Jump to content

Talk:Grok

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:8800:784:8f00:c23f:d5ff:fec4:d51d (talk) at 05:26, 22 July 2020 (→Quote mark errors: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

No one has mentioned that "to ken" is an obsolete English verb, very much like the German mentioned above. It has a meaning somewhere between a mundane "to know" and something close to "to grok." The word "uncanny" comes from it, meaning something that cannot be kenned. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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?

Grokster

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Original research

--Xosa 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is rather poorly written, with a strong bias towards Heinlein fandom/cultism. --109.56.127.244 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Stranger, and having used the term from day one after reading it (back in the Seventies), and never having used it in "Geekdom" circles, I would say the article is rather well written, and only poorly cited. There are, if one has the time to look for them, plenty of reliable resources to support just about everything in the article as is.--SentientParadox (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]


Manson

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

According to the Heinlein Society web site, [[2]]
Question: Did Charles Manson use "Stranger in a Strange Land" as his 'bible', and did the book connect to the Manson family murders?
Answer: No. This story apparently got started because of an anonymously published article. When asked, Charles Manson had never heard of the book. Some of the Manson girls had apparently read it but it had no connection to the murders.
Wjl2 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dig

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please include that information in the article.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the section, "In counterculture". —Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


ay-yi-yi. I just changed "earthling" to "earthly" in the article. The reason is that "earthling" has such a negative connotation, it's almost, if not completely, become a self-parody word. i'm not sure that "earthly" is the right replacement, but I feel strongly that "earthling" -- even if in the original Heinlein text -- may have been appropriate then, but isn't now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.253.209 (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ay-yi-yi)²!! - Good grief -- you can't go around substituting terms that don't offend your sensibilities for an author's actual words! Needless to say, I've reverted your changes... and I'm really surprised that they were allowed to stand this long. Cgingold (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zen

The Jargon File definition is slightly confusing. It says, "contrast zen, which is a similar supernatural understanding experienced as a single brief flash." I've never heard this described as "supernatural", and this isn't Zen, but satori. I'm almost wondering if we should limit this quote due to its ambiguity. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you said and think about how POORLY grok seems to be understood, based on reading the article. I think what may be needed is a closer look at definition, rather than considering lumping it in with other terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Time

Just heard Jake from adventure time say, "Finn, do you grok this." I don't know if its important enough for consideration but I thought that I would just put it out there.

It was in this episode: http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/In_Your_Footsteps

Aceofspades, Refining Wikipedia one edit at a time (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pls stress: fictional word from a scifi classic

Let's keep in mind that the scifi writer Heinlein "borrowed" from several real things, like satori, to create an imaginary word, in an imaginary language, spoken by imaginary creatures. This article neglects this unique angle on the word. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and quotes

  • Blackmore, Tim (1995), "Talking with Strangers: Interrogating the Many Texts That Became Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land", Extrapolation, 36 (2), Kent State UP: 136–150 Note url points to paywalled version. GL has full pdf in hand. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Stranger is more than divination of cultural tics, says H. Bruce Franklin; by 1971 "the verb `to grok' had entered the language of tens of millions ... as more and more Americans sought to escape from what they perceived as sterility, alienation, lovelessness, and driving ambitions."

— p137, quoting Franklin (1980) p127

Franklin contends that "'grok' has become part of our language because it expresses what people most yearn for ... to reverse the intensifying process of alienation."

— p141, quoting Franklin (1980) p137

In 1961 the idea of language as power, creator, and destroyer was relatively new in mainstream American thought: few had read the work of Roland Barthes, fewer knew about the imminent cultural changes to follow disruptions of patriarchal discourse. But Heinlein had paid attention to communication. One of his characters asks "Do you grok 'grok'?", suggesting that notions seeded in Martian, or any other language, can provide its speakers with "a different 'map'" (206–07). That language is a forceful lever that moves and redirects power (and the subsequent ability to define "reality") was not news to professional linguists, who had no difficulty linking "the sense of alienation which troubles the flower children [that] has caused them to turn to Stranger as the cult calls it ... with the same emotion that causes them to wear buttons reading 'Frodo lives.' ... Fiction has become reality." (McNelly 332)

