Talk:Grok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice This article was cited as a source in a ruling from the Land Use Board of Appeals of the State of Oregon, Friends of the Metolius and William Johnston, petitioners, and Tomas Finnegan Ryan, interventor-petitioner, v. Jefferson County. See Wikipedia as a court source.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Etymology, an attempt at improving etymologies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Example sentence

If anyone is familiar with this, any chance of having it's usage in an example sentence? SeanMack 12:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Man, baby, you really grok me.
Seriously -- I'd like to find a good non-Heinlein, non-geek quote. Maybe Tom Robbins or somebody like that. Then again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Grok was used in the lyrics to a song written by Stephin Merritt of the group The Magnetic Fields. The song is "Swinging London," track 7 on the album "Holiday." The actual line reads "you couldn't grok my racecar but you dug the roadside blur" --KarnerBlue 03:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable

It is similar in meaning to the German "kennen", French "connaître", Spanish "conocer" (in contrast with "wissen", "savoir", "saber"). Heinlein was familiar enough with the languages to realize that the concept was missing from English.

My understanding has always been that the words listed above correspond to the English "understand". I don't believe they connote anything more than the English word does, and this sentence is POV romanticizing. The point Heinlein was making was that humans didn't have a concept for "grok". Ultimately, the above sentence is speculative. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Not the case. I live in Austria, and speak German, French, and English. "kennen" is used to indicate something that can only be described as between knowledge and familiarity. "Kennst du Johann" doesn't mean "Do you understand Johann" (which would be translated into "Verstehst du Johann?"). When I know a fact academically, I "weiss" it. I "weiss" 1+1=2, that Paris is the capital of France, Bush is the President of the US. If I know Bush personally, I would say I "kenne" Bush. If I have lived in Paris, I would say I "kenne" the city: I know it inside and out.
  • "know"=academic knowledge
  • "kennen"/"savor"=familiarity
  • "understand"=meaning
The main reason Stranger is out of print in German (but many of Heinlein's other works are still available) is because the massive dialogues developing the meaning of "grok" couldn't be translated, as we already have a similar word. samwaltz 15:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Hm, I highly doubt that is the reason. If it's out of print, it was in print, hence translated at least once. ;-) Anyway, I believe I "grok" your point about kennen now. Really, it isn't true that we don't have such a word -- the word we use in 2005 is "get", and various other informal terms such as "catch the drift". I will still object on the grounds that the obvious intent within the context of the novel -- in a fictional universe where Martians exist -- is a familiarity that surpasses human understanding. Heinlein is alluding to things like zen meditation and acid trips, not Indo-European roots we lost along the way. In particular, there's a passage -- I'm refreshing my memory with the help of Amazon "look inside" here :) -- where Michael Smith likens the process of grokking to all humans, and even grass, to being God -- "at one with the universe" they used to say. That's far beyond what any German etc. word claims to convey! Now, it's true also that even in the novel the characters come to use the word flexibly, covering territory of "understand" and "know", but also of "love" and "regret" and numerous other concepts. Again, the whole point is that this is something that goes beyond human language.
And yes, I need to get this into the article. I'll be doing that shortly. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need IPA

I'm not good with IPA, but I know that some people are... could we get a good pronunciation guide here? - jredmond 17:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Heinlein pronounced it with a soft o, a la "box" or "rock". AppleSeed 08:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

The paragraph about an Argintinean TV character of the same name doesn't include anything that would tie in to the more well-known definition. Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page for this?

[edit] Grokster

Does Grokster gets its name from this? -- LGagnon 04:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense from the standpoint that to understand it and use its capabilities, one would have to be part of it and help define what it is. Wayne Russo isn't saying, but I can't think of any other explanation for such a weird and yet relevant name. --Xosa 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

According to Saxifrage, there are two versions of the word "grok:" the one that Heinlein coined, and the "English" "jargon" that "geeks" derived from the original. Saxifrage says that the Wikipedia article on "grok" should be about the "derived" "counterculture" "slang" version. Whether or not Saxifrage's assertions are true, references from the book and from Heinlein definitely refer to the version that Heinlein coined.

