Please help. Can someone help me understand the definition of "nuanced"? It says "to give subtle differences to" yet it makes no sense when plugged into the sentence "the effect of the music is nuanced by the social situation of the listener" I don't understand how you can give something subtle differences. Someone please explain

If you have good knowledge on a subject you know the ins and outs of a subject then it could be said you know the nuances of that subject or topic.

It's like knowing how to dribble a basket ball without looking. You learn by practice right? To understand nuances you gain knowledge of a topic by STUDYING that topic. Think of it as learning added knowledge beyond what you know. Nuance requires you to pay attention to small easily missed details.

You can't understand the nuances of anything without adding to your knowledge on the subject. You cannot understand the subtle differences unless you explore and experiment (LEARN) the TOPIC, or subject. For example practice dribbling a basket ball and you learn the subtle difference between just dribbling, and knowing how to dribble without looking at the ball.

Did that help?

How did nuanced go from "give subtle differences to" to "knowing the ins and outs / details" and how does it apply to the sentence? How can the social situation of somebody nuance / give a subtle difference to the effect of the music? It makes the effect of the music subtly different from what exactly?

Also, while I'm at it I might as well ask this...

nuanced when used as an adjective and not a verb means "characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression" and it's used in the context of "nuanced argument" and "nuanced political beliefs". So an argument that has many subtle shades of meaning? I don't understand how something can have more than one intended meaning at a time. For example, let's say that the political spectrum isn't just democrat and republican and it's more nuanced (has many subtle shades) and, just for simplicity sake, has 5 shades: far right, moderate right, centrist, moderate left, and far left. So if someone's political belief is nuanced (has many subtle shades of meaning or expression) then does that mean they are all five?

I feel like if I understand the word in the contexts I've provided, it may help my understanding

I know little about music, but have many musician friends, even some for whom it's their career. They are far more aware of all the nuances (here used as a noun) than I am. That's easier than the sentence you quoted, about the social situation of the listener. Not sure what that means either. Hearing a lousy boombox while walking down the street, vs sitting in a recliner in a room with good acoustics, listening to the music live, or through the best headphones and the best electronics? I don't know. Maybe they mean lifelong learning about music? It's an awkward expression for this context.

See, again, you are finding questions where most of us don't. Our minds fill in the blanks when the finer points of the 'nuances' (LOL) of the statements aren't totally clear. That allows us to move on to the next sentence.

Somewhere in here I see a career for you, as a book critic or something!

As for the political spectrum, no it doesn't mean someone is all 5. I consider myself to be 'selectively' in some of those 5, as occasion is right for my beliefs. Maybe I could say I have a more 'nuanced' view of politics than many people I know, who expect me to be always left or right. But I would never say it that way, because it makes me sound haughty.
What you did there is a type of logical fallacy - you defined a nuanced term, the political spectrum, and then thought that any one person with nuanced politics is on the whole spectrum. Nuances can be few or many. And you are the one who defined the nuanced term, so you have to define who fits the term. I suppose you could say that anyone who calls himself nuanced has to be all 5, but that's a weak argument in my book.

[Just thought of something very important! Just because you see something in print doesn't mean it's right, or grammatically correct, or that the author's intentions got expressed the way he or she wanted! If you can really appreciate that, you might be able to gloss over more of these little questions. The author is just you and I, who might be better at writing than you or I (or not), but who still doesn't always get it right or the way they hoped.]

I didn't mean to make up my own definition, I was just going by dictionary definition. I may have just misinterpreted, hence the fallacy. But if I may ask, what do you think (or know) "give nuances to" means? Does it mean to make something slightly different than it was before? Or does it mean to split something into multiple shades (i.e. the political spectrum)? Or something completely different?

I meant that you made up your own definition of a political spectrum. Nothing wrong with that.
The fallacy was assuming that the definition worked in reverse, that an individual had to be full spectrum in order to be nuanced.
YOU wrote the nuanced definition, but forgot to define what someone with nuanced beliefs is. All 5? 4, 3, 2? See what I mean?

'Give nuances to' means a bit of both of you said, but mostly the second. The first may or may not be true. Although you could argue that 'multiple shades' does indeed make it 'slightly different.'
LOL! We could argue circles around each other!
I think you have found your element.
Now I have to go do some chores....or maybe not.... LOL.... you could do this all day, couldn't you?

You are not meant for accounting. You are meant for nuanced argument. Get your brain really tested with the latest imaging techniques while your mind is busy reading or watching or listening or solving.

THEN write an autobiography!