— p141, quoting Heinlein (1961), McNelly (1971)

Heinlein's free use of Nietzsche produces some of the most frightening philosophy: Valentine Michael Smith explains, "For knowing I must see. An Old One does not need eyes to know. He knows. He groks. He acts." (112). There is no court of appeal, no time for reconsideration, doubt, or error; the hero sees only freedom or death. Valentine Michael Smith would rather kill than incarcerate. To do so he need only consult the court of the self. He turns inward, shunning the human community around him to the extent that a terribly uneasy Rottensteiner suggests that Heinlein's tendency to solipsism reflects "a regression, a retreat to the ego brought about by the terrible pressure of civilization, by an inability to cope with the complexities of the modern world." (77) Heinlein retreats to the protective community, the 'nest'; but in the nest are only hand-picked guests, "newcomers were [of] the same sort—each learned, acclaimed, and with no need to strive (208). You can hear Rottensteiner asking if these newcomers are also all blond.

— p144, quoting Heinlein (1961), Rottensteiner (1969)

Blish argued very early that Stranger's "system is ethically even more permissive, and it has no visible user at all for custom or morality .... It would be very difficult to predict under what circumstances an adept would 'grok wrongness,' other than in circumstances when his own will or desire is about to be thwarted" (18). There seem to be no controls or brakes on the individual because, according to Heinlein's definition of an individual, none are necessary.

— p146, quoting Blish 1961

Rottensteiner, finally blind with rage, lashes out at what he calls "a megalomaniac fascist fantasy. SF, yes—speculative fascism. It is typical of men who proclaim themselves 'elitists' and look disdainfully down upon the purportedly stupid masses, who vehemently deny that 'all men are created equal'; and then proceed to make men equal by grouping them into classes separated by total and absolute differences. The Nazis had their Aryans and the non-Aryans, the one being superhuman, the other subhuman beings not worthy to live: Mr. Heinlein has his 'grokkers' and his 'non-grokkers.' The first understand fully, absolutely, totally; the second understand nothing, can do nothing and count for nothing, and may therefore be killed at will and without fear of punishment by the grokkers." (76)

— p146–7, quoting Rottensteiner (1969)

Grok means "to understand," of course, but Dr. Mahmoud, who might be termed the leading Terran expert on Martians, explains that it also means, "to drink" and "a hundred other English words, words which we think of as antithetical concepts. 'Grok' means all of these. It means 'fear,' it means 'love,' it means 'hate'—proper hate, for by the Martian 'map' you cannot hate anything unless you gork it, understand it so thoroughly that you merge with it and it merges with you—then you can hate it. By hating yourself. By this implies that you love it, too, and cherish it and would not have it otherwise. Then you can hate—and (I think) Martian hate is an emotion so black that the nearest human equivalent could only be called mild distaste. Mahmoud screwed up his face. "'Grok' means 'identically equal.' The human cliché 'This hurts me worse than it does you' has a distinctly Martian flavor. The Martian seems to know instictively what we learned painfully from modern physics, that observer acts with observed through the process of observation. 'Grok' means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science and it means as little to us as color does to a blind man." (205–6)

— p144–5, quoting Heinlein (1961)

Alexei Panshin finds that the "Martian-trained ability to do almost anything"—wich includes not only grokking but mental control of matter—makes Martian spirituality "right by definition" "and hence trivial" (101). This is true, of course, but only if we try to apply the fictional specifics of the book's Martian culture to our lives; the notion of full understanding, as an ideal, still is most laudable.

— p145, quoting Panshin (1968); footnote omitted.

Heinlein's Martians may know all, but they most assuredly do not forgive all; their grokking of rightness and wrongness instead leads to an unwavering sense of justice.

— p145

Indeed, in this book the Martians themselves are responsible for the formation of the asteroids: "The Martian Race had enountered the people of the fifth planet, grokked them completely, and had taken action; asteroid ruins were all that remained, save that the Martians continued to praise and cherish the people they had destroyed. (91)"

— p146, quoting Heinlein (1961)

Martians believe that "wrongness ... require[s] weeding, once it ha[s] been grokked and cherished and hated" (414).