For example, the book claims to derive its most used phrase, "thou art God," from the concept of grokking. How can "thou art God" be derived from "grok" if grok only means "to completely understand" or "to achieve complete intuitive understanding?"[1]

The Hindu tradition asserts that full intuitive self-knowledge leads to the understanding that Atman is Brahman, which is often expressed "thou art God." The western Gnostic tradition claims much the same thing. The belief that "thou art god" can come from complete intuitive understanding is widespread in the history of philosophy and religion.Bmorton3 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Intuitive understanding is comprehension without any necessary contemplation or explanation. That is almost exactly the opposite context of how "grok" is used in the book Stranger in a Strange Land.

Almost all of the links to this article are from the context of Robert A. Heinlein or his book, not from some mythical "hippie" or "geek" culture. I am neither a hippie nor a geek and I use the word all the time in its book context because no other word conveys its meaning. I think Saxifrage simply doesn't understand how the term is generally used. --Xosa 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xosa-- looking at the edit you cite, I have to say my own encounter with the word "grok" is completely in line with Saxifrage's meaning, and I do think his usage of it is a common one. If however, Heinlein originally used it in a different way, then obviously, we should include both the original and the commonplace version. So, to me, it comes down to: did Stranger in a Strange Land actually define grok as "the intermingling of intelligence and purpose that is necessary to fully understand something. It assumes the quantum physics principle that one cannot observe a subject without changing it and thereby becoming part of it."? I haven't read the book-- is there a passage you could quote us that actually talks about interminglings of intelligence and quantum mechanics?
If so, then I think we can include a paragraph at the bottom of the article that explicitly talks about Heinlein's seperate usage, and how the common usage has come to mean something different than the original one.
--Alecmconroy 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The book is the definition of grok. The only way to completely understand the concept is to, not only read the book, but empathize with the motives of the characters. Stranger in a Strange Land alienates anyone who tries to filter its concepts through presupposition. The Mars of Heinlein's book has its own internally consistent reality that in no way intersects popular modern constructs of Earth. Heinlein's book has such a phenomenal cult following because those who grok it, come to realize that the reality he creates is more complete, consistent and useful than the social organization of this world. When you say that your own "encounter with the word 'grok' is completely in line with Saxifrage's meaning," could that be because you didn't have enough background to fully embrace the concept? --Xosa 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are multiple divergent uses of a term, it is always better -- for Wikipedia's purposes -- to separate them and permit them both their just due, rather than trying to war within the article to ensure one sense "wins". Accordingly I've separated these uses with sections even though this is a short article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are not multiple divergent uses of the term. Those who grok the term use it to mean exactly what Heinlein intended. Anyone banal enough to use the term without grokking it would do so through mimicry without any congealed meaning in mind. The version that Saxifrage espouses, which says grok "is a fictional word intended not to be 'understood completely,'" is utter nonsense and completely unverifiable original research. It shows that even he believes the term has no particular definition outside of Heinlein's book. Therefore, the only verifiable meaning is the one published in Stranger in a Strange Land.