Haha. I'll definitely keep it in mind. But funny you mentioned accounting, I'm surprisingly pulling through. But back to the nuanced thing, I understand that there are way more than just 5 political positions, I just said 5 for simplicity sake. And I don't get what you mean by saying I thought the definition worked in reverse. The definition of nuanced is "characterized by subtle shades of meaning or expression" so logically, a nuanced political belief is a belief with more than one shade or political position. And I don't get how one thing can be more than one shade at a time. That's where my confusion lies. I've been told that if something is nuanced, it has "many subtle shades of meaning" and I just don't get how one thing can have a bunch of different meanings. I understand that among a bunch of people, no two are alike and there will be subtle nuances or differences between them. But when it comes to one person, I'd think their beliefs are aligned with one shade. I do believe I'm getting to the root of my question here

But you wrote a definition (even though just as an example of using the concept of nuanced) and then proceeded to ask US a very specific question about that definition! ''So if someone's political belief is nuanced... then does that mean they are all five?'' Do you see what you did there? You are the only one who can answer it because you are the one who wrote it. The answer isn't about the meaning of the vague word nuanced. It has everything to do with how YOU defined the situation. All five or less than 5? Because you didn't STIPULATE what makes up nuanced views of an INDIVIDUAL, you can't ask any questions about that INDIVIDUAL until you define how he fits into the spectrum. Again - all 5, or are 4, 3, 2 OK? YOU wrote it, you decide.

This all fits in with your dogged determination to force all words, phrases, and concepts to be exact. Nuanced doesn't boil down to numbers.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're trying to say. I didn't write that definition. It's what comes up when you look up "nuanced" on Google. And I've heard many people say "nuanced belief" or "nuanced opinion" and I'm just trying to figure out what that means. And I have no idea if a person who is somehow far left and far right at the same time is nuanced. That's what I'm asking. I guess I should just drop the examples and just straight up ask how can something have more than one shade of meaning at a time

Nuance is just a VARIATION. Like the colors red but if you add to it's still red. It's still a color. Just different. Like a human who speaks English, but with an accent. Its a small but SUBTLE difference. I guess you can conclude that any topic or subject thing can have different variations and small changes can make it different in many ways.

If you understood nuance and subtle, your political analogy would be the basics ones with many variations and combinations that you could easily accept. In math such things are called sets, and subsets of those sets. Or a basic formula with many unknowns to be identified and solved for.

You wrote this:
''For example, let's say that the political spectrum isn't just democrat and republican and it's more nuanced (has many subtle shades) and, just for simplicity sake, has 5 shades: far right, moderate right, centrist, moderate left, and far left.''

It is a definition. It is a definition of a nuanced political spectrum. YOU WROTE A DEFINITION of a political spectrum that is an example of something nuanced.

THEN you tried to get US to tell you where one person fits in this definition that YOU wrote. ''So if someone's political belief is nuanced (has many subtle shades of meaning or expression) then does that mean they are all five?'' You wanted US to tell you how to apply 'nuanced' to YOUR definition, and we CAN'T!

Please THINK about this, because it's vital to how your mind works. We can't tell you the answer to your question. 'Nuanced' isn't something you can pin down in a scenario (your political spectrum) that has very specific distinctions, mainly 5 spots on the spectrum. Sure, changing the spectrum from 2 parties to 5 more loosely defined sections makes it 'nuanced,' but it doesn't define how many of those sections someone has who has 'nuanced' political views within that spectrum!!

If you still don't get it, then maybe it's a good chapter for your autobiography, because you should have comprehended it by now.

You have to love the way Allen complicates things by adding stuff.

All right, forget about the 5 position spectrum. I'll just use real life example. There's a spectrum with an infinite amount of beliefs and opinions and there's no possible way for someone's beliefs to overlap, because any possible combination of beliefs is its own shade on this spectrum. This is how it is in real life and I haven't made it up, so how would a person have a belief that's characterized by many shades and be labeled as someone with a nuanced opinion in this situation?

The 5 position spectrum was FINE! What wasn't fine was asking if an individual had to be in all 5 to be nuanced!

Actually your new question shows why you don't get that. You don't seem capable or willing to see that nuanced, nuanced opinion, nuanced anything, is ITSELF a loosely defined concept. NUANCED is vague. The 5 part spectrum is SPECIFIC. Whether you have 5 parts of a spectrum or infinite, how nuanced someone's opinion is is UP TO THE PERSON WHO SET UP THE SCENARIO, IN THIS CASE, THE SPECTRUM.

Of course you can have as many beliefs and opinions as you want. If someone has, say 1 belief and 1 opinion, I will snort in derision at their lack of 'nuanced opinion.' But if Allen says it doesn't matter how few 'nuances' someone has, then I don't matter, because Allen's the boss of that SCENARIO!!!! That's the same as what I was saying about the 5 parts of the political spectrum!!!! Hey, some bozo thinks his opinion is nuanced being on only 2 parts, but there's no DEFINITION of what constitutes one person's nuanced opinion, so since Allen wrote the scenario, and he didn't define how many parts makes it nuanced, the bozo can be right with only 2!!

[I'm starting to lose it so be gentle...]

At this point, I'll just straight up ask what makes a nuanced opinion nuanced?

A different point of view.

It has shades of meaning. Right back to the definition.

