Relsqui

Karma: 2,037

Relsqui Dec 8, 2010, 5:35 AM
0 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Hmm—my goal is to inform the other person of the error. This does not require them to respond.

Relsqui Dec 7, 2010, 5:11 AM
0 points
in reply to: erratio’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Agreed about standardization; knowing what to expect is useful in communication generally. My dad (former pilot) is fond of pointing out that this is how pilots and ATC people understand each other over crackly radios. There’s only a small set of possible things they could be saying, and they know what to expect, so they only have to listen for whether the crackly voice matches what they’re expecting.

even if that means taking twice as long to get to the point

I still find the time argument odd. The difference doesn’t seem like that much to me, and the couple of seconds seem trivial weighed against the social currency you gain by taking them.

Relsqui Dec 7, 2010, 5:05 AM
1 point
in reply to: Perplexed’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People

Anything softer would have been condescending.

Do you find this condescending?

“You seem to have misread his comment—he said ‘bowing out now,’ not ‘for now.’”

If so, can you explain why? Whether you do or not, what significantly worse result would you expect from that response, as opposed to teasing him about it?

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 8:41 PM
0 points
in reply to: jimrandomh’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Oh, yes, I’ll certainly agree with that. Even the examples in the original post were a little too fluffy for my taste, and I’m the one who’s a stickler for courtesy. There’s certainly a balance to be struck—enough, but no more—which I haven’t emphasized enough for how important it is. Thanks for the reminder.

I wonder how much striking that balance is part of the skill of being useful and courteous at the same time.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 8:38 PM
0 points
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
For calibration purposes, where on that spectrum would you place the conversation we’re having right now? :)

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 1:06 PM
−1 points
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
That’s exactly it.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 1:01 PM
0 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People

It’s an interesting example of balancing the need for clear rules without having so much specificity that it’s easy to game.

Yeah, that was one of the major goals in the channel rules. Both the long and the short versions are explicit that if you come up with a way to be a pain in the ass that we haven’t already thought of, we’ll still kick you, even though it’s not already in the rules. :P If you’re curious, the long version is here and the short version is here. I didn’t compose all of them but I did write them. (That is, I didn’t choose everything that went in them, but I picked most of the words and put them on a page.)

but nothing about how long it went on or how it worked out in the long run.

It’s still going on, in #xkcd-signal on Foonetic. I don’t follow the channel actively right now, but my experience when I was there and the channel’s continuing reputation are that it has high-quality conversations at very long intervals. That is, it tends to be quiet for long periods, but the conversations that do happen are relatively free of noise.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 12:54 PM
1 point
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People

It’s the prescriptive/descriptive divide.

Oh hey, so it is. Well observed. (This is not sarcasm; I actually hadn’t noticed.)

ought … error … worse

The meaningfulness of these words relies on sharing the relevant parts of a value system, and we haven’t come anywhere near establishing that that’s the case. If you mean that it’s definitely more useful for people to behave in the way you prefer, you have not yet convinced me of that.

There doesn’t seem to be any point being purely descriptive about anything.

That depends on the goal, doesn’t it? If you’re a mapmaker, being purely descriptive rather than prescriptive is the whole point. When I’m setting about to choose my own behavior, I would like to have as good a descriptive map as possible of the way the world is now; if I find a part I dislike, I might then choose a behavior with which I intend to change it, but even while doing that I’m best served by having an accurate description in place.

False dilemma. I can agitate for change in that culture.

Fair point, but as above, it’s useful to have a very good understanding of what you’re trying to go about changing; and even then, simply contradicting it or behaving as if social norms aren’t what they are may not be sufficient to convince anyone of the rightness of your position.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 12:43 PM
0 points
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Mm, okay, let’s put it another way than “good” then. Perhaps: “That’s a desireable outcome and your method would work if we had the resources, but we don’t.”

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 12:40 PM
0 points
in reply to: dilys’s comment on: Radical Honesty

Crocker’s Rules are appealing. That’s taking responsibility!

Can’t you take exactly the same responsibility for your own actions without ever thinking of or mentioning some rules?

ETA: Man, it’s frustrating to get downvoted for asking a question. If the question is stupid or the answer is obvious, fine, but I haven’t learned anything unless you tell me why.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 12:36 PM
13 points
in reply to: Henry_V’s comment on: Radical Honesty
Buddhism has this idea too. Here’s a nicely specific bit from one of the suttas, on how the criteria for “right speech” encompass much more than telling the truth:

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing and disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing and agreeable to others, he does not say them.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing and agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings.

(Emphasis mine.)

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 12:13 PM
7 points
on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Something I have trouble remembering:

To someone for whom it is normal to choose words carefully and connote respect, it’s obvious that this is the right way to go about things—it gets other people on your side, so you don’t have to fight as much to get what you want or convince people of something. It’s also more pleasant to be around, and is the way you wish to be treated.

To someone for whom it is normal to be as direct, clear, and efficient in language as possible, it’s obvious that this is the right way to go about things—it’s much more honest than insincere fluff and doesn’t waste everybody’s time. It’s also more pleasant to be around, and is the way you wish to be treated.

