I don’t like using specific words. Sometimes, I go great distances to not use those words; and only use them when I have to. A lot of times, my disliking is irrational; but there are a few instances I could put some rationales behind why I dislike those specific words.

One of those words is ‘skill’. The word alone sounds fine; cool even. s-kill. It has that 00’s type of edge to it. But when it is used in a specific context against specific words, it starts to develop meanings that I don’t like. I have issues with the specific context-driven meaning the word is recently associated with. The stand-alone word ‘skill’ is semantically a better word than the word ‘talent’, which it is closely associated with. Most of the time the word ‘talent’ is used instead of ‘skill’, where ‘skill’ would have been the better word. Talent refers to a skill that is only attainable when someone is born with it. Not saying talent does not exist, but in most cases- the context, environment, and practice are mistaken as gifted talent- whereas the referred condition could be best described as a ‘skill.’

I think there has been a subtle shift in the use of the word ‘skill’ in contemporary times. In the world of objective reality, where everything is tried to be quantified, measured, instrumentalized- and valued thereafter- the word ‘skill’ is viewed with an underlying lens of its monetary exchange rate. The word skill seems to put basic human traits and activities in objectively quantified boxes. Obviously, objectifying a 'quality' or 'trait' helps to communicate and understand it better. However, when every human quality is objectified and tried to be measured, we run the risk of reducing the whole human existence to its materialistic measurements. It is a severe problem, especially when our methods and units of measurement are not perfect.

I hate the phrase ‘skill development’. I would rather use a more elaborate term: i.e. learning new qualities, where the act of learning and the learned skill itself are highlighted. However, I feel the phrase ‘skill development’ does not directly point towards the ‘skill’ itself. It somehow sells the idea of monetary value the ‘skill’ upholds. I would be delusional if I claimed the reality of learning something to pay the bills- is problematic. But, when every part of human life and the activities that we do are understood in terms of their monetary values, it is problematic. I believe the phrase ‘skill development’ carries this specific monetary undertone. Phrases like ‘communication skill’, and ‘social skill’ in itself could be used to understand the complexity of human communication- but at the same time- how these phrases are usually reduced to ‘professional qualities’ and measured against their monetary value should not be overlooked. Human communication is the core foundation of our collective existence. Of course, we strive for a better means of communicating and understanding each other. At the same time, when the quality of one of our fundamental tools of collective existence is measured against its persuasive quality of ‘selling products and services’- it does not stick right with me.