Take the topic of abortion. Many people say it's murder and that's the end of the argument. Others get into the costs to American society of almost a million unwanted babies a year. They ask if the baby who can't get super expensive care for a birth defect is being murdered too. They ask about the rights of the person carrying the embryo, when her rights begin and end, and does it matter what her burden is, financially and physically. They ask about adoption options, and about only white babies being wanted. And so on --- they have more nuanced arguments than the person who just says it's murder and refuses to even discuss it further.

Notice that there is no 'definition' here of nuanced. Or how many different ways of looking at the topic are needed to make it nuanced.

I may have confused you earlier when I said you defined the terms. You defined the scenario, the situation, NOT what nuanced meant, although if you are going to start asking questions about the people who have nuanced opinions, then you do have to define nuanced!
Nuanced means various things. You just aren't going to pin it down, NOPE NOPE NOPE!

Please forgive me but I got lost when you went from "shades of meaning" to "going into detail and explaining the opinion" Maybe shades of meaning means something different than what I think it is and that's what's causing the confusion. I always thought shade of meaning meant a slight difference in meaning but once again, doesn't make sense in the context you've given

The one word that explains you to my mind, after all this back and forth, is concrete.
You have the most concrete thinking I've ever experienced.
TWO of us have been giving you TWO slightly different responses, but neither of us is wrong.
'Shades of meaning' get explained when someone says 'going into detail' - so what? You might explain every nuance, you might not. You might get very detailed and specific, you might not. It can all be nuanced.
If you look at sunbeams coming through the clouds, you might feel religious feelings of angels and God looking down, or you might think about water vapor droplets and the science of sunlight on the atmosphere.
You can say that anything poetic, religious, scientific, or just emotional and wording is heavily nuanced.
Even if you start arguing with someone about signs from God vs world wide weather patterns, your discussion can be nuanced.
Shades of meaning = slight differences? Usually, but not necessarily.
To borrow from your 'infinite spectrum,' shades on the spectrum would be every color there is!

I am not going to give up on this one, gosh darn it, if I have to cover every nuance that ever existed.
I'm not sure I'll be able to use the word again, though, for the rest of my life.
LOLOLOLOLOL!

So nuance just means any opinion that's explained? Then what's the point of the definition? It's like it has nothing to do with subtle differences or shades of meaning at all. Also it kind of throws me off when you use the word "nuanced" when trying to explain it. Like I always have to question which way you mean it seeing as how everyone thinks it means something different

So nuance just means any opinion that's explained?
Noooooooooooo!!!

A fine shade of meaning: “I liked the film, but I know I missed some of its nuances.” What does that mean? "I missed some of its subtleties."

All right, maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself. Maybe I don't understand the root word "nuance" on which the verb and adjective "nuanced" are based. So from my understanding, nuance means a subtle difference or distinction. Like there's a nuance/subtle difference between red and scarlet and there's a nuance/subtle difference between a neutral face and a slightly frowning face. Are we in agreeance on that? Or is there another meaning of "nuance" I and the dictionary are not aware of?

I don't know what a fine shade of meaning, a subtle shade of meaning, etc. even means. I keep hearing it used yet it makes no sense to me. I ask what nuance means and they say "subtle shade of meaning" and ask what subtle shade of meaning is and they say "nuance". This is really driving me nuts

Allen, I looked back at your previous questions, and this is not the first time you've asked someone to describe what the word nuance and nuanced means. Many people tried to explain and you just couldn't get it, which is what's also happening on this thread. Joy, Tal and WG have given great examples, and they've done a very good job explaining the meaning of nuance and nuanced, but to no avail. I really think that this is one word you're just never going to understand, because you can't seem to grasp the explanations given. Not your fault, it's just the way your brain works, but I really think that at this point everyone is beating a dead horse, and you're not the only one that it's driving nuts.

Like there's a nuance/subtle difference between red and scarlet and there's a nuance/subtle difference between a neutral face and a slightly frowning face. Are we in agreeance on that?
Yes. Purple and lilac. Water and vodka. Tylenol and aspirin. My mother's pie crust and my MIL's pie crust. The way I wash dishes and the way my husband washes dishes.

All right, so when when you use nuance like a verb as in "the effect of the music was nuanced by the social situation of the listener" what does that mean? The definition says "give nuances to" or "give subtle differences to" but I don't understand how you can give subtle differences to something

I'm sorry but I'll die before I accept defeat. Trying to figure this out has kept me up and awake, wandering around my dorm like an idiot. It would be ashame if I did all that worrying for nothing

Maybe it's time you give us your own idea of nuance and subtle, like you would on a test for a teacher. Leave out what you don't understand, or any questions. Go for it. Learning is not an absolute one day event. It's a process and more will be revealed later. Heck guy half the people don't know and couldn't exactly explain nuance and subtle either, but they don't get stuck trying.