There's only one definition for the term, but apparently many people who have heard it used and have very little concept of what it means. Those people should not be writing an article about its usage. --Xosa 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is: where did you get the "intermingling of intelligences" and the quantum-mechanics tie-in. Did you read Heinlein and also read some QM, and make the connection yourself? Or is there some part of Stranger in a Strange Land that actually says "Grok assumes the quantum physics principle that one cannot observe a subject without changing it and thereby becoming part of it"? ie-- is it verifiable that that's Heinlein's original usage? --Alecmconroy 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is not any direct quote to that effect in the book. I was summarizing a 525 page definition into a few sentences. I was attempting to link an entirely alien concept to the closest thing that the readers would understand. If someone can do a better job of summarizing the concept in a few sentences, I welcome it, but to say that grok is "to understand completely" is oversimplifying the concept to the point of absurdity. To say that grok is "to achieve complete intuitive understanding" is nearly the opposite of how the term is used. --Xosa 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xosa, it is untrue that there is only one definition for the term. For example, we have definitions in Heinlein, in the Jargon File, and in the American Heritage Dictionary. It is not necessary for all these definitions to agree for us to have an article. This is an encyclopedia, which describes the real world. Relax. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that I'm relaxed and confident that nobody here wants to consciously weaken a very powerful term. Can we agree that only those who use the term in everyday speaking really have the understanding to write an article on it? --Xosa 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if you yourself wrote that definition as your intepretation of what it means after reading a 525 page long book, I cringe at saying it, but it probably borders on original research. If everybody else agrees it is indeed a good summary of what Heinlein meant then I won't be the one to dispute it. But what would really be ideal would be if you could find some other source that has commented on what it meant to Heinlein and cite their definition of what it means. --Alecmconroy 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any claim that my summary fails to achieve what Heinlein meant. The dispute seems to be over whether other people use the term in a way different than the meaning of the book. The key word here is "use". If someone really thought that "grok" means the same as "understand," he would look like an idiot using the term "grok" instead of something that everyone already knows. For that reason, I seriously doubt that Saxifrage uses the term "grok." He heard it, misunderstood it, and helped write an article about his misunderstanding of the way it is used. --Xosa 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Xosa's definition, while potentially interesting essay material, is not encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a record of the way a term is used. It records the full strength of what the speaker means when he says a word. It absolutely does not record what a nescient listener would interpret the word to mean from a small sampling of its usage. When the reader of this encyclopedia can derive "thou art God" from our definition of "grok," then the article will approach something resembling the way it is used. --Xosa 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. Reading an encyclopedia is in no way comparable to a religious experience. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has read the book understands that grok is used in a clearly spiritually manner. An accurate definition would necessarily define it as such. --Xosa 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The spiritual meaning (and arguably original meaning) are just one point of view. According with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, that can't be allowed to dominate or overwrite other uses.
As for you assumptions about myself, it's generally advisable not to make suppositions about other editors. I do use grok, but in the sense that the Jargon File uses it. Like many words in many languages, grok has been apropriated from the book by multiple people: some people have taken from the book a spiritual meaning, some have taken a lexical meaning (because, indeed, English lacks the equivalent of German kennen). They're both acceptable. Since Wikipedia deals with documenting the real world in all its conflicting facets, the article as current written is an improvement to my mind: it incorporates the spiritual meaning derived from the book as well as the non-spiritual subcultural uses.
And, incidentally, I had no hand in writing the original article as you seem to think. I only reverted your changes, since they clobbered the (to my biased mind) most significant meaning. In retrospect I ought to have done as Dhartung has and make room for both, but such is hindsight.
All that said, this is the only really important thing: does the separation in the article as-is satisfy you? (Note that I think the coverage of the spiritual meaning can be expanded—that's not what I'm asking about. Just the fact that both are covered as different and distinct uses.) — Saxifrage ✎ 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you just say that you changed the article to a definition that you didn't agree with? --216.56.10.146 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he said he reverted the article to one representing an earlier consensus. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Your attribution of the edits to Saxifrage alone in the RFC was incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who you're directing your post to, Dhartung, but I was the one that requested comment and I appreciate all the comment that has been given. According to this edit summary, Saxifrage claims to support the "English jargon derived" version more than the "book's use." My contention is that nobody would be so banal as to use "grok" when they really mean "understand," or something very close to it, but Saxifrage claims that he would, so I can no longer give him the benefit of that doubt. However, I still maintain that such jejune use of the term is in the extreme minority and only worthy of perhaps a side note. The main definition of the word should be how it is used by the over five million people who have read the book, not the small minority of people who want to look cool by picking up on a term that they don't understand. --Xosa 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I use grok when I mean gnosis. Now English lacks a really good word for gnosis, but I often use "understand" for gnosis as well, especially when speaking with someone who will not get the word grok. Using grok for understanding may be more than just jejune, it may be attempting to say that there is more to understanding than is usually credited to it. Bmorton3 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I enjoyed reading the Xosa version of this article. But, stimulating and interesting though that essay is, it does not have the credibility or encyclopedic stance of the current version. If Sartre wrote a piece of original philosophical thought on Wiki I would also find that stimulating and give him all due praise and credit, but ask him to publish it elsewhere first. SilkTork 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote an accurate summary of the book's use of the term within the space constraints available. The book's definition, not the one in the Saxifrage edit, is the meaning used throughout the In popular culture section. Summarizing the use of a term in a book is encyclopedic. Making up statements about what the term supposedly really means in modern culture is not. --Xosa 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you not read the entry in the Jargon File? You keep asserting that it's minority usage. And, the way you use it (spiritually) is not the only way that the "five million" readers of the book have taken it: most geeks worth their salt have read it and most use it in the "to understand completely and intuitively" sense. You can't claim that because someone got the word from the book that they must use it the same way you do. That's only your belief, not a demonstrable fact. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The jargon file has this to say about "grok:"

Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge. When you claim to ‘grok’ some knowledge or technique, you are asserting that you have not merely learned it in a detached instrumental way but that it has become part of you, part of your identity. For example, to say that you “know” LISP is simply to assert that you can code in it if necessary — but to say you “grok” LISP is to claim that you have deeply entered the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implication that it has transformed your view of programming.

--Xosa 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It does have that to say. I suppose that answers my question as to whether you've read it, but it doesn't really respond to the substance of what I wrote. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the jargon file definition. If you do to, I suppose that settles the dispute. I'll just change the article to match the jargon file definition. --Xosa 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How about instead of bulling around, you do things the Wiki way and talk about how you want to change it here until everyone reaches consensus? That way will avoid edit warring and unnecessary consternation on everyone's part. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki way is to be bold and change the article to what we believe is most useful while also taking into consideration the views of others. That is exactly what I attempted to do. You reverted it without using any of my contribution. I responded by requesting the help of others to solve the dispute. It seemed to work out quite well, but I attribute that only to my keeping a cool head after you reverted my contribution. You may find that others aren't quite as gracious. --Xosa 00:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well spoken. Go ahead and change the article, and everyone can take a look at it and discuss it and any possible improvements to it. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit I was a little worried, but you did a great job. I had some quibbles with the organization, so I made those changes (e.g. chronological order makes more sense of things; sf isn't really counter-culture). I'm not 100% on the intro definition, as I think that leans more toward the book definition. Thanks for taking the time to work through this process, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as an educated outsider here, I like it for meaning but have a couple of editorial suggestions, one of which is major. In the first section, the word "subject" is used in a way that will be substantially confusing to anyone familiar with the psychological uses of the words "subject" and "object" in reference to concepts such as empathy. In that context, the "subject" is the grokker, and the grokked is either the "object" itself or the experience of the object. I'm going to take a run at editing for that but want to be sure everyone knows in advance what and why. Here.it.comes.again 06:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

  • "roughly meaning 'to understand completely'" [citation needed]
  • "or more formally 'to achieve complete intuitive understanding'" [citation needed]
  • "it has since become 'geek' jargon with dictionary attestations" [citation needed]
  • "There is no exact or completely agreed upon definition for grok" [citation needed]
  • "it is a fictional word intended not to be 'understood completely'" [citation needed]
  • "Using the broad meaning above, [citation needed] the term gained real-world currency as slang among counterculture groups including hippies."
  • "Today it is chiefly used by science-fiction fans, geeks, and some pagans" [citation needed]
--Xosa 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parts of speech

