaning is in many cases completely rooted out. Anyway, let's start this course by disassembling the simple word "optimist". 

Optimist: Many of us would like to call themselves optimists, but only few dare. Is there a problem with the others seeing optimists naïve, or is it only that the actual word in its written form doesn't tell it all. So, let's start with the basics. If the opt-prefix is related to vision, and we all know what mist is, an optimist, as optical mist, sounds and looks suspicious. Especially an optimistic visionary wouldn't like to have any attributes of compromised vision appended to the context. On the other hand, opt as optional and imist as someone who possibly prefers having (at least or only?) minimal professional safety training doesn't feel good either. So, finally we'll come up with the definition: An optimist is a potentially insecure person with bad vision, and should be considered a liability at work. No wonder that only so few are brave enough to talk about it; they're not sure if it's safe.

Visionary: What about the above mentioned visionaries? They should represent those who are able to see the forest for the trees; discern an overall pattern from a mass of details. However, if you take the word literally, vis as in vis-à-vis, ion as a very small particle and finally aries as a stubborn animal, you'll have a sample of individuals who are all the time hardheadedly facing problems with the details they, according to the supposed definition, avoid seeing, but actually are not able to take into account. Or are these guys just myopic optimists who think they know what is right there under their nose, but never bother to check. Show me a visionary, and I'll show you a real liability.

Articulate: Some people are called more articulate than the others. But when we use the word, is there room for a misunderstanding, or can the adjective be used for even a refined and intentional mocking. As we usually see it, an articulate person speaks fluently and articulates distinctly, and his or her demeanor provides an impression of an educated and reliable character. However, if we dissect and analyze the word into artic that means informal, ul that in HTML language is an "unordered list" and ate, we'll get something very different. In a restaurant, an articulate individual tends to, with no regrets, devour not only the portions he ordered, but also those he didn't order. There is a chance that an articulate person's clear articulation is simply forced by the circumstances; it is hard to speak with your mouth full of food. On the other hand, you need to be, in a twisted way, somewhat polite in order to snatch all the plates from under the noses of your fellow diners.

Perfectionist: An articulate perfectionist would speak in high tones at dinner, and finally clean the next of kin's plate with a piece of bread. Perfectionists can at times be deadly annoying, but I would like to know if any of the good textbooks in Psychiatry have ever gone deep enough into the true essence of a perfectionists mind. Now, if we disassemble the word into per (by means of), fect (make), ion (in web-language short for "I don't"), and ist (having a steadfast belief), we may finally end up with something revealing: Literally, a perfectionist is in a strong belief that by means of his own efforts he's not going to make it. He's a dude who tries to finish all the jobs (if it's building an Interstate or just digging nose) as well as possible, but as a matter of fact is afraid of that the anticipations set on him have been overly optimistic (ho ho, see above), and/or his talent simply doesn't comply with what's required for the task. Whatever he does, he does carefully because he is afraid*. In other words, a perfectionist is an insecure person going through life with faltering steps and scared to death by even potential mistakes. In his case, common sense isn't common at all, unless he'll meet an optimist, who is also afraid, but doesn't see it. 

*) BTW, "Afraid" as Afr-Aid refers to the funds being sent to African famine areas and as educational support. One of the recipients is Senegal, and a city named Diarfa ("afraid" reversed).

Tantalizing: Then there are words that in their common implication are pretty accurate. Let's finish this introduction with one. In spoken language "tantalizing" means "things arousing desire or expectation for something unattainable". There are men who dream of faraway but eager Philippine female gymnastic athletes. Our rules apply more accurately if the particular females are especially tanned, or have happened to acquire a liver disease, as tan is yellowish brown, tali is an artistic and athletic girl and zing means enthusiasm and liveliness. These girls can also after the dissection (of the word) be called tantalizing. 