OK, sorry for being sort of flippant.
No, nuance doesn't just mean any opinion that's explained.
It really really does mean shades of meaning. Why you feel a need to nit pick over whether those shades are 'different' or not is beyond me. How can a shade not be different? Yes, 'slight difference,'' but see, you just had to throw a wrench in that works by using an infinite spectrum, and I just had to joke about how many 'slight shades' there could be on an infinite spectrum.

SIGH... maybe I'm just not meant for this. It's fun for a while. But if you are going to get by in the world, I'd suggest that you settle on a meaning that sounds good to you and accept it at that. Unless you want to join the big leagues.... I know someone who is a famous, well paid translator from French to English. Easy? No, he might spend a month on a phrase such as whether or not we say the 'sun sets over the hill' vs the 'sun sets behind the hill.

And you have to expect that you will hear responses here that contradict each other, or throw you off. Who says we are all right? Or any one of us? I could be three 10 year old girls in Patagonia for all you know. Make up YOUR mind, with what feels right to YOU.

“I liked the film, but I know I missed some of its nuances.” That's using it as a noun.
''I liked the film, but parts of it were heavily nuanced, and I probably missed them.'' That's as an adjective.

Allen, no two people see or hear things the same. If I post a song on this thread and both you and I listen to it, we'll both react to it differently. It could be that one of us loves the song, the other doesn't. You may hear the instruments playing and be able to pinpoint exactly what instruments are being used, where I may connect more to the lyrics or the sound of the singers voice. We're each listening to the same song, but we'll hear different things because we are two different people. So having said that, now read that sentence again and tell me what you think it means.

I only know it as a noun and I use it interchangeably with "difference" when the difference between two things I'm trying to point out is barely noticeable. I couldn't even begin to comprehend the other ways people use it

I'm still perplexed by what a shade of meaning is. That's never been explained and if it has, it used the word nuance which is the word I'm trying to figure out. As for the sentences you provided, still doesn't make any sense. "I liked the film, but I missed the subtle differences" the subtle differences from what? All these sentences are like incomplete sounding to me.

I mean like all the explanations are circular. I can't help but feel this is all part of a conspiracy to drive me insane

I would never know this is what sentence meant if you hadn't said so. But I'm not always going to have a translator to paraphrase things for me and I need to be able to know what a word means in any context when I read it

You would have to stubbornly stay with the original usage, which I claim is awkward use of nuance as a verb.

'' It says "to give subtle differences to" yet it makes no sense when plugged into the sentence "the effect of the music is nuanced by the social situation of the listener" I don't understand how you can give something subtle differences.''

I'll try again: YOU aren't giving something subtle differences. Where does it say that? It says that the social situation of the listener is. The nuances might even affect you differently from the person next to you. So if you are a New Yorker in Zimbabwe listening to drums, you might think the music is for a wedding and start laughing and clapping, when it's really to honor a famous king of 300 years ago. That's a stupid example, but I'm exhausted.

PS - I was thinking that perhaps you are trying to drive me insane.

Have you ever watched a movie with someone and discussed it with them afterwards and they pointed out things in the movie that you didn't notice? Have you ever watched a TV show and when you discussed it with someone else you both had very different reactions to the show, you both felt differently about it?

"It really really does mean shades of meaning. Why you feel a need to nit pick over whether those shades are 'different' or not is beyond me. How can a shade not be different? Yes, 'slight difference,'' but see, you just had to throw a wrench in that works by using an infinite spectrum, and I just had to joke about how many 'slight shades' there could be on an infinite spectrum."

I promise I'll just go away on this site after this. But I mean I have no idea what the complaint is... that is if it's even a complaint at all. I don't get what shades of meaning means. And if you want to explain it, don't use the words "nuance" or "nuanced". And I know you were being sarcastic but that's a valid question... why wouldn't a shade be different from another shade? Then there wouldn't be shades of anything if it was all the same. And that was exactly my point about the infinite spectrum. It has many shades of color, meaning, belief, etc. just like in real life

You're right. The sentence/statement is not nuanced and never will be nor can it be. It means what it means and only that.

"The sky is blue". This sentence means that the sky is blue. That's all it can ever mean. It cannot mean the sky is a shade of blue. It cannot mean the sky has a deep blue color, or the sky looks like Navy blue, or royal blue, or any other kind of blue - or any color, or anything that is descriptive - the sky is blue is the sum total of what that statement can ever mean.

Some observers come along. Observer A reads the sentence and thinks of the sky as a shade of blue. B thinks of the sky as deep blue. C, Navy blue, D royal blue, and so on. E doesn't think of color at all - he thinks the sky is beautiful.

These observations are what are referred to as nuances. The key lies in the fact that the nuance lies not in the thing itself, but in the thought/reaction of the observer.

To make the point, I used a very simple example. In "real life", nuances rise from more complex statements, but the principle is the same.

Athos just gave you a very well written explanation. Do you get it now or are you still confused?

