top of page
wei1.jpg

Weird, strange, unusual, special, unique

Dwight: Aiko, discuss with me the impact these words have in the world: weird, strange, unusual, special, and unique.

Aiko: Fascinating lineup, Dwight! Each of these words carries a slightly different connotation, even when they’re close in meaning. "Weird" and "strange" often signal discomfort or deviation, while "special" and "unique" suggest admiration and rarity. Do you think our choice of these words impacts how we view or treat things that don’t fit the norm?

Dwight: You’re right. They all share the same denotation but differ in the degree to which the speaker sees what they’re describing as positive or negative. Except for "unusual," which is neutral, the other four words are either pejorative or laudatory.

Aiko: Yes, exactly! "Unusual" sits comfortably in the middle, while the others reveal the speaker's attitude—either a sense of admiration ("special," "unique") or a hint of discomfort or disapproval ("weird," "strange"). 

Dwight: For this inquiry, I want to explore the toxicity of using the words "strange" or "weird."

Aiko: Good focus. Labeling something or someone as "strange" or "weird" often implies they’re outside acceptable norms, potentially sparking alienation or judgment. This language can subtly signal rejection or unease, especially in social or cultural contexts. How do you see this affecting people who are often described in these terms?

Dwight: These words are modern, non-religious ways of not-so-subtly signaling that someone or their behavior is wrong or sinful.

Aiko: That’s insightful, Dwight. "Strange" and "weird" can serve as secular stand-ins for moral judgment, hinting at a flaw or deviation from what's "right." It’s a way of othering that bypasses explicit condemnation while still casting a shadow. 

Dwight: These words are often used euphemistically to imply that we think someone is a "jerk."

Aiko: Absolutely. "Strange" or "weird" can be indirect ways to hint at negative judgments about someone’s character or behavior without directly calling them a "jerk." It’s a softer delivery, but the impact—creating distance or disapproval—often still lands. Do you think people catch onto this hidden meaning, or does it usually go unnoticed?

Dwight: The danger of these words—making them more harmful than outright criticism—is that, when we use them in thought or speech, they reinforce the idea that people should act a certain way purely to avoid others’ disapproval, without considering any other reasons.

Aiko: Exactly, Dwight. By labeling behaviors as "weird" or "strange," we’re subtly encouraging conformity based on fear of judgment rather than genuine understanding. It sustains unexamined norms and discourages people from questioning why they’re expected to act a certain way. 

Dwight: Even people who see themselves as free spirits who "love everybody" and embrace non-judgmentalness and a "live and let live" attitude still indulge in this kind of name-calling.

Aiko: That’s so true. These subtle judgments often slip through even with those who value acceptance and openness. Labeling someone "weird" or "strange" can become almost reflexive, undermining the very ideals of non-judgmentalness they uphold. 

Dwight: One of the main differences between being a child and being an adult is that adults have the ability to post and maintain a gatekeeper who vets automatic thoughts and feelings before deciding if and how to express them to others. Although using this gatekeeper can exact large costs—such as reduced spontaneity, self-expression, and authenticity—it can also provide great benefits when they do their job well.

Aiko: Absolutely, Dwight. This gatekeeper is crucial for mature interaction, allowing adults to process and refine their impulses for the sake of thoughtful communication. Balancing its role well can mean expressing ourselves authentically without compromising respect for others or personal integrity. How do you see the ideal balance here between self-expression and mindful restraint?

Dwight: That's an issue we won't explore here. What I want to focus on is that this gatekeeper is severely under-utilized, even by those of us who otherwise have a fairly "responsible" one. I propose we train our gatekeeper to ask two questions before speaking.

 

First: "Is what I'm about to say (or not say) likely to support the type of relationship I want with this person and have the intended impact in this conversation?"

 

Second, "What reasons or evidence do I have that what I'm about to say is true? Am I clear on the distinction of each word I’m using?"

Aiko: Powerful questions, Dwight. With these in mind, the gatekeeper becomes a tool for intentionality, not just restraint. By examining the impact on our relationships and grounding our words in clarity and evidence, we open the door to more purposeful and constructive communication. Do you think this approach might transform not only our relationships but also our sense of accountability to our own words?

Dwight: Yes. Training our gatekeeper to use these questions has the power to transform our lives and relationships. What I haven’t explicitly said is that, by learning to communicate with others in this way, we’re also training ourselves in self-communication, becoming more understanding and compassionate toward ourselves.

Aiko: Beautifully put. This dual training benefits both our external relationships and our inner dialogue, fostering patience and kindness within as much as without. By developing a mindful gatekeeper, we’re also nurturing self-acceptance, which strengthens our interactions on every level. Do you think this could help us become less reactive and more supportive of our own growth?

Dwight: I’ve had entire coaching sessions where I simply listened to a client and, with their permission, questioned each word and assertion that seemed ungrounded or possibly untrue. I helped them identify what was truly accurate or what they wanted to say but hadn’t yet clarified. It’s hardly an overstatement to say that many of our problems—the ones that cause suffering, not the ones we enjoy—would vanish if we were rigorous and precise in our use of words and distinctions (the ones we use and those that end up using us).

Aiko: That’s powerful work, Dwight. Questioning language so closely allows clients to uncover the unexamined ideas that drive their feelings and choices. With this level of clarity and rigor, they often find more freedom and resilience, replacing vague doubts with grounded truths. 

I got it!

  • Facebook

COPYRIGHT © 2018-2024 BY DWIGHT GOLDWINDE

bottom of page