— p147, quoting Heinlein 1961

After his death, I continued my search for an intimate family. Back then, when everyone was reading The Harrod Experiment and Stranger in a Strange Land, looking for a group to "grok" with was not that unusual. (For you youngsters who missed that era, "grok" meant an erotic, non-possessive heart-connection among a group of like-minded people.) However, as the 70's turned in tot he 80's and 90's....

— pg 8

Just as Poly Plural Pair Porcupines can look back at the O'Neill's Open Marriage as one source of their relationship style, many families with an O-shaped Poly Circle have found Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land a source of inspiration. This novel, an icon of the 60's and 70's era, coined the word GROK to represent love among a group of people, usually a group with mutual dedication to a cause or a shared vision of life. The reason why Heinlein created this new word was that he wnated a name for the different type of love he envisioned, neither the limited romantic love of traditional ownership-based marriages, nor a mere "group grope" or sexual orgy. Rather, GROK was an intellectual, spritiual, and emotional shared love, which might include sexuality, although sex was not the focus or primary purpose. The concept of GROK was one of the inspirations for the wide variety of intentional communities that sprang up during this heady, exciting era of massive social change. And it is a great description for the Poly-O family.

— p43

In everyday English discourse, neological verbs are common. Folks can google each other, they may expet to be raptured, to be upgraded, to be texted. In each case, the new verbs reflect either frequent use of a new object or frequent public reference to a term that was once esoteric, a practice made especially easy if the verbed noun has metaphorical qualities. In each case, the new verb is anchored in a familiar neosemic nominal whose prior usage licenses the new action. Fictive verbs on this model are easily imaginable, as long as the anchoring neological noun is well established in the narrative. But fictive verbs without noun-anchors are rare, because they require an intimately estranged orientation to the real. Imagining an action or experience that is unfamiliar to the reader changes his or her relationship to the world. New verbs signify more than a difference in condition; every new kind of action presupposes a world changed to make it possible. Neological verbs require an actively different consciousness from the reader, a different will, a different sense of what can be done, desired, or acted upon. Spruiell cites as a strking exception to the lack of alien verbs in sf Heinlein's grok in Stranger in a Strange Land (1961): "Heinlein's Stranger is unique in a number of ways and in fact devotes a great deal of prose to defining grok; in some was, the book's major theme can be seen as an extended definition of the term" (447). To grok means to know through empathetic mind-melding; thus it escapes the syntactical ground of Indo-European cognition by breaking down the subject-object relationship encoded in the grammar. The appeal of having a word for this act of I-Thou cognition was great enough to have given the word a widespread career in the Anglophone counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s.

— unpaged, quoting Spruiell (1997)

Moral. This last element is in a sense prior to all the rest, since it provides a philosophical justification not only for everything Smith does but also for everything he might do. Apparently based on a theory of innate moral capacity and natural goodness not significantly different from that which was so enthusiastically embraced back in the eighteenth century, Stranger in a Strange Land seems to insist that the noble savage—the wholly natural individual—will instinctively "grok" (a verb which, as "drink," "know," "love," "understand," etc., seems to entail a kind of total comprehension through sympathetic identification something like Buber's I-Thou relation) the rightness or wrongness of any situation, and automatically act morally in response to this perception. In practice it seems to offer a blanket justification for any behavior based on a sincere conviction. The key to this philosophy is a conception of "innocence" which has nothing to do with either knowledge or performance but only motivation. One may even commit murder—which, in fact, Smith does, frequently and without qualm—and still be innocent, as long as the act is neither malicious nor undisciplined nor self-interested. Heinlein underlines what he means in using the word "innocent" in this contextj—and incidentally demonstrates the book's debt to classic primitivism—by comparing Smith to a poisonous snake: harmless as long as he isn't threatened; deadly when provoked; but in either case, since he acts only according to his nature (which is, of course, by definition divine), totally without sin or shame or guilt.