I do get it but I got it in that context before, as a noun. I just don't get when nuanced is used as an adjective and it means "characterized by subtle shades of meaning" I don't get how something can have many shades of meaning. I've tried to make that clear but no one has answered that directly. And neither the question about what shades of meaning are

Nuance:
ORIGIN

late 18th cent.: from French, ‘shade, subtlety,’ from nuer ‘to shade,’ based on Latin nubes ‘cloud.’

NOUN


I don't get how something can have many shades of meaning:socialists (plural noun)


a person who advocates or practices socialism.
synonyms: left-wing (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+left-wing) · progressive (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+progressive) · leftist (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+leftist) · labor (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+labor) · anti-corporate · antiglobalization (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+antiglobalization) · radical (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+radical) · revolutionary (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+revolutionary) · militant (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+militant) · communist (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+communist) · lefty (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+lefty) · red (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+red) · left-winger (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+left-winger) · leftist (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+leftist) · progressive (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+progressive) · progressivist (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+progressivist) · communist (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+communist) · Marxist (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+Marxist) ·

antonyms: conservative (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+conservative) · conservative (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+conservative)

If all Communists are progressive, are all progressives Communist?

nuanced

nu·anced
Use nuanced in a sentence (http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/nuanced)

adjective

The definition of nuanced is done with extreme care to appreciate fine-point distinctions that you have to be very detail-oriented to notice.
An example of nuanced is a nuanced glance, when a person looks at a painting and understands the fine-point details about what makes it great.

When something is nuanced it has different meanings for different people. That's what "shades of meaning" means. Like I tried to explain to you before, it's you and I listening to the same song, but hearing different things, or feeling different things, liking or hating the song.

Sigh.

Y'know I think it may have clicked a bit. So I get the gist of it I guess but if you don't mind me asking, how would that definition apply to these sentences where it's used: "Lowe's work has gradually grown more nuanced" and "I liked the film, but parts of it were heavily nuanced, and I probably missed them"

Lowe's work has gradually grown more nuanced. Lowe's work is more detailed, more advanced, than before.

I liked the film, but parts of it were heavily nuanced, and I probably missed them. The film had many details, many small things, or discussed things that the person watching likely missed.

I now know to just use nuanced as if it means "small details" but if you don't mind me asking, how exactly did nuanced go from "making people feel a different emotion when they see it" to "full of small details"... does it still have anything to do with shade of meaning?

All right, so think about it this way. Let's say there's a spectrum that's only been divided into 2 colors: black & white. All right? But now let's say that there's a spectrum that has black on one end and white on the other but there's many shades (or nuances) of gray in between. Most would say that the latter spectrum is more graphic and detailed. This is why most people use the word "nuanced" to mean detailed. So for example, like you asked in a few comments prior, a nuanced discussion is a discussion that goes into great detail about the topic it's centered around. True, by dictionary definition, it means "having subtle differences" but us humans have kind of colloquialized it to mean "in depth" or "full of details" I really hope this helps. And just some advice, take it easy and live your life. Don't get wrapped up in all these semantics and drivel

Very well said nachmetal. Hopefully this will help Allen understand. :)

Thanks, man. I'd have to say that your answer has come the closest to making me understand. But do the sentences I posted previously have any relation to the original definition "give nuances to"? And like I'm still iffy about the definition of nuanced: "characterized by many subtle shades of meaning" like I don't really get how one thing (an argument, a book, a performance, etc.) can have more than one meaning or shade of meaning at a time

Read this page --

https://macmillanmh.com/ccssreading/treasures/grade3/ccslh_g3_lv_6_3f_l2.html

No problem. I can relate to this kind of stuff as I grew up with OCD, granted it wasn't this severe but still. Anyhoo, if you're referring to the sentence "the effect of the music is nuanced by the social situation of the listener" then yes, the definition "give subtle differences to" does apply. But I don't think it means it in the sense that it makes the effect slightly different than another effect, but rather all the possible effects the music could have on the listener have been split into a spectrum that goes from "makes the listener feel sad" to "makes the listener feel happy" by the listener's social situation. Correct if I'm wrong, but I believe you said something along the lines of that a few comments earlier.

But then as for nuanced as an adjective, things get a bit trickier. If we're talking about an argument that's regarding taxation, "Characterized by many subtle shades of meaning" doesn't mean that the argument is arguing for or against more than one shade on the "opinions about taxes" spectrum, as that would be impossible to do. Because (I also believe you may have said this before) each specific opinion is it's own shade therefore someone's opinion can't overlap more than one. It would be impossible to have a far right and moderate left view on taxes. I'm not really sure how to articulate it but I will get back to you when I can find a better way to explain it

I understand all of that explanation you linked to me. But what I fail to comprehend is how something can be more than just one of those things at the same time. Like how can it be cool and frigid at the same time? By definition, nuanced means "characterized by MANY subtle shadeS of meaning" notice how it says "many" and "shades" is plural. This means that if something is "nuanced" then it has to be characterized by at least two of those shades (cool, cold, icy, frigid, etc.) maybe this will help you understand where my confusion is coming from better

I understand all of that. But what I fail to comprehend is how something can be more than just one of those things at the same time. Like how can it be cool and frigid at the same time?
My husband is always hot. He sweats during snowstorms when he just stands still, much less when shoveling snow. I wear sweaters even in midsummer, am always cold. My husband says it's slightly cool on a 25-degree snowy day; I say it's frigid.

