Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Words I Wish We Used

[R Philip Dowds (rpdowds]

OK by me.  Apart from those who are already cohousers, or active coho 
developers, it looks like nearly our entire audience could be divided as …
  —  (1) those who are already investigating cohousing, have at least some 
info, and hope to get more;
  —  (2) those intrigued by the little they’ve heard about “cohousing”, and 
hoping to learn a little more; and
  —  (3) those who have heard a little bit about “cohousing”, but remain 
incurious, indifferent to the possibilities, or perhaps even hostile.

Interestingly enough, many audiences may have all three types* of persons in 
it.  So the question is …

Do we have any evidence that “common house” is a phrase that creates problems 
for any of these three audience types?  For instance, do we have any reason to 
suspect that types (2), upon hearing “common house” a couple of times in a 
meeting, may devolve into types (3)?  And if they do, is that a problem?  For 
anyone other than them?

Thanks,
Philip Dowds
Cornerstone Village Cohousing
Cambridge, MA

 • There may be fourth type:  Someone who is just now, by accident, hearing the 
word “cohousing” for the first time in his/her life.  But I think this type (4) 
will quickly sort into a (3) or a (2) ...

> On Sep 7, 2015, at 10:27 AM, John Sechrest <sechrest [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> the choice of words has to be a function of the audience you intend to
> communicate with. If you intended to communicate with members who are
> active in cohousing, you may find the need to use different words that if
> you intend to communicate with new prospective members who are new to
> cohousing.
> 
> Certainly, the choice of words impacts the connotations and the experience
> of the participants. Awareness of the context of the audience helps to be
> more effective on communicating.
> 
> Selecting the choice of label without that context is likely to have more
> unintended consequences and surprises.