I’ve mostly thought of this as a matter of economy. To quote something I wrote quite a while ago, elsewhere:
In general, the things we don’t like, don’t want, won’t tolerate vastly outnumber the things we do like, do want, do find acceptable. To enumerate them all would be a huge waste of time. And to name, for instance, only one thing we don’t like—that is just getting started on the enumeration.
So, we communicate more efficiently by saying what we like, what we want, what we prefer, how we’d change things for the better, and so on.
Being rude is essentially being negative, with an additional effort to deliberately violate the conditions of felicity of whatever form of conversation is being used.
You could also cite (though I can’t dig up a link right now) those studies recently published claiming that feeling rejected lowers people’s IQ by a substantial amount.
Not an appropriate thing to do when you’re trying to leverage collective intelligence; and if your aim isn’t to leverage collective intelligence, why are you wasting your valuable time and talents posting on a public forum ?
Baumeister, R.F., Twenge, J.M., & Nuss, C. (in press/2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Kinda makes sense in a way. Usually authors are forbidden from putting the ‘final’ version of a journal paper on their website* but are more than willing to email you a copy if you ask nicely. I don’t see why automating the emailing process should cause any legal problems. Of course, I’m only speculating, there might be other reasons.
*one woman in our department always refuses to correct ‘color’/‘colour’ in publications for american journals so that she has an draft she can put on her website which is almost identical to the final version
Agree, second, and applaud.
I’ve mostly thought of this as a matter of economy. To quote something I wrote quite a while ago, elsewhere:
Being rude is essentially being negative, with an additional effort to deliberately violate the conditions of felicity of whatever form of conversation is being used.
You could also cite (though I can’t dig up a link right now) those studies recently published claiming that feeling rejected lowers people’s IQ by a substantial amount.
Not an appropriate thing to do when you’re trying to leverage collective intelligence; and if your aim isn’t to leverage collective intelligence, why are you wasting your valuable time and talents posting on a public forum ?
If you do happen upon that link, please reply to this comment so I can check out the study.
Here is a news story: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2051-rejection-massively-reduces-iq.html—I haven’t tracked down the actual papers.
“Recently published” turns out to be false memory, but I’m sure I saw the story pop up somewhere recently.
From http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeister.dp.html
Baumeister, R.F., Twenge, J.M., & Nuss, C. (in press/2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/pdfmail.php Is his site which allows you to get pdfs of his papers e-mailed to you.
I’m hoping that’s the right study that you’re talking about?
Aside: What? Why? That is very odd.
Kinda makes sense in a way. Usually authors are forbidden from putting the ‘final’ version of a journal paper on their website* but are more than willing to email you a copy if you ask nicely. I don’t see why automating the emailing process should cause any legal problems. Of course, I’m only speculating, there might be other reasons.
*one woman in our department always refuses to correct ‘color’/‘colour’ in publications for american journals so that she has an draft she can put on her website which is almost identical to the final version
Yep. Thanks.