WG's last post should definitely clear up the confusion. It's like I was saying earlier with listening to music, you and I will hear different things when we listen to the same song, we'll feel a different way. The song might make you feel sad, but it makes me feel happy. You might like the song and I dislike it. The song can be both because you and I are different people and will feel differently about it.

But what I fail to comprehend is how something can be more than just one of those things at the same time. Like how can it be cool and frigid at the same time?.... This means that if something is "nuanced" then it has to be characterized by at least two of those shades (cool, cold, icy, frigid, etc.) maybe this will help you understand where my confusion is coming from better


Respectfully - you missed my point. (See # 34 ) The thing itself is NOT what is nuanced. A thing is either cold OR hot - it cannot be both at the same time. The nuance comes from "outside" the thing. It comes from an outside FRAME OF REFERENCE.

Analogies (never perfect but helpful) are the notion of "objective/subjective", "absolute/relative". The nuance (forget noun or adjective - that's just confusing you) lies in the subjective understanding/expression of an object. The object does not have a meaning beyond one meaning at a time - this is what you say you fail to comprehend. The additional meanings that you find difficult to comprehend come from the DESCRIPTIONS of the object - NOT from the object itself.

That's my best shot - good luck!

Okay, so when they say "a nuanced performance" or "a nuanced argument" it isn't the performance or argument that's actually nuanced? Then what is?

Allen Farber, I'm going to say something personal. No more about nuanced.
I tried very hard to be supportive and helpful, despite my frustration. But when you said (without addressing any one person, although I was doing most of the talking) that you felt that you were deliberately being driven crazy, I spent the rest of last night feeling awful. Hurt, angry, and guilty.
I HOPE that you can understand that you aren't the only person in the world who matters, who has problems, who gets hurt. We here are all just people like you. We aren't a clinic or a school or a library or a reference desk. I am so grateful that other people jumped in. It was interesting and even fun at first. Now I've had enough with your obsession. You don't think about others at all.

I'm not saying I don't care about others and I said that partly tongue in cheek about being driven crazy. And trust me, I know it drives other people crazy. My parents practically sent me away because of my obsession. With all due respect, if you or anyone else is on their whit's end about it, they can just not contribute or respond to me anymore. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding

I wasn't going to post again. Felt better by letting it out, and felt that you needed to be reminded.

I'm not saying I don't care about others and I said that partly tongue in cheek about being driven crazy. And trust me, I know it drives other people crazy. My parents practically sent me away because of my obsession. With all due respect, if you or anyone else is on their whit's end about it, they can just not contribute or respond to me anymore. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding

My young friend it's fairly obvious you are aware that you have made this an obsession, so much so you are stuck and have become rather redundant, with your questions. That may not be a healthy way to solve your problem, or bring understanding to you. I feel it actually hampers you from getting understanding. No matter how many people have joined in and tried to explain this concept, which many others have difficulty with as well, that you overlook a basic FACT here. You do have some understanding, but refuse to accept the understanding you have, and want more. Like you want to be the expert at nuance. Does that serve some higher purpose? Clearly you have crossed a line and made a fairly low priority subject and bigger one that it deserves and are deprived of allowing yourself the simple thing of stepping back and re evaluating your own priorities and putting them in proper order. I don't think your parents sent you away because of your obsession, but to give you a dose of reality so you can learn tools to be responsible for yourself in real life.

This nuance obsession is the perfect example of you ignoring the obvious solution to your situation, learning to step back, and refocus on a higher priority. This may allow you to gain a healthy perspective of the overall picture of your reality and deal properly with your weakness of becoming easily obsessed over small minor details. Right now all you are doing is FEEDING that weakness . It's not a simple word that frustrates you and affects others, it's the way you allow yourself to be stuck on it that's frustrating.

The bottom line is being obsessed is NOT healthy for you or your understanding at this time and if you truly want to understand ANYTHING you must stop obsessing. You can understand that can't you? So forget NUANCE, how do you plan to deal with your obsession is what I want to know.

NOTE-You have no control over who responds or how on a public forum,

Okay, so when they say "a nuanced performance" or "a nuanced argument" it isn't the performance or argument that's actually nuanced? Then what is?


Wrong answer, Allan Farber. Well, you got me. You drew me in like all the others. I'm beginning to think you are a troll, feeding on the attention. The concept you claim to not understand is a very simple matter of word definition. Nothing more. Anyone can play with words as you have been doing, and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Hmmm. I wonder how a small molehill can be made into a mountain? What do they mean by "made"? Is it the same as making pottery? Making a mess? Making whoopee?

