I’d predict that this exchange happens to you quite a bit, where you make a descriptive statement, someone interprets it as normative, and then you have to clarify that your statement was purely descriptive before actually proceeding to discuss. If so, you might be able to eliminate the extra cycle by clarifying descriptive intent up front .
I think that people often assume normatively prescriptive intent when one makes a statement like that which you make in the root comment. Furthermore, this is usually a reasonable assumption in my (admittedly rather limited in breadth) experience, so subverting it as above might annoy some as it may seem like you’re willfully being a pain by screwing with typical communication protocols. This annoyance may be greater if the other person thinks that you’re trying to confuse them, making a higher-status move at their expense.
Disregard this if it does not seem applicable—just an instance of “feedback may have positive impact but probably not negative compared to no feedback.” Tapping out due to lack of further interest.
I think that people often assume normatively prescriptive intent when one makes a statement like that
Can you unroll this? What do you see as the crucial difference between “I think there are strong gender overtones here” and “I think that water is wet”?
What creates the “reasonable assumption” that the statement is normative when the text doesn’t specify it?
‘Pippin, don’t throw that!’
‘But why? What’s going to happen?’
‘I don’t like the look of the water.’
‘It looks just like it always does...’
[tentacles creep out and try to wrap around the Fellowship]
‘Guys, I think there are strong gender overtones here!’
‘Next time, Pippin, say that water is wet.’
S1 relates to a topic on which many have strong normative feelings; S2 does not. Many of the people I interact with behave such that I have a strong prior for S1 being intended normatively rather than descriptively, so I’d assume that they intended S1 normatively (just because that assumption is very likely to be correct given past experience with my social circles). Might not be universally true though—this could just be an oddity of my social circles.
I’d expect you to know that the assumption in my first paragraph exists, so I pattern-match failing to initially clarify your intent as someone trying to make a high-status play (of the sort unclear statement->assumption->implied “gotcha! you made a bad assumption”). This causes me to anticipate your future intent regarding the conversation to be gaining status, so I don’t expect your future input to be interesting and would likely abandon the convo.
I’ve tried to introspect and spell out an estimate of why I might feel as I do, but the general progression in my second paragraph manifests as a feeling of annoyance->dismissal.
S1 relates to a topic on which many have strong normative feelings; S2 does not.
OK, so the issue is the social expectations about whether the issue is controversial and whether one is expected to have a normative attitude towards it? And in such a case, all statements will be interpreted as normative unless there are explicit disclaimers to the contrary?
I’d expect you to know that the assumption in my first paragraph exists
No, not really. I rarely speak normatively and in such cases I’m explicit about it. Typically I make descriptive observations, possibly with a variety of connotations and implications, but they are almost never of the “so you should believe/do X” kind. Normally they are of the “this is complicated, are you aware of this trade-off and that internal inconsistency?” kind.
I do set gotcha traps on occasion, but the sense of fair play usually makes me point them out beforehand. People still fall into them, anyway :-D
OK, so the issue is the social expectations about whether the issue is controversial and whether one is expected to have a normative attitude towards it? And in such a case, all statements will be interpreted as normative unless there are explicit disclaimers to the contrary?
I’d predict that this exchange happens to you quite a bit, where you make a descriptive statement, someone interprets it as normative, and then you have to clarify that your statement was purely descriptive before actually proceeding to discuss. If so, you might be able to eliminate the extra cycle by clarifying descriptive intent up front .
I think that people often assume normatively prescriptive intent when one makes a statement like that which you make in the root comment. Furthermore, this is usually a reasonable assumption in my (admittedly rather limited in breadth) experience, so subverting it as above might annoy some as it may seem like you’re willfully being a pain by screwing with typical communication protocols. This annoyance may be greater if the other person thinks that you’re trying to confuse them, making a higher-status move at their expense.
Disregard this if it does not seem applicable—just an instance of “feedback may have positive impact but probably not negative compared to no feedback.” Tapping out due to lack of further interest.
Can you unroll this? What do you see as the crucial difference between “I think there are strong gender overtones here” and “I think that water is wet”?
What creates the “reasonable assumption” that the statement is normative when the text doesn’t specify it?
FWIW I also interpreted your statement as normative.
The fact that that a lot of people saying the first, but not the second, intend to prescriptive connotations.
One difference is that no-one ever says the latter.
‘Pippin, don’t throw that!’ ‘But why? What’s going to happen?’ ‘I don’t like the look of the water.’ ‘It looks just like it always does...’ [tentacles creep out and try to wrap around the Fellowship] ‘Guys, I think there are strong gender overtones here!’ ‘Next time, Pippin, say that water is wet.’
Yep :-P No girls in the Fellowship.
P.S. That was a descriptive and not a normative statement X-D
For convenience, calling this Statement 1 (S1):
and calling this Statement 2 (S2):
S1 relates to a topic on which many have strong normative feelings; S2 does not. Many of the people I interact with behave such that I have a strong prior for S1 being intended normatively rather than descriptively, so I’d assume that they intended S1 normatively (just because that assumption is very likely to be correct given past experience with my social circles). Might not be universally true though—this could just be an oddity of my social circles.
I’d expect you to know that the assumption in my first paragraph exists, so I pattern-match failing to initially clarify your intent as someone trying to make a high-status play (of the sort unclear statement->assumption->implied “gotcha! you made a bad assumption”). This causes me to anticipate your future intent regarding the conversation to be gaining status, so I don’t expect your future input to be interesting and would likely abandon the convo.
I’ve tried to introspect and spell out an estimate of why I might feel as I do, but the general progression in my second paragraph manifests as a feeling of annoyance->dismissal.
Edited for formatting.
OK, so the issue is the social expectations about whether the issue is controversial and whether one is expected to have a normative attitude towards it? And in such a case, all statements will be interpreted as normative unless there are explicit disclaimers to the contrary?
No, not really. I rarely speak normatively and in such cases I’m explicit about it. Typically I make descriptive observations, possibly with a variety of connotations and implications, but they are almost never of the “so you should believe/do X” kind. Normally they are of the “this is complicated, are you aware of this trade-off and that internal inconsistency?” kind.
I do set gotcha traps on occasion, but the sense of fair play usually makes me point them out beforehand. People still fall into them, anyway :-D
Pretty much.