I agree with both Elizabeth and Said (just saw all of this thread in the last ten minutes).
The advice was something like 85% obvious and stuff I had already belatedly realized, and so getting it in long form was a little bit like being lectured or being kicked while I was down. There are two status signals in a comment like that (the first being “I, DragonGod, know better” and the second being “you, Conor, are not clever enough to have already figured this out, nor will you in the future unless I tell you”) and for that reason my monkey brain wanted to downvote reflexively (I didn’t, in the end).
But a) it’s obvious from you asking this question that those status moves were not at all on your radar/were not intended, and b) I completely agree that it’s good to have those thoughts and heuristics up where others can see them and benefit from them. Your comment included models and details that make it concretely useful, and it did, in fact, include at least one point that I hadn’t considered.
Interestingly, as I tried to answer your question, I found myself skirting the edge of the exact same surface-level problem that I think brought on the downvotes. So as I went to try to tell you what I think was good and bad about your comment, I found myself wanting to couch with phrases like “you probably already thought of this, but for the sake of anyone who doesn’t” and “I could be wrong here, let me know if your models differ” and “I hope this doesn’t come across as lecturing/condescending; I just figured it was better to err on the side of caution and completeness.”
If I were in your position, that’s probably the update I’d take away from this (that the skin of the comment matters a lot, and there’s a large swath of people who don’t want to be treated like white belts). I’d probably still have the same “speak up and share advice” module, but I’d add a function to the front that injects some gentleness and some status-dynamic-defusing words and phrases.
> I’d probably still have the same “speak up and share advice” module, but I’d add a function to the front that injects some gentleness and some status-dynamic-defusing words and phrases.
In this case, I have to object to this advice. You can tie yourself in knots trying to figure out what the most gentle way to say something is, and end up being perceived as condescending etc. anyway for believing that X is “obvious” or that someone else “should have already thought of it” (as again, what is obvious to one person may not be obvious or salient to another). Better to just state the obvious.
First, I definitely agree that getting tied in knots is both a) bad and b) something at least some people are vulnerable to.
But 80⁄20 seems like a valuable principle to adhere to, especially if you’ve already been downvoted/punished for your normal style and then, on your own initiative, you asked for clarification/updated heuristics. The claim I made about what I would do in DragonGod’s shoes wasn’t an imperative for literally everybody, it was simply … well, what I would do in their shoes.
I think I would be with you re: objecting if the line you quoted were broadcast as general advice that everyone needs more of. But in context, my brain is trying to round off your objection to “you can’t please everyone, so don’t even try.” I grant that I may have misunderstood you, but in fact signaling and status moves are real, and in fact (as evidenced by group opinion) DragonGod’s first comment was readily parseable as containing information that DragonGod didn’t intend to put there, and in fact a good patch for preventing that from happening in the future is adding something like 5-25 words of gentling and caveatting. That wasn’t a call to tie oneself in knots, nor a claim that this would please everybody.
“Add 5-25 extra words,” for someone who’s already gotten data that they’re not at the ideal point and was intrinsically motivated to investigate further, does not seem to me like a dangerous heuristic that’s likely to suck up lots of attention or effort.
And as for “stating the obvious,” well—I’d wager $50 at 5-1 odds that if DragonGod had prefaced the comment with “I may be stating the obvious here, but,” then the downvotes would not have happened (because that does away with the implicit claim that I or other readers don’t know that these things are low-hanging fruit and easily thinkable).
For what it’s worth, I’m strongly of the same opinion as Conor on this one. It’s just too easy to get annoyed by criticisms, and I think increasing the risk of tying oneself in knots is worth it for the sake of decreasing the risk that someone gets offended.
I agree with both Elizabeth and Said (just saw all of this thread in the last ten minutes).
The advice was something like 85% obvious and stuff I had already belatedly realized, and so getting it in long form was a little bit like being lectured or being kicked while I was down. There are two status signals in a comment like that (the first being “I, DragonGod, know better” and the second being “you, Conor, are not clever enough to have already figured this out, nor will you in the future unless I tell you”) and for that reason my monkey brain wanted to downvote reflexively (I didn’t, in the end).
But a) it’s obvious from you asking this question that those status moves were not at all on your radar/were not intended, and b) I completely agree that it’s good to have those thoughts and heuristics up where others can see them and benefit from them. Your comment included models and details that make it concretely useful, and it did, in fact, include at least one point that I hadn’t considered.
Interestingly, as I tried to answer your question, I found myself skirting the edge of the exact same surface-level problem that I think brought on the downvotes. So as I went to try to tell you what I think was good and bad about your comment, I found myself wanting to couch with phrases like “you probably already thought of this, but for the sake of anyone who doesn’t” and “I could be wrong here, let me know if your models differ” and “I hope this doesn’t come across as lecturing/condescending; I just figured it was better to err on the side of caution and completeness.”
If I were in your position, that’s probably the update I’d take away from this (that the skin of the comment matters a lot, and there’s a large swath of people who don’t want to be treated like white belts). I’d probably still have the same “speak up and share advice” module, but I’d add a function to the front that injects some gentleness and some status-dynamic-defusing words and phrases.
> I’d probably still have the same “speak up and share advice” module, but I’d add a function to the front that injects some gentleness and some status-dynamic-defusing words and phrases.
In this case, I have to object to this advice. You can tie yourself in knots trying to figure out what the most gentle way to say something is, and end up being perceived as condescending etc. anyway for believing that X is “obvious” or that someone else “should have already thought of it” (as again, what is obvious to one person may not be obvious or salient to another). Better to just state the obvious.
First, I definitely agree that getting tied in knots is both a) bad and b) something at least some people are vulnerable to.
But 80⁄20 seems like a valuable principle to adhere to, especially if you’ve already been downvoted/punished for your normal style and then, on your own initiative, you asked for clarification/updated heuristics. The claim I made about what I would do in DragonGod’s shoes wasn’t an imperative for literally everybody, it was simply … well, what I would do in their shoes.
I think I would be with you re: objecting if the line you quoted were broadcast as general advice that everyone needs more of. But in context, my brain is trying to round off your objection to “you can’t please everyone, so don’t even try.” I grant that I may have misunderstood you, but in fact signaling and status moves are real, and in fact (as evidenced by group opinion) DragonGod’s first comment was readily parseable as containing information that DragonGod didn’t intend to put there, and in fact a good patch for preventing that from happening in the future is adding something like 5-25 words of gentling and caveatting. That wasn’t a call to tie oneself in knots, nor a claim that this would please everybody.
“Add 5-25 extra words,” for someone who’s already gotten data that they’re not at the ideal point and was intrinsically motivated to investigate further, does not seem to me like a dangerous heuristic that’s likely to suck up lots of attention or effort.
And as for “stating the obvious,” well—I’d wager $50 at 5-1 odds that if DragonGod had prefaced the comment with “I may be stating the obvious here, but,” then the downvotes would not have happened (because that does away with the implicit claim that I or other readers don’t know that these things are low-hanging fruit and easily thinkable).
For what it’s worth, I’m strongly of the same opinion as Conor on this one. It’s just too easy to get annoyed by criticisms, and I think increasing the risk of tying oneself in knots is worth it for the sake of decreasing the risk that someone gets offended.