A new species of troll, Athos.
This from a year and a half ago: ''I've tried a tutor, that's actually one of the first things I did. He couldn't even help me! He said I was "Unteachable". Don't know whether it's funny or sad, but he said I had "Too Many Questions".''

Allen has done countless 180s. When he's alone in his dorm room, he's anxious, suicidal, and homicidal. A wreck. Some of us are deliberately trying to drive him crazy. I can't help feeling sorry for him, because he can't get diagnosed, and that's just the start of the long journey out his particular hell.
But when he's online getting a bunch of people catering to his obsession du jour, he's frustrated but in his happy place. I'm going to get all analytical on him and say that he doesn't really want to know what nuanced means. He wants us to be there for him forever.
Last week or so it was about scenes from Gotham.
A year ago it was accounting questions.

on their whit's end about it
Just to further help you with your language-arts skills, the phrase is:

"at their wit's end about it"

WG, is this what you manage to deflect so deftly, day in and day out?

WG, is this what you manage to deflect so deftly, day in and day out?
I figured he could add that to his list of obsessions. :D

WG, did you foresee that I would self-destruct eventually?

Not a troll. Once again, I'm extremely sorry about all this. I didn't foresee it going on this long either. You don't have to worry about me being on this forum again. As for saying it's funny, I can understand that from an outside perspective. I just look like some practical jokester when I'm not trying to be and it really makes my peers and potential employers distance themselves from me.

I'm sorry but I don't have a happy place. There's nothing happy about it and there's no enjoyment I get out of this. The fact that all of you are becoming increasingly annoyed with me (not to say you're in the wrong) just makes it more evident to me that I'm just a liability

DARN it, now I feel for you again. I have a close friend who is very annoying (and had a serious breakdown in his 20s, 50 years ago) and I get mad at him but somehow we still stay friends.
No one is wanting you to go away (I guess I should speak for myself).

I worry about my friend. He's in danger in several ways. I think you might be too, when you are alone and angry.

One of the cardinal rules of emotional GOOD health I need to remember is to not get so embroiled in people that I feel responsible for them. That leads to frustration and that leads to anger and so on.

Allen, I'm a perfectionist and used to drive my mother crazy when I'd make one mistake on a homework math paper and then would tear up the entire page (back when students used pencils) and start over again. Maybe that perfectionism is what made me a fantastic library cataloger. :) I married a guy with a refined version of OCD. Soooo, you have my sympathy and understanding!

Allen, yes, this thread and most of the others you start, asking question after question after question, page after page, on the same topic, even though it's been explained to you every which way possible, is annoying and extremely frustrating.

Now, I can only speak for myself, but when I get annoyed enough I either lose it on the person, or I simply stop reading what they write. For some reason, even though you make me want to bang my head against a wall repeatedly, I haven't lost it on you yet, and I'm still here reading and responding. Maybe it's because the site's so dead, or maybe it's because I honestly want to help you somehow.

I don't dislike you, even though I find you very frustrating. You take a subject and beat it to death, to the point where I never ever want to discuss that subject again. But that's not your fault. You can't seem to process what we're saying, or you just want more and more and more, like Tal said, it's like you want to know the meaning, and then want to be able to write a book about it, become a pro that knows everything about it. If that's the case we're not the people you should be talking to. That's what college is for.

You have to learn to let things go. At one point you have to see that this thread is on page 7 and you've gotten amazing replies, well thought out replies, replies that would be adequate enough for the majority of people that have the same question you did. Replies that would be way too much info for most people, because this question was answered on page one, but it wasn't enough for you. At some point you have to say, "ok, I get it well enough to let it go, so thank you everyone, I'm good now".

No need to leave the site, just learn to interact with people a bit better, and learn when to let it go, thank everyone that took the time to answer, and move on to something else.

I swear, if I ever see the word nuance again I may throw something.

As was mentioned. Learning how and when to let things go is key to reducing personal frustration and stress. NOBODY has complete control over everything so obsessing over stuff you don't have full control over only increases your frustration and stress. EVERYONE would be frustrated and stressed out if they didn't. Heck, sometimes even that isn't enough. Sometimes on really important stuff... you have to stick with it. But some things just don't matter that much to worry about.

Does everyone understand everything about everything? No. And if they said they did, they would be telling a lie.

''The fact that all of you are becoming increasingly annoyed with me (not to say you're in the wrong) just makes it more evident to me that I'm just a liability.''

That leap of logic is manipulative. You go off, say you won't ever be back, we feel terrible, don't know if you live or die, and we sigh and protest, no no no, you aren't a liability (what does that even mean? Our lives and livelihoods don't depend on you. We don't even have to be on this thread, never mind this site.)

What I would like to know is this: at any time in the last 24 hours or more, did the importance of nailing down a concept of nuanced go away or lessen?