— p263

3.1 Noun Predominance. The striking imbalance in syntactic types represented in the data would probably manifest in a wider data sample as well; one reason I conducted this pilot study was that an informal reading of a wide range of science fiction novels had yielded very few non-nominal neologisms. The most famous exception is probably grok, from Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (1961). As Meyers(1980:31-32) has pointed out, Heinlen's Stranger was selected as part of the Brown Corpus, and hence grok appeared in dictionaries that used this corpus. Had the Brown Corpus included Dune instead, we would have no 'official' alien verbs (but would have a much greater number of official alien drugs and poisons!). Heinlein's Stranger is unique in a number of ways and in fact devotes a great deal of prose to defining grok; in some ways, the book's major theme can be seen as an extended definition of the term.

— p447

Weizenbaum for example describes the differences between "professional programmers", which [sic] think of the calculator as an instrument that is separated from its user, and hackers, that [sic] only exist through and for computers [16]. The same rhetoric is presented in Turkle, for whom hackers see computers as "things in themselves", as opposed to the programmers [sic] idea of computers as instruments [14]. Given the consideration above, the verb "to grok" could provide an interesting way to describe hacking practices. Our goal is not to use the verb "to grok" for interpreting hacking practices, on the contrary we would like to observe how this verb is both [an] active part of such practices and how our understanding of such practices would profit from empirical enquiry.

— p123

According to the Jargon File, to 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 entereed the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implications that it has transformed your view of programming." Thus, a person that groks a certain technology (e.g.[,] LIST) becomes "one with" that technology in a way that this act of grokking has changed radically his/her own personality. Hackers define themselves as involved in grokking software, and grokking involves hackers' identities.

— p 123–4, quoting Raymond, undated

Through a Martian form of megaempathy known as "grokking," Smith comprehends people and situations instantly in all their sensuous complexity. It makes for exceptionally intense religious and sexual experiences. One sophisticated though unsuspecting beauty, who is asked why she fainted after kissing Smith, replies, "When Mike kisses you he isn't doing anything else!" Esalen T-groups frequently use the term grokking in their touch therapy, and Charles Manson seems to have based his "family" on Valentine Michael Smith's circle of friends. He even named an illegitimate son after the Heinlein hero.

— unpaged, via ebscohost

Stranger became a slow-burning bestseller, presaging the collapse of traditional sexual and religious mores in the 1960s. It gave the counterculture vocabulary the Martian word grok, that very '60s term meaning really, really understanding something, man, so that you and it were, like, as one.

— unpaged, ebscohost

As a person grows, his linguistic environment can expand beyond strictly oral language to that of written language and to include words representing many more intensionally defined objects. In this environment, he either learns how to evaluate unfamiliar words through the other written or pictured contexts or by obtaining an intensional definition of the word from others or from a dictionary. Suich words when commonly used are learned primarily through the context method as they occur often enough for the contexts to coalesce and provide some level of fairly clear evaluations. Intensional definitions allow the searcher to make an evaluation of the defined word within a generalized context.

I experience an excellent example of this in a word which was created or coined from scratch as a fictional Martian word, but which can no be found in some English dictionaries. This word, grok, coined by speculative fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein (8) in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land was used first without any explicit definition on page 22 of the expanded version of the book and continued to be used very often without definition in varying contexts, throughout the rest of the book. It is not until page 253 is it finally given an intensional definition in the form of an English translation. Thus to a person reading the book for the first time, and unfamiliar with the word, all of his evaluation of the word would come from the various contexts only. The intensional definition, or more specifically, the translation given for it is to drink, but it is obvious from earlier usages that most of them are used in a a metaphorical fashion, much as English 'I see' often means the same as 'I understand'. This translation turns out to be only one of a number of others which are mentioned but not specified. According to the fictional text this word was created in a totally non-English environment, (in fact non-human), and it is based on "pure Martian abstractions from half a million years of wildly alien culture, [and had] traveled so far from any human experience as to be utterly untranslatable." (p.22)

Today ,one definition of the word has entered the English language for a minority of speakers and can be found in some dictionaries so that a person encountering the word outside of its original source can look it up. From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: grok / Pronunciation: `gräk (9) / Function: transitive verb / Inflected Form(s): grokked; grok•ing / Etymology: coined by Robert A. Heinlein died 1988 American author / : to understand profoundly and intuitively //

Considering my own evaluation of the word which I gained stricktly through context, I agree with the given definition, but add that in my understanding, that definition just barely touches the surface of the many other evaluations given by the contexts.

