may help if they know what those things are, but seems likely to do more harm if they don’t know them, or regard them negatively—and those people are, by hypothesis, the ones who are going to be patronizing and dismissive.
I had considered that. Here’s my assumptions:
The people that do and don’t know those things are more likely to elevate their responses from a deferential context to a professional one.
The people that regard those things negatively or want to be patronizing will produce responses that aren’t meaningful.
The people that do know those things and regard them positively will be impressed and thereby more generous in the quality of their responses.
If true, I think the first assumption is especially important. It’s the difference between answering a journalist’s question and answering that same question at a professional conference. In the former case, I would have to consider the variety of ways they’re likely to misunderstand or skew my answer, and, really, I just want to give them the answer that produces the belief I want. E.g., don’t freak about A.I. because you know nothing about it and we do. We’re not worried, really. Now, look at this cute dancing robot and give us more funding.
Edit: I forgot to add that I agree with you on changing the wording of Q8. Although, I don’t think it makes it any less shibbolethy, just less obviously a shibboleth. Sneaky, I like it.
I had considered that. Here’s my assumptions:
The people that do and don’t know those things are more likely to elevate their responses from a deferential context to a professional one.
The people that regard those things negatively or want to be patronizing will produce responses that aren’t meaningful.
The people that do know those things and regard them positively will be impressed and thereby more generous in the quality of their responses.
If true, I think the first assumption is especially important. It’s the difference between answering a journalist’s question and answering that same question at a professional conference. In the former case, I would have to consider the variety of ways they’re likely to misunderstand or skew my answer, and, really, I just want to give them the answer that produces the belief I want. E.g., don’t freak about A.I. because you know nothing about it and we do. We’re not worried, really. Now, look at this cute dancing robot and give us more funding.
Edit: I forgot to add that I agree with you on changing the wording of Q8. Although, I don’t think it makes it any less shibbolethy, just less obviously a shibboleth. Sneaky, I like it.