Changing "I think" to something else in conversation. 3

[hairlessupportmonkey]

I listen to BBC Radio 4 in the mornings on the way to work. It's generally quite interesting. I'm no old fart but I really can't stand commercial radio.

One thing that happens a lot on R4 are lots and lots of guest speakers. They all vary in qualification, stature, age, and opinion. Since listening to a lot of these people speak on a range of topics which relate to the topic that might be being reported on in the news for example, one thing you hear a lot of is "I think."

Now, many of these guest speakers are supposed have some authority on the subjects they have been asked to talk about. In my view, when these guests use "I think" at the beginning of each new sentence, to me this comes across as opinion rather than facts or an objective view on the subject.

What could we change "I think" to? Can we just get rid of it?

It's a bit like someone saying "Umm" at the beginning of each sentence. Is it a pause to allow for thought or is it a licence to allow for waffle and fact-less speculation?

ACSS - SME
General Geek

 

[IPGuru]

I can see this could become as annoying as a racing drivers "For Sure" that seems to be uttered in almost every sentence thy make

With experts talking on a subject it may still be up for debate (or even subject to change after all even newtons laws have been proven to be incorrect, at least once to reach relativistic speeds) so the 'I Think; my be there just in case new evidence changes things

A Maintenance contract is essential, not a Luxury.
Do things on the cheap & it will cost you dear

 

[2ffat]

I always though the Brits said, "I do believe . . . ." ;-)


James P. Cottingham
I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!

 

[ChrisHirst]

It's a bit like someone saying "Umm" at the beginning of each sentence. ...

"Umm" as a precursor to a sentence, generally implies

"WTF!!! Now listen di**head, I know what you are saying but frankly you are a f***ing clueless idiot".

and

... Is it a pause to allow for thought or is it a licence to allow for waffle and fact-less speculation?

"[well] I think" tends to be the vocal equivalent of a pipe.

As in: "A pipe is an instrument that gives a wise man time to think and a fool something to stick in his mouth"

only it is more commonly used by the latter.

Chris.

Indifference will be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
Time flies like an arrow, however, fruit flies like a banana.
Webmaster Forum

 

[IPGuru]

I do believe you may be correct, but only when we think Americans are listening because we wish to appear sophisticated ;-P

A Maintenance contract is essential, not a Luxury.
Do things on the cheap & it will cost you dear

 

[johnherman]

Well, you know, well, you know......
It's probably not easy to stop people from saying "I think" even if they they only use it as an idiom, and not as a factual statement.

==================================
adept adaptive uber solutions for data galaxies (agile big data clouds and then some)

 

[SamBones]

I think that "I think" is a perfectly valid thing to say. Frequently I use "I believe" here at work when I'm stating something that I don't know for sure to be a fact, but I've seen some indications that it could be true.

Example, "I believe the East coast servers went down because of a problem with the load balancers". If I haven't researched it enough to actually know the cause, but I've seen some symptoms, I'll state what I suspect to be true as something "I believe" or "I think". I don't state it to be fact if I don't know it to be fact.

But then again, to some people, it's just a habitual way to start a sentence without being committed to what you're saying.

I think.

 

[Scott24x7]

If an opinion is being asked, "I think" or "I believe" may be ok, but shouldn't be the meat of the discussion.

A more powerful usage is to cite other works that support your own research. So these people might be better served by saying, "A study (or report) by <some reasonably credible source/body/institute> corroborates what my research has shown. From that, <some conclusions> or <assumptions> may be drawn, depending on whether there is a definitive answer or not. If not, then it may be safe to say, "this is leading the current thinking <down some path>".

There are lots of ways to avoid the usage of "I think" or "I believe" (which I really hate the usage of...) though I also consider the source when I hear this. Some people use it as a "natural form" of bridging language they say "I think" because they are thinking it right then, but their "thought" may be well founded in lots of scientific evidence or results. "I think" bothers me a lot less than "I believe". When I hear THAT, then the alarm bells go off... the probability that it's just someone's opinion without evidence to support their assertions is no more valid than my formula for cold fusion. (To rephrase, they are talking out their bum...)

Now... that said, that is sometimes acceptable as well, when brainstorming, or contemplating something that is entirely unknown but needs creative thinking/solutions. So in the context, it has to be considered carefully. There is a time and place for "I think" and "I believe", but they certainly are overused all too frequently.

In my professional and academic career, I've certainly come to chose my words carefully, when there is a broad (or hyper critical) audience at hand.


Best Regards,
Scott
ATS, CDCE

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, and no simpler."

 

[SantaMufasa]

If the terms "I believe..." or "I think..." are cliché, then I suggest replacing them in conversation with "I assert..." or "I postulate...". But I also suggest using those terms in a thoughtful and deliberate fashion to avoid their becoming trite and cliché, as well.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
“People may forget what you say, but they will never forget how you made them feel.

 

[Olaf Doschke]

At least I feel better about such a phrase, then if they stopped thinking.

It's normal to hide one's light under a bushel, if what you say is broadcasted to a larger audience, but even without that reason even false modesty is no vice, is it?

Bye, Olaf.

 

[SkipVought]

In the spirit of the day...

IMO
IMHO
IMNSHO

...might suffice?

 

[Olaf Doschke]

In my humble opinion" people use such abbreviations to appear humble to those knowing this and other acronyms and sound important to those, who don't know them. That's two faced and therefore I don't like that. And spoken? Such acronyms have their place in written short text service, perhpas, but not at all spoken. More annoying is saying LOL. If something really is that funny, that you need to laugh out loud, you would do so and not say "LOL". But you can use it cynical.

I can understand the criticism and agree with is, if you literally mean repeated usage of "I think", even starting each sentence with it or similar phrases. That's not simply modest, but a bad habit, true.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[Andrzejek]

Is that an abbreviation or an acronym?

Anyway, lately I exchanged a few of them with my co-worker, started with WDYT (What Do You Think?), I replied with some smart long acronym, and she replied to me with another long acronym, and added one short one: IDIOT (?) I like my co-workers so I didn’t want to get upset because of name calling, not really a place for it at work, right? But what she meant was: ‘I Did It On Time’ So, be careful


Have fun.

---- Andy

A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.

 

[2ffat]

...one short one: IDIOT..

Wouldn't that be an ID-ten-T (id10t) designation?


James P. Cottingham
I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229!

 

[SkipVought]

At times it may be prudent to give the Schultz reply, IKN!

 

[jaymaechtlen]

Indeed.