Conclusions 

So, what's the use for the mutilation of all these well established and nice idioms. As in all fields of life, having sometimes an alternative perspective will help to avoid misjudgments. It could help envision the doings and not doings of the people around even if they themselves didn't realize why they're doing things. This applies especially to the optimists who don't see, and the visionaries who are a liability. Although splitting words may sound a bit unscientific and "out there", the technique is under development, and it's been recognized as one of the most rapidly evolving branches of the Science of Art. Alone last year, our projects received funding from some distinguished sources, and then the OECD. Secondly, this at least is a pretty good try. 

A cirrhotic liver usually undergoes dissection in the autopsy.

Long arms required for X-rated selfies

An original subsurface x-ray image of the Loch Ness Monster (complimentary from Isak). There aren't any recorded selfies taken by the monster.

Confusing x-rated, ex-rated and radiological terminology could result in lots of awkward misunderstandings. In common talk, x-rating of course refers to a publication or a performance requiring parental advisory. Ex-rated, on the other hand, could be something that your "ex" (as an ex-partner) has commented or criticised or, as by being an ex, has been allowed to take an experience of... and rate it, him, her. Playing with these words may sound dull, but still I take it seriously as Radiology is a branch of The Medical Science, and the well-advised users of x-rated or ex-rated stuff are either enthusiasts of The Science of Art, or they just appreciate a second opinion. 

In order to alleviate the discomfort created by the starting statement, I'll tell you a true story (some of you may have heard about it, but it was his fault): So, I had just finished a golf round near my place with a friend, and he stayed over night as the way home was long and dangerous. In the morning my friend asked me if I had any pain killers or suppositories for hemorrhoid pain. I offered him some, but the point here is that I just forgot to mention something very essential. Earlier, I had occasionally tried to cover the smell of beer in my breath from my wife with garlic. I used to scale and slice garlic cloves in the toilet (and then mix in balsamic vinegar with a raw egg, but that's another story). Extra garlic cloves I hid in a box of hemorrhoid suppositories. Already then, my friend was pretty far-sighted and didn't wear glasses in the morning. The morning was sunny and clear, and I can still hear his scream reverberating in our bathroom with pretty blueish tiling.

I don't know if, after the incident, my friend's colon was x-rayed or otherwise rated by anyone's ex. However, I can say that if the whole episode had been taken on film, quite likely the actual toilet action and definitely the aftermath would have been some tough x-rated material. Recently he has developed an aversion to all Russian food.

But then, let's get back to the theoretical discussion. The radiologists use softer x-rays for imaging soft tissues as they are more "transparent" than bones, and the term "soft" is also an attribute to borderline x-rated filmography. Obviously, that compartment is all about soft tissues and transparency. On the other hand, xxx-rated magazines (hard core) and especially videos are nowadays a common source of information, and the more Xes are prefixed the more reliable the info is. As well do divorced people have exes, ex-exes or even more. However, these two categories differ in one fundamental way. The xxx-rated stuff maintains its effectiveness and function as the ex-exes do not. The increasing number of x- or ex-prefixes entails inverse correlation in this case. They do not simply work in the same department. I don't know if the radiologists use the term xxx-rays for harder beams they use, but the outcome of handling xxx-rated material could definitely be measured using the Rockwell test, and if that pair existed, the correlation would be direct. 

Talking about the radiologists and their tasks, writing an interpretation of an x-ray (radiograph) is an essential chore for providing the clinician with some good information about the subject (patient). X-rated magazines consistently also have "a story" that provides the reader with essential details about the x-rated "clinical" pictures (who is the patient?). The x-ray interpretation tells the clinician almost all that is necessary, but the x-rated material is first ex-rated by ocular means, and only after some positive feed-back studied in writing. These two procedures have a marked difference also in that the first interpretation is definite and is provided by an outside source, but in the latter the impact of the reading experience is ultimately up to the readers own imagination.

