(by which the indignant demand that others agree with their indignation), which is unfortunately how I tended to write back when I was writing the original Less Wrong sequences
(sarcasm) Really? I hadn’t noticed in the slightest… (/sarcasm)
It’s interesting that this (extremely rude) misinterpretation has sat here unnoticed for a year. The grammatical reasoning behind parentheses is that you can remove them from the sentence without changing its entire meaning. So Eliezer’s original phrasing becomes,
[...]to teach the procedural habit, you don’t go into the evolutionary psychology of politics or the game theory of punishing non-punishers [...], which is unfortunately how I tended to write back when I was writing the original Less Wrong sequences.
Which is not at all a thing to be scoffed at.
And no one noticed for a year, even though this is the first comment on the page.
But although Internet services themselves are, generally speaking, easy to learn and use, you will find yourself isolated on the Internet if you are not familiar with English. This means that knowledge or lack of knowledge of English is one of the most severe factors that cause polarization. Learning to use a new Internet service or user interface may take a few hours, a few days, or even weeks, but it takes years to learn a language so that you can use it in a fluent and self-confident manner. Of course, when you know some English, you can learn more just by using it on the Internet, but at least currently the general tendency among Internet users is to discourage people in their problems with the English language. Incorrect English causes a few flames much more probably than encouragement and friendly advice.
...which made me think of a five-second skill: when someone uses poor language or otherwise communicates strangely, instead of taking offense at their rudeness, try to figure out what they meant (interactively, if possible).
...which made me think of a five-second skill: when someone uses poor language or otherwise communicates strangely, instead of taking offense at their rudeness, try to figure out what they meant (interactively, if possible).
I usually also try to point out a more helpful phrasing—most non-native speakers who are trying to communicate in English seem appreciative.
Suggesting phrasings is a good way of interactively figuring out what they meant, and I recommend it for the purpose.
Suggesting phrasings to tell people how to say what they mean, on the other hand, bears a risk of being annoying and/or wrong. I think an attitude of seeking clarification is more likely to be successful.
(footnote: I have almost no relevant firsthand knowledge.)
It’s interesting that this (extremely rude) misinterpretation has sat here unnoticed for a year. The grammatical reasoning behind parentheses is that you can remove them from the sentence without changing its entire meaning. So Eliezer’s original phrasing becomes,
Which is not at all a thing to be scoffed at.
And no one noticed for a year, even though this is the first comment on the page.
Communication always fails.
That “Communication always fails” article made me very happy.
Also, the “English—the universal language on the Internet?” article which was linked from it had this bit:
...which made me think of a five-second skill: when someone uses poor language or otherwise communicates strangely, instead of taking offense at their rudeness, try to figure out what they meant (interactively, if possible).
I usually also try to point out a more helpful phrasing—most non-native speakers who are trying to communicate in English seem appreciative.
Suggesting phrasings is a good way of interactively figuring out what they meant, and I recommend it for the purpose.
Suggesting phrasings to tell people how to say what they mean, on the other hand, bears a risk of being annoying and/or wrong. I think an attitude of seeking clarification is more likely to be successful.
(footnote: I have almost no relevant firsthand knowledge.)