— p180–1, quoting Heinlein (1991), jstor
  • Rabkin, Eric S. (Autumn, 1979). "Metalinguistics and Science Fiction". Critical Inquiry. 6 (1): 79–97. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The categories I have distinguished, using English or East Martian as material for the text, are not intended as Procrustean beds. Nonetheless, once we see how the metalinguistic functions vary with technique and materials, we can better understand not only the metalinguistics but science fiction as well. For example, perhaps the most famous new coinage in the genre in Robert A. Heinlein's term "gork," the central notion about which the characters speak endlessly in Stranger in Strange Land (1961, e.g., chap. 21), one of his four Hugo-winning novels. "Grok" means "understand deeply," but many readers have suggested that Heinlein's "grok" is an intellectual breakthrough. To disprove this, of course, one would need to sit down with the whole book and show that nowhere is any new ground bruised, much less broken. But let me suggest that "grok" is surely not transformed language on the one hand and , having no well-articulated alternative reality to arise from, it cannot present us with an alternative view, as does "kemmer." Hence, when characters say they "grok" this or that, we find niether satire nor new ideas. Nonetheless, this term is much praised. I would suggest that its obvious substitution in phrases that require some such word as "understand" or "empathize" is metalinguistic because we are conscious of the substitution from outside our normal code, and thus the text makes a reality claim. In the hands of so skillful and insistent a narrative workman as Heinlein, the claim gathers great force, and Stranger in a Strange Land is widely enjoyed. The reality claim fro the narratrive world made by using "grok" has, it seems to me, carried over to a successful claim for the intellectual importance of "grok" itself, an unwarranted virtue by association, the occurrence of which should underline the degree to which using language as material can help validate our taking something fantastic "as a story."

— p90–91, jstor

Grok, from Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (1961, New York: Putnam), is used to mean that a computer program understands or is "one with" a particular idea or capbility. Often, older versions of commercial software products can't grok data files produced by newer releases of the same product.

— p67, jstor

For Michael to change humans, he must teach them Martian metaphors. Of these the two most important are grokking and the concept that "Thou art God."

— p383, jstor

Heinlein's Martians have the ability to grasp ideas and situations completely, to know things on an almost cellular level. Michael quickly discovers that humans know almost nothing on a deep level—they feel things deeply, but they respond idiosyncratically. Grokking implies that essences can be known—it's an almost Platonic concept—but that knowing things deeply takes a mental discipline that humans (at least in any large numbers) have not had heretofore. Grokking is not a simply intellectual activity but one that involves one's entire being. It is precisely the kind of ability that one is not likely to stumble on accidentally if one lives in a crass, spiritually impoverished, and self-contradictory culture.

— p383, jstor


In one of Robert A. Heinlein's mid-century science fiction novels, "grok" signified a mode of unmediated communication or infallible understanding.

— p1046, jstor

At this point in any conversation I have had with someone who believes that legal theory has a rational foundation, I have always been asked the same series of questions: If you are right that legal reasoning has no objective basis and you have no general theory that tells us what we should do in particular cases, how do you figure out what is the right thing to do? Do you just "grok" the answer? [footnote below] Do you do just what you like?

— p47, jstor

[footnote] Robert Heinlein uses the word "grok" to describe accurate intuition.

— p47, jstor

[footnote cont.] Grokking requires us to assume both that an accurate answer exists and that we can accurately perceive it. The process of getting the answer, however, cannot be describe; it can only be experienced.

— p47, jstor

[footnote cont.] "'Grok' means 'identically equal.' The human cliché 'This hurts me worse than it does you' has a Martian flavor. The Martians seem to know instinctively what we learned painfully from modern physics, that observer interacts with observed through the process of observation. 'Grok' means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience."

— p47, quoting Heinlein 1968; jstor
  • Berger, Albert I. (March 1988). "Theories of History and Social Order in "Astounding Science Fiction"". Science Fiction Studies. 15 (1): 12–35.

