[FRIAM] [in|ex]tensional effects on (English) language

[Steve Smith]

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ -
> Eye-tracking study finds depression memes act like visual magnets for people experiencing depressive symptoms
> https://www.psypost.org/2020/12/eye-tracking-study-finds-depression-memes-act-like-visual-magnets-for-people-experiencing-depressive-symptoms-58939
>
> "It also seems that this group are less interested in generally humorous memes unrelated to the depression experience,"
Nice corrollary (ally?) to "doomscrolling" and "cassandrafreude"?   I
suspect most of my own doomscrolling is an attempt to higrade/mine for
nuggets of cassandrafreude which triggers similar neurochemistry to that
I described previously in response to your speculations about
conspiracies, inner-truthiness, and hacktivism.
>
> That just *sounds* wrong to me. I would've written "this group is". But according to this website: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/is-vs-are/
>
> "But even in American English, a collective noun can take are when you need to emphasize the individual members of the group."
>
> Perhaps the important thing, here, is that this "group" was classed together from the outside. The grouping of "depressed people" is very susceptible to criticism and, I'd bet money, derived from external self-reported expressions. So by saying "this group are", the authors might be expressing that, even though we've grouped them thusly, that grouping is extensional/phenomenal, not intensional/generative. So they really should retain their plural status and not be singularized into the group.

Interesting analysis.  I concur but tentatively until I can find some
more examples.   This distinction/tension of collectivizing/conflating
the singular and vice-versa might be a central theme to many of our
current social maladies.

- Steve