(In Korean, the word “simsim” (심심) has multiple meanings. First, as a verb, it means “boring” (tired), and when used to describe taste, it means “not salty.” Most commonly, it’s used to express this meaning. However, it’s sometimes used in formal language to emphasize the meaning of an apology. In this second instance, “simsim” comes from the Sino-Korean word “甚深[sim-sim]” meaning “seriously and deeply” reflecting. This article analyzes the problem behind the comedy that arises from the misinterpretation of this completely misleading word in Korean society.)
Soup taste boring?
Imagine you’re a Korean restaurant owner. A customer complains, “Excuse me, the miyeok-guk (korean seaweed soup) is sim-sim today.” How would you respond?
A) “Excuse me, would you like some salt?”
B) “What? you’re saying the soup is boring? Why is it? Should I tell you a funny joke?”
If you chose B… congratulations. You likely deserve to be the subject of the “seriously and deeply sorry(apology)” issues that recently raged on Korean online forums. Here are the details of the controversy:
A company posted an apology on an online forum, and the phrase “We offer a sim-sim(heartfelt) apology.” Netizens who saw the apology flooded the comments section, igniting a firestorm like a winter wildfire. “Why should someone apologize like that?” “Do you expect me to accept a boring apology?” “Are you serious?” “How dare you say an apology is boring?” Angry netizens criticized the company’s apology as insincere, and soon a counterattack began. “How ignorant are the young people these days that they don’t even know the expression ‘simsim’?” “This is a serious problem. The literacy of the internet generation is so poor!” Personal attacks directed at a specific social group continued unabated.
But is the root of this disturbing uproar, which has rocked our society, really a problem of ‘literacy’?
Our brain’s sentence interpretation mechanism is broken.
Linguistically, the human brain possesses the ability to interpret sentences, interpreting the inherent meaning of words within a specific sentence. This is because the same word can be interpreted in various ways depending on the implied meaning within the sentence. Because the brain possesses this automatic sentence interpretation ability, we can automatically understand and interpret the meaning of words in different situations without much thought.
If someone were to see a note saying, “That person is so poisonous,” it would be difficult to grasp the meaning of “poisonous.” However, if you use this expression with your friends while watching a friend study all night during exam period, they’re using “dog-hada” to express their admiration for that friend. However, if you use “dog-hada” to describe someone at work who badmouths a colleague to the boss in an attempt to monopolize the company’s performance, the word “dog-hada” will convey the meaning of “bad” or “mean.” Most of the time, we can effortlessly transition between these expressions in conversation.
As another example, consider the expression “I’m still hungry.” If someone says this after a lunchtime meal, you might think they’re a glutton or have eaten something wrong. However, if a sports star uses this expression in an interview, you might understand that they’re still dissatisfied with their accomplishments.
Through these examples, we can see that humans don’t simply understand words by their definitions, but rather by the context within which they’re used in a sentence or conversation. In other words, we are creatures who understand context and communicate meaning. But these days, it seems many people have this dysfunctional function in their brains. Just like the auto-complete function in a word processor, when it comes to conversations or reading sentences, we tend to pre-emptively select the meaning of a word based on the first thing that comes to mind—our preconceived notions. Boredom? Oh, that means boring. The end.
A Scene Without Common Sense and Consideration
The claim that these trends stem from a fundamental problem in the human brain’s ability to interpret language seems no different from the failure of the auto-complete function they claim, failing to grasp the underlying context of the problem. Could the literacy problem in our society stem from a breakdown in the social system that fosters mutual consideration and understanding, rather than from a lack of brain function or literary education?
Let me pose an interesting question to support this insight. Did you truly understand the precise meaning of the Chinese character 甚深 (simsim)? In other words, did you already understand the dictionary definition of “a boring apple”? If not, but if “simsim apology” has been used habitually despite this, and if there were no problems conveying meaning in this habitual use, could it really be said that the ignorance of the Chinese character 甚深 (simsim) is the root of the literacy problem? Perhaps the root of the problem lies in the common sense that “no company would be so ignorant as to use the word meaning “boring” in an official online apology,” or perhaps in the lack of “consideration” to accurately understand the other person’s intentions, as the meaning might be unknown to me.
In reality, many of those who use the expression “simsim apology” likely don’t know that it’s a Chinese character composed of 甚 (sim), meaning “severe” (sim), and 深 (sim), meaning “deep.” They simply learned culturally that it’s an idiomatic expression meaning “a sincere and profound apology.” Or perhaps they’ve acquired the social tact necessary to make a formal apology seem more formal by prefacing it with “simsim” (sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry), even though they don’t understand the meaning of a sincere and profound apology.