Are the grammatical details really necessary or warranted in an encyclopedia article? It's my feeling that they belongs at the Wiktionary entry on grok rather than here. Based on other articles about words, technical dictionary information (aside from pronunciation) is generally avoided in favour of historical and cultural information. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was iffy, too. They're spelled the way you'd expect, so I don't think that's needed. It could be transwiki'd, though (I don't edit Wiktionary, usually, because I haven't registered there).--Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree lexi info belongs in Wiktionary. 06:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Generally, people do not look in an encyclopedia for pronunciation and grammar, but in this case, I think it's inclusion is extremely relevant and of interest.

[edit] Mutual Grokking

For the reasons that follow, I have changed the parts of the article in red, "In grokking subjectivity is genuinely shared; and one experiences the literal capabilities and frame of reference of the other." This may be true when two intelligent beings grok each other, but it is also possible to grok a concept or an inanimate object. There are several examples of this in the book. Even concerning objects that can experience subjectivity, there are ample examples of grokking without it being a two-way street. The book's main character gets completely into the minds of several people without their getting into his. --Xosa 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be so specific about what you changed; that's what the diff function is for. Good change, though. —Keenan Pepper 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] human behavior

The word "grok" is typified with such historical literary quotes as "indigenous thrall" and with hominid behavioral associations -- in accordance with Heinlein's usage and most others, too, including slang. Beadtot 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot


[edit] Manson

Wasn't 'grok' used extensively by Charles Manson's "Family"? Rhinoracer 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since some cultures equate the word 'ape' with 'apse', there might have been an association using the word 'grok' relative to product-development schemes and recruitment efforts which affected Manson and his buddies. Ask them. 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC) beadtot
Um, OK, beadtot. Manson was, however, a fan of Heinlein's and apparently "inspired" in some fashion by Stranger. --Dhartung | Talk 15:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Manson never read STRANGER, was not a fan of Heinlein's OR a reader. He picked up 'grok' from people around him, not vice versa. I think you could go to Gifford's Heinlein web page and get proof of this. I will when I have time. - Will in New Haven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grok is slow

I have not read the book for about 30 years, but as I recall it the "martian" wanted to sit for about 400 years in a village just to grok it. The idea that groking is something you take your time in, and that it may simply involve drinking in the environment for about 400 years is nothing I see anywhere in the article. Well, that is the impression I got 30 years ago. I have only had some few decennia to Grok about it since then. DanielDemaret 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is an old swedish term that connotes the original meaning in "stranger in a strange" land, that of just passively "drinking" an environment. The word is "insupa". The word does not correspond to the later use of "understanding" it, tho. DanielDemaret 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dig

How is "to grok" different from "to dig" (as in "Can you dig this tune, man?")? Maikel 08:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems synonymous to me. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge by acquaintance/Knowledge by description

I just found the pages "Knowledge by acquaintance" and "Knowledge by description", and listed them in See Also. Would it be fair to include the term "knowledge by acquaintance" in the intro to this page? samwaltz 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grok and Hippie movement

Millions of words were used by the hippie movement. Is every one of them supposed to be in that category? If so, I've got a few thousand I can add. Isn't that kind of a tenuous relationship.--Editor2020 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular word was important to the movement in several ways. Why are you trying to prevent people from finding subjects using the category system? May I remind you that this is an encyclopedia? —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please include that information in the article.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read the section, "In counterculture". —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, is accusing me of "trying to prevent people from finding subjects using the category system?" assuming good faith?--Editor2020 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not, but the entire point of this website is to provide information, not to limit it. —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not too nice, now is it? But in the spirit of compromise and cooperation, if you will expand the 'Counterculture' section to show significance, I won't object to including the category Hippie movement.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do, but I would like to note that the counterculture section already details Wolfe's book (a book about hippies) and mentions a book by Ram Dass (a book by a hippie that was read by hippies). But, I have no objection to expanding on this theme. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)