“It’s kind of odd to read a post without ” is more polite (in the standard mode) than “You should add !”
That’s an interesting evaluation, actually. In many (non-LW!) contexts, I might interpret the first as being a sort of passive-aggressive sniping, a criticism that is intended to make the author feel foolish about his obvious omission, whereas at least the second lays it all on the table.
In my opinion, for maximum politeness, you could say the same thing (“please add examples of observations”) without forming it as a criticism of anything except your own lack of imagination:
“I’m interested in your description of how you moved from theory A to theory B, but I found myself curious about what specific observations helped change your mind. Were there any individually compelling things that prompted your conversion?”
I agree with you (as I said initially) that the first is far from optimal, and in particular I agree with you that it has insulting overtones.
My intention was not to offer a maximally polite rephrasing (which depends on one’s audience anyway), but to offer some points that suggest an improvement slope. Clearly, though, I failed to do that unambiguously.
Your version is, I agree, a further improvement. In particular, it stops being a criticism of the original post at all, and becomes instead an invitation to continued conversation.
Unrelatedly: the only context I can think of where I’d interpret the bare imperative as more polite is one among friends close enough to play the “we’re close enough friends that I can be rude to you” metagame.
Or maybe one in which I’m not sure the speaker is from my culture at all (I have Chinese coworkers who often make bare imperative comments like this, for example, and I’ve learned to assume that they are being polite by their own social norms).
You make an excellent point here: polite isn’t a on/off kind of property.
As you say, “it’s kind of odd to read a post without ” is more polite (in the standard mode) than “You should add !”
It’s also less polite than “Great post! I’d love to see , though.”
And there are many still-better (along that axis) formulations.
In the long run, where I am on that axis matters less than whether I am improving.
That’s an interesting evaluation, actually. In many (non-LW!) contexts, I might interpret the first as being a sort of passive-aggressive sniping, a criticism that is intended to make the author feel foolish about his obvious omission, whereas at least the second lays it all on the table.
In my opinion, for maximum politeness, you could say the same thing (“please add examples of observations”) without forming it as a criticism of anything except your own lack of imagination:
“I’m interested in your description of how you moved from theory A to theory B, but I found myself curious about what specific observations helped change your mind. Were there any individually compelling things that prompted your conversion?”
I agree with you (as I said initially) that the first is far from optimal, and in particular I agree with you that it has insulting overtones.
My intention was not to offer a maximally polite rephrasing (which depends on one’s audience anyway), but to offer some points that suggest an improvement slope. Clearly, though, I failed to do that unambiguously.
Your version is, I agree, a further improvement. In particular, it stops being a criticism of the original post at all, and becomes instead an invitation to continued conversation.
Unrelatedly: the only context I can think of where I’d interpret the bare imperative as more polite is one among friends close enough to play the “we’re close enough friends that I can be rude to you” metagame.
Or maybe one in which I’m not sure the speaker is from my culture at all (I have Chinese coworkers who often make bare imperative comments like this, for example, and I’ve learned to assume that they are being polite by their own social norms).