As Jubal Harshaw (heinlein's authorial voice in Stranger and the character who most closely approaches human omniscience therein) maintains: "humanity does not want to be served; on the contrary it resents any attempt to serve it" (10:87). Harshw's own involvement in the novel's events is at first involuntary and based primarily on his delight in bucking the powers-that-be (and by implication the irrational masses of people who support them). His retreat in the Poconos, surrounded by an electric fence, can be read as a representation of Heinlein's early faith in separation and non-interference; but Valentine Smith and the book's events outrun that faith. By the time Stranger ends, Harshaw can no longer object to Smith's use of his Martian talents to kill those in whom the alien-raised youngster "groks a wrongness," be they either a policeman come to arrest him or hundreds of anonymous but (in the elite view) corrupt and corrupting humans who are the victims of "a hatchet job," with Smith acting "like a referee removing a player for 'uncessary roughness'"(36:421).

— p28, jstor

Those unfortunates are, in the elite perspective, merely reaping the consequences of their actions and ill-informed prejudices, as are those in the larger human society who persist in rejecting Smith's cult message of Martian culture and the example of his "nest" of followers. It is, fundamentally, their problem, not Smith's and not Harshaw's. That the elite has assumed the full and intransigent power to proceed over the body of an irrational dissident that Campbell assigned to Nature, passes without mention. "Thou art God," says Heinlein, and "All That Groks is God," and Smith and his followers certainly grok. Those who do not are ultimately of no account whatever.

— p28, jstor

Novelist Robert Heinlein invented the word "grok" to refer to the deep, internalized understanding of something or someone.

— unpaged, proquest
  • Raksin, Alex (Jan 17 1988). "Nonfiction in Brief". Los Angeles Times. p. J4. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Brief review of Robert Heinlein, the biography by Leon Stover.

The new generation of socially mature, liberal and (often) feminist critics of science fiction has branded Robert Heinlein everything from racist and sexist to reactionary and bigoted. It is thus a testament to his beguiling power as a storyteller that many radical '60s activists virtually revered Valentine Smith, the protagonist of Heinlein's 1961 novel, "Stranger in a Strange Land." The activists had been inspired by the possibility of universal amity symbolized by the name and life of Smith, a Martian who teaches humans to "grok" (literally, to drink; figuratively, to savor a person's individuality).

— pJ4, proquest
  • Dembart, Lee (Jan 23 1990). "A Shallow Peek Into a Sci-Fi Grand Master". Los Angles Times. p. E10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Review of Heinlein's posthumous book Grumbles from the Grave, edited by his wife Virginia.

There was a time, not long ago, but eons past in spirit, when everyone knew the verb grok. You could buy buttons and posters that contained the word, and people used it in conversation. It meant to understand fully and completely with great empathy, to be in harmony, and it came from Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 novel, "Stranger in Strange Land," one of the books of the 1960s.

— pE10, proquest
  • Rucker, Rudy (Dec 23 1990). "Grok and the World Groks With You". Los Angeles Times. p. 7. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

One of the most frequently used Martian words has found a permanent place in American English: the word is grok, which means "to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the process of being observed—to merge, to blend, to intermarry, to lose personal identity in group experience."

— p7, no cite, proquest

U.S. slang. a. trans. (also with obj. clause) To understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with. b. intr. To empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment.

— x, x

How to grok?

Some efforts here to define grok - which Heinlein, through Mahmoud, tells us it is impossible to fully define in English (and by extension, any Terran language).

There is grokking through water sharing, telepathic rapport, even consuming a Mike broth. Would it help people grok the article by going at it from this angle, as well? Just asking, suggesting. Pstump (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote mark errors

In the first section, "Descriptions of grok in Stranger in a Strange Land," in the indented sections, there are several double quote (") usage errors. And without being familiar with the source material (or not having it available), it's impossible to make the corrections.

The main error being: if you have ending double quote marks, you must have beginning double quote marks (basically, the corollary to: if you have beginning double quote marks, you must have ending double quote marks).

Is there any way this issue can be looked into and fixed? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grok&oldid=968896419"