Taking selfies has seemingly swept over the social media as an enthusiast would go for non-radiological journals. Technically, xxx-rated selfies are relatively hard to take as even the full extension of arms is only sufficient for a good shot of one's own ear or the partner's plumber's crack. So, these selfies would fall in the one-x-category. Recently, I read about a selfie-taker who caused a serious traffic accident. Quite often the aim is to awake publicity, and is there a faster means for that than to put some soft tissues on display in social media. Hanging them up in a tree shortly after will boost the impact. For the medical staff, who is trying to reconstruct an accident victim, it is of course easier if there is a recent photograph available. Now if the manufacturers were really clever, they would also include an x-ray script in the selfie-apps. Reconstructing the bony jig-saw puzzle is not always so easy with no decent manual.

Once in a while, imagination plays a role in everyone's life. Having a research report published in a scientific journal requires some imagination too. A submitted paper has to go through a peer review process, and thus has to be accepted, except by the editorial staff of the journal, by two to four experts of the same discipline. For gaining some more credibility and impact factor, should also the x-rated "journals" have a peer review system? But which criteria should be used for selecting the reviewers; the duration of the magazine subscription or perhaps police records (depending on the number of Xes)? The same could be applied to ex-partners. Should the priests or magistrates intending to join previously divorced couples in marriage require a peer review done by the ex, or even an ex-ex-spouse; could ex-boy or ex-girl friends be included in liberal congregations? Perhaps in remote congregations and Louisiana, siblings and cousins would be eligible? What about the radiologists. Should their sweethearts first be screened (trans-illuminated), and the x-rays be nailed on light boards in town halls. Well, you shouldn't take this ranting too seriously. I didn't really mean what I said about the radiologists. On the other hand, the Loch Ness monster above didn't have any peers, didn't get married, and hasn't been seen for a while.

Well now, let's get serious; there's always room for true stories. A sorry misjudgement may occasionally be like laughing through tears, and it literally applies to the garlic incident above. However, sometimes the events simply get out of hands, and the laughter comes but later. Some ten years ago, during the Second Gulf War, one Sunday morning I was playing golf (again) in Q8. The local airfield wasn't that far, and we saw an XXL-size US Air Force cargo plane approaching at low altitude. Suddenly, two bright flares were fired from it, and the plane forcefully waved its wings. For a fast passing moment we thought the plane was going to emergency land on the golf course, but it just disappeared behind the hills. However, as soon as its roar had reached some nearby bungalows, a male military person in his 20's came running out from one, and hid in the bushes. He really did misjudge the situation. Perhaps he thought the house was on fire, they had been attacked, or the C-17 pilot's untrue wife had used a flash. Probably, in near future they both would qualify for ex-raters. We of course never got to know how the things turned out, but most likely the pilot did have some beforehand intelligence, or just had stumbled on some old x-rated selfies taken by his wife. Also, if his timing was perfect, the wife was just seeing fireworks, but didn't take them as real. Is it easy to recognise someone else's plumber's crack in a snap shot?

Theoretically, taking selfie x-rays is possible, but sharing them won't provide what so ever satisfaction. There is a chance that an ordinary selfie reveals more about the subject's cerebral wavelengths (i.e. the way of seeing him/herself, friends, life, society, politics, pimples on nose etc.) than any radiograph or an MRI image ever could. On the other hand, the term MRI (e-Mailed Rear Image) is quite well-known also among selfie-takers.

Good imagination is a source of plentiful joy, and it may even enrich the discussion about non-radiological issues. Still some time ago, old people made us believe that reading non-radiological journals would make us blind, or at least make us lose the sense of humour. Although I can't brag about being an enthusiast in that sector, I'm convinced that reading any kind of material from cereal packet covers to Shakespeare will improve our rating ability whether it concerns garlic cloves, ex-girl/boy friends, objects of selfies, or the Loch Ness Monster. Or then not.

P.S. Earlier in this talk I mentioned something about awkward misunderstandings. If some of the readers now think that I'm a radiologist, they are so wrong.