FIDO - "FIDO", or an animal, interacts similarly with WIGO at the Object level. However, FIDO's capacity to make inferences or related associations is finite, unlike a human's.

E - The raggedly-cut parabola represents "what is going on" (WIGO), or more correctly, "what we infer is going on", whether we are consciously aware or not. Each dot, or hole, stands for an aspect or characteristic of the sub-microscopic process level, or event level which comprises WIGO. O - The circle labeled "O" (for Object) represents some human's (for example, mine) interaction with WIGO. Through my sensing organs and nervous system, I 'create' sights, sounds, smells, etc., from my interacting with WIGO. The lines, or strings, which connect the Object level to the Event level represent a specific aspect or characteristic of WIGO that I can sense and experience in some non-verbal way. Those strings coming from the parabola that I can not sense (representing, for example, radio waves), hang free and do not connect at the Object level. D - The tag "D" signifies the first verbal level in the abstracting process. We can label this the "Descriptive" level, and try to remember that what I say, think, hear, etc., at this level about my WIGO-Object level experience 'should' be similar to what a good reporter would report - as close to "just the facts" as possible. I - The tags labeled "I1", etc., represent the multiple levels of Inferences I might construct from my WIGO-Object-Description level experience. These inferences will determine what meaning or significance I draw from this experience. As the diagram implies, I can generate as many inferences, beliefs, theories, judgments, conclusions, etc., as I might care to. A - The arrow ("A") from the Inference level back to the Event level suggests feedback, or circularity, and 'time'. In other words, my most meaningful inferences from prior experiences can become Event-level aspects or characteristics of what I might experience in the future.

I think it's important to remember how 'time', or order, sequence, etc., plays into this model. Each level of the abstracting occurs in a given order, i.e.:

1. Something happens (Event);
2. I sense what happens (Object);
3. I recognize what happens (Description);
4. I generate meanings for what happens; etc. (Inferences)

Time1

Time2

Time3

Time4...

In terms of differentiation, we 'should' note that

1. What happens (Event) is NOT ...
2. What I sense non-verbally within my nervous system (Object), which is NOT ...
3. What I can describe verbally about my sensing (Description), which is NOT ...
4. The meaning(s) I generate based on what happened; etc. (Inferences)

Let's take the situation that Emily brought up during Michelle's presentation ... "somebody cut me off!"

E - What is going on? Cars, engines, tires, radios, trees, pedestrians, clouds, sun, rain, wipers ... all composed of sub-microscopic particles at a quantum level which we infer based on our latest knowledge of science ... O - Emily's eyes capture (some of the) reflected light from (some of the) images in her (limited) field of view; the light is transformed (abstracted) by her visual system into nervous system signals that travel to her brain; neurons in her brain process the electrical/chemical signals and cause her to see ... D - ... "I was driving about 25 miles per hour, maintaining perhaps 50 feet distance from the car in front of me. A dark-colored sedan driven by a middle-aged man emerged from my far right field of view. His car's speed was greater than mine. As his car came abeam mine, and then forward of it, his car appeared to accelerate and veer into the lane directly in front of my car. The following distance of my car to his was no more than 10 feet, which meant ..." I - ... "This rude jerk was in a hurry and cut me off when he could've just waited and merged behind me!" ... (blood pressure rising, anger mounting, fists clench the steering wheel, eyes staring at the other driver, foot pressing on the accelerator, trying to catch up, swerving over to the next lane to pass, not checking the traffic ...) "Damn it! That &%$)=!@ made me almost have a wreck!"

Can you see that "somebody cut me off" is NOT what happened? Can you see that Emily's hypothetical reaction to what happened is not the same as a description of what happened?