It's not a leap in logic at all. Also, I didn't say I was a dependability. I said a liability. As in I'm an inconvenience to everyone around me. If it was just you guys on this forum that got annoyed with me, I may not be as harsh on myself about it. But when people online and people in real life and even my own family members and basically just everyone I come into contact with become extremely frustrated with me, I kind of have to take it into account. If liability isn't the right word I don't know what is. And the obsession is growing worse.

Just yesterday, I checked myself into a psychiatric center, where I am currently writing this from. I'm on a suicide watch sort of thing and on the first day, I had many tests done on me and was basically all drugged up and spent the whole day and all this morning sleeping. I don't want to do any of this but maybe it's just for the best.

I'm anti-drug -mostly, but you said last week that you weren't sleeping....

I'll drop the whole liability thing.

I hope they can help you in a way you like, or at least provide some clues, and some ways to deal with it.

Allen, what you have to remember is that even though we were getting frustrated, we still came back and posted, still tried to help. Yes, it was annoying that you just kept on and on and on, asking the same questions over and over, not happy with any of the answers you got, but we still came back. If we couldn't tolerate you, if you were really a liability like you claim, then we wouldn't have come back, we wouldn't have given our time, we would have just stopped posting and ignored you. We didn't do that. Think about what that means. We all came together to try to help you. Sadly none of us are trained to deal with mental disorders, and that's what you're dealing with. For lay people like us it is frustrating, because we don't know what to say or how to help you get over your obsession, and even if we did, doing so online is hard even for a trained professional.

I think you're where you need to be right now, and I really think you need to look into some sort of therapy that will help you learn to deal with your obsessions in a productive way.

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one hope that you come back to the site, and I also hope that when you ask your next question, and you get lots of great answers, you will have learned how to let it go even if you don't get the exact answers you're looking for. That's my wish for you.

Hope that all goes well for you, and hope to see you back soon.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

And your arguing abilities indicate (to me anyway) that you have higher than average intelligence, not lower.
You just don't do well on tests.

According to the doctor who gave me the test, I was 1-2 points lower than average IQ

According to the doctor who gave me the test, I was 1-2 points lower than average IQThat's an insignificant amount. Consider yourself average just like most other people.

A few points one way or another puts you in the same category as most of your peers. Most of us fall in that range GENERALLY. I'm just glad you're safe and still with us. I hope you listen closely and follow the directions of the ones trying to help you. That would be an above average decision.

I ALWAYS question what a doctor tells me.
Surely you can see how any test could fail to take into account how you perceive the questions?
There is a lot of literature on the subject of the failings of IQ tests. Many doctors refuse to use them.

IQ tests aren't an accurate representation of your intelligence. In your case you have a hard time grasping certain concepts, which would definitely make you score lower on an IQ test, but you write very well, you see things others don't and question them, that's a sign of intelligence. Most highly intelligent people don't do well on standardized tests.

Having said that, 1-2 points is nothing, you are, based on that IQ test, of average intelligence, like the majority of people on this planet.

For anyone wondering, my IQ score was an 81

NO WAY!
Good grief, see what I mean?
You struggle with ANY test. Yet you reason, form sentences, respond to others, and write well with very good intelligence.
Your INPUT is a mess. Your output is fine.
The last 3 responders are all saying it's OK, blah blah. I am alone here in saying IGNORE THE IQ TEST. Or do some reading on debunking IQ tests!

Here's what's bothering me - where have you been getting tested, diagnosed, and treated all these years? From IQ tests to depression/anxiety diagnoses to drugs like Zoloft, I've never seen such hogwash.
I'll say it again - you need a research medical facility.

For anyone wondering, my IQ score was an 81
Which test? An achievement/knowledge test or one where you repeat numbers and match figures and say what's wrong with a picture? There are lots of IQ tests; each measures differently. There are a number of kinds of IQ also.

Joy is correct. You need to go to a medical research facility to be assessed neurologically, cognitively, emotionally, mentally.

The IQ clincher was the argument about being a liability, and me saying you were being manipulative... I don't totally agree with your arguments, but they are not the expressions of someone with an IQ of 81.

It was some written questions like math problems and common knowledge facts and then you had to stack or connect some blocks so it would match the picture given

Meanwhile, how's the hospital going? Did they let you bring your own computer?

No, it's on my phone. And I'm not entirely sure how I like the hospital. It's kind of scary to be honest

New things can be scary, give it time.

Good sign that it's scary - means you aren't out to lunch. And know how many people actually are. And you are more likely to get out sooner.

The clincher for me is that you are in a psychiatric facility and have access to the internet so soon after admission.

Hospitals are for HEALING Allen, so relax and HEAL. You just have to follow instructions. I think you made a good decision for yourself.

I am allowed to look on the internet with certain restrictions

Sounds reasonable to me. Sure beats sitting around staring at a dreary bunch of walls, barred windows, and drugged people playing solitaire or staring blankly at a TV.