Conspiracy theories are a constant stream but explanations are cut short.
Among this trend, an even more ironic phenomenon is the public’s surprising tolerance for complexities.
Videos claiming “the vote was rigged” on YouTube are replayed and replayed. Both political parties that divide Korean politics have raised claims of rigging in elections where they were unfavorable. Furthermore, countless political, romantic, and other content, even if riddled with leaps of faith and speculation, are watched to the end and thought, “That sounds plausible, doesn’t it?” Furthermore, they share uncritically the unverified information circulating on social media, perhaps because they feel it’s a waste to keep it to themselves. “So-and-so received this much,” “So-and-so is dating so-and-so,” “So-and-so said eating this would cure cancer.” Rumors like these, unfounded by scientific fact, are overflowing online. If you ask, “Is there any basis for the video or feed you shared?” you’ll often get the response, “What on earth are you talking about? That’s irrelevant.” The public tends to believe the rumors they share.
However, when someone gives a genuine explanation right in front of them, they don’t pay attention for even 10 seconds, reacting emotionally with, “What are you talking about?” “A sincere apology? How can you admit you’re wrong and say you’re bored? Is that even a joke?” They don’t even bother to look it up. In today’s world of advanced communications, it takes less than a minute. In Korea, where online dictionaries are readily available, that is.
We readily believe complex lies from afar, yet doubt simple truths close at hand. Is this truly a problem of ‘literacy’? Or is it something else entirely?
The Language of Zero-Sum Games
Perhaps the underlying cause of this phenomenon lies in the “zero-sum thinking” pervasive in our society. This tendency, which began in political debates, has now permeated everyday conversation. If I’m right, the other person is wrong, and if the other person is right, I’m wrong. There’s no middle ground. Both sides can’t be right, and neither can be partially right. Because we believe the essence of democracy lies not in “the majority being right,” but rather in “listening to minority opinions,” we often feel frustrated when politicians cut off their opponents during televised debates without fully listening to their opponents. Yet, this is our daily reality. Furthermore, the media goes even further, attempting to simplify complex issues into a “camp A vs. camp B” framework. Education is obsessed with college entrance exams, and the mindset that all we need is a high score on the exam. The critical thinking skills of reading and interpreting the context within a text are a distant dream. Telling the younger generation, raised in this environment, to “consider the other person’s intentions” might seem harsh. They haven’t learned that.
Not Literacy, but the Ability to “Read People”
If you think about it, the core of the “sincere apology” controversy isn’t simply a matter of knowing or not knowing a specific Chinese character, as mentioned above. A more fundamental question lies at the heart of it. When did we begin to assume someone’s intentions are offensive, rather than being considerate and assuming positive ones when interpreting their words? When did we begin to prioritize the certainty of “That person is wrong!” over the self-questioning, “That’s strange? What does it mean? Did I misunderstand?”
Poor literacy may not be a problem of reading characters, but rather a problem of reading people. It’s the ability to discern the human intentions and context behind a text.
When someone uses an unfamiliar expression, what we need is not Chinese character proficiency, but curiosity. The ability to ask questions like, “Why did that person use that expression?” or “Is there a usage I don’t know?”
Let’s cultivate the tolerance to take a minute to spare.
The solution is surprisingly simple. The next time someone uses an expression you don’t understand, just open the search bar. In the time it takes to write an angry comment (an average of two minutes), you can look up a Korean dictionary online. Or, if that’s too difficult, you can now ask AI.
And what if they’re truly wrong? What if you could kindly tell them, “Oh, that actually means this.” Everyone is capable of making mistakes. You and I make mistakes every day. That’s what makes us human. It’s a unique human strength to learn from our mistakes, realize our flaws, and move forward toward a better tomorrow. Even if you release a fish, it will bite again after a certain amount of time. If we fail to learn from our mistakes, we’re not human, but simply uncivilized creatures similar to fish.
Regarding the literacy problem that has caused a stir online, rather than reflecting on the causes and learning from our mistakes, our society should focus on the new private education market.
If we approach this as nothing more than a new opportunity, we might all be regressing from humanity to fish.
Yes. What we need is not just more Chinese character knowledge, but more tolerance and generosity. An ethical attitude of understanding and consideration for others, and the humility to acknowledge that I might be wrong. In other words, the problem our society faces may not be a lack of “literacy,” but a lack of “listening.” What difference can a society that refuses to listen to one another make simply by teaching its members the meanings of words?
The tedious apology debate may be over, but the question remains: Are we truly listening to each other? Or are we simply looking for an opening to rebut?
Recall your last conversation. Did you listen to the other person until the very end, or did you stop listening halfway through, searching for a p