One of the powerful lessons of general semantics - illustrated by the Structural Differential and evidenced by a consciousness of this abstracting process - is that we can better train ourselves to respond conditionally to what happens to us. We humans don't have to react with a conditioned respond like Pavlov's dog, reacting to a substitute stimulus as if it were 'real' - but we often do. Our language helps confuse us, because we tend to say things like, "Ooh, it made me so mad!" We allow the 'it' - the event, the what happens, the stimulus - to determine our response. We need to remember that between the stimulus and your response, there's a YOU:

Again, 'time' is an important aspect of our conditional responses. Remember the old adage encouraging you to "count to 10" before getting mad? There's a lot of merit to be gained by practicing your ability to consciously - conditionally - delay your responses.

A Summary of "So What?" About the Structural Differential Abstracting refers to ongoing physiological-neurological processes that occur on non-verbal levels We can verbally differentiate certain phases, or levels or orders, of the abstracting process to analyze our behaviors and reactions: EVENT is not  OBJECT is not  DESCRIPTION is not  INFERENCE, etc. We can acknowledge that our abstracting occurs at different 'times' ... we should expect different results, reactions, responses, etc., from different experiences at different 'times' We have human limitations that constrain our experiences - we never experience 'all' of What Is Going On Similarly, we can never 'say all' or describe 'all' about our experiences - more could always be said: Etc. What we experience is, to some degree, a function of our past experiences (feedback, projection, etc.) What we experience is, to some degree, a function of the unique capabilities of our individual nervous systems We should therefore expect not only to 'see' things differently, we should expect to evaluate and react to 'things' differently When we delay our responses and react conditionally, we tend to behave more sanely, more rationally, more appropriate-to-the-'facts' of the situation When we react immediately, when our responses are conditioned and controlled by the stimulus (the 'thing'), we behave like Pavlov's dog and subject ourselves to control by others

Now let's talk about Hayakawa and his Abstraction Ladder. (You probably didn't notice, but in discussing Korzybski's Structural Differential I specifically used the word abstracting and did not use abstraction. Now I'm switching gears.)

Remember that Korzybski came first, developing general semantics throughout the 1920s and publishing Science and Sanity in 1933. Hayakawa read Korzybski and attended seminars in the latter 1930s, and wrote Language in Action in 1940. (I'm fortunate to have a spiral-bound "2nd Draft" of this book.) It then became Language in Thought and Action (LITAA), was put on the Book of the Month list a few years later, etc. The textbook you have now has undergone several reprints and edits.

Korzybski emphasized the scientific, physiological and neurological bases for his explications of the abstracting process(es). Hayakawa focused on the linguistic and semantic/meaning implications of our evaluation processes. His Ladder should not be considered so much as his version of the Structural Differential, as much as his own diagram of how we abstract, through language, classifications, types, categories, etc., which result in what can be considered as different levels of abstractions.

Whereas Korzybski's model represents an ongoing process, Hayakawa's diagram - in my opinion - does not reflect a process but instead captures the linguistic output of that process. Korzybski deals with abstracting - Hayakawa deals with abstractions.

Unfortunately, I've loaned my LITAA to someone and don't have access to it now. However, I do have the paper I wrote about LITAA in 1979, so I can use it for reference to discuss the famous "Bessie the Cow".

"Wealth"  "Farm"          "Livestock"     "Cow"   Organism (pre-verbal)

You can see that the Ladder, in this example, deals with linguistic, or language, manipulations of how we can evaluate, or respond to, or view, Bessie the Cow.

The Ladder serves a particularly useful function in helping us 'immunize' ourselves against political propaganda, advertising, and the like. Hayakawa uses an example such as this: a local politician attempts to drum up support by exclaiming, "Farmer Jones, vote for me to ensure that Schmokum County serves as a beacon of forward-looking growth and prosperity!"

As this exhortation contains no specifics, only generalized, highly abstract references, you could infer that this belongs fairly high up on the Ladder of Abstractions. And if Farmer Jones recognizes this, he will likely ask the Schmokum County candidate, "What exactly do you mean, what will you do?"

And when the candidate replies, "Well, er, Jones, what I mean is, uh ... we're going to build a new road right across your farm!", Farmer Jones has succeeded in lowering the level of abstracted language such that he now understands the candidate's intent.