The bit I particularly have trouble remembering is that neither person would believe that if their method didn’t work for them. If you practice one of the above policies, I can reasonably assume that you get results from it which are acceptable to you. There appears to be a fairly strong division between people who have that experience with the former strategy, and those who have that experience with the latter strategy. Seeing that, I find myself wondering which of these scenarios is most accurate:
- Does one strategy work better for some people, and the other work better for other people? Each is certainly easier for different people, but I’m asking about results.
- Is the difference instead in the situation—so people who often find themselves in situations where one strategy is better prefer that strategy?
- Are these just two different tools which are both often valuable?
- Or of course, is it really just that one of these is a better strategy, and a lot of people are just so stuck to the other one that they won’t accept it?
The reason I care about which of these scenarios is most accurate is that they change what kind of conversation about them is appropriate. If different strategies work for different people, then trying to convince someone else to use yours is unproductive other-optimizing. If they apply to different situations, it might be interesting to examine the differences in experience that lead to each preference. If they’re both good tools, that suggests it could be worthwhile for each of us to work on the one we’re worse at. And, finally, if one of them is actually better, we can carry on trying to convince each other of which one that is.

My intuition is that defaulting to courtesy, if it is not uniformly the more useful strategy, is at least more useful in the vast majority of cases. However, I do not trust my intuition on this, because that is the strategy which is much easier and more enjoyable for me to use. When I try to think of real reasons to hold that belief, other than “it’s worked for me,” two come to mind: one is that the courteous strategy seems like it requires more skill/effort (even people who don’t prefer it seem to think so), and I don’t see why that would have developed if it weren’t valuable; the other is that I’ve read or heard several people (including the OP) say that they used to prefer the blunt strategy, but have learned to use and now see the value in the other one; I have never seen anyone describe the opposite experience.

If I’m wrong, I would like to be convinced that I’m wrong, and I feel strongly enough that I’m right that I don’t think I can do that on my own. Here are some ways you could convince me:
- Describe a common situation where there is clearly more utility in stating x bluntly than stating x politely. Note that I don’t consider the extra few seconds to say a few more words to be significantly detrimental to utility. If you can come up with one which is common for you but not for me, this will lend weight to the second scenario; if you want to convince me that the blunt strategy is really generally better, I would want an example that’s common even when you’re not, say, working in a technical field.
- Are you someone who is naturally inclined towards being more consciously respectful/courteous, but has switched to the other strategy because you found it more useful? What experiences led to this switch and what’s different now that you’ve switched?

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 10:18 AM
1 point
in reply to: JoshuaZ’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
It isn’t dishonest to say “this is a good idea, but it might be difficult for these reasons” rather than “your idea isn’t feasible for these reasons” (unless of course you don’t like the idea, in which case pick a different way of expressing politeness). The first one is stating the objection and also implying respect; the second one is stating the objection and also implying disrespect.

If you really wanted to state the objection without making any implication of respect at all, the nearest thing which comes to mind right now would be phrasing it as a question. “How would you deal with such and such obstacles?” This is a little dangerous, because if they don’t have a good answer, they get stuck looking dumb and might blame you for it—but I think that’s probably true regardless of how you raise the objection, so I don’t think I’d worry about it.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 10:01 AM
2 points
in reply to: cata’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Elaborating on nerzhin’s comment, which I think is well stated: the tradeoff between clarity and politeness is not absolute. If politeness is non-habitual and thus difficult, it requires a lot of your energy and attention, and you have to give up some of the energy you could otherwise have spent being clear. This is much less the case when you’re very practiced at speaking courteously, because that action becomes automatic; you can then use all your conscious focus on clarity.

It’s much the same as the speed/accuracy tradeoff in, say, typing, or playing a musical instrument. When you’re still learning how to do it, you have to type or play slowly if you want to make sure to get it right. Once you gain the muscle memory to do it right, you can speed up because it’s not so much work to be accurate any more.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:55 AM
1 point
in reply to: Psychohistorian’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
I agree with this; I found the metaphor choice sort of disconcerting. (Given that I agreed very much with the overall point, I didn’t find it important enough to comment on, but I have a lower threshold for agreeing with someone else.)

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:50 AM
4 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
This is not the answer to your question, but it might be relevant/interesting that communicating respectfully/politely by default is one of the stated rules of #xkcd. Obviously it doesn’t actually happen every moment, and people aren’t kicked for being rude once, but there is an atmosphere of not tolerating rudeness for its own sake. The ops are reluctant, but willing if it goes on long enough, to get rid of someone whose only crime is being incredibly unpleasant to interact with. This is in line with the community’s goal of being pleasant and entertaining; if the goal were getting some sort of work done, it might be important to tolerate people who are rude but useful, but that’s not the case.

The specific relevant text in the channel rules (in a section on “generalities,” not specific things to do/not do) is this:

Be nice. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can be cruel, but not many where you can be nice, and #xkcd is one of them. If you’re not usually nice, give it a try. You might be amazed.

There’s also a simplified version of the rules page that exists to give people a general sense of how to behave without swamping them in specific examples. It includes:

Act like an adult, whether or not you are one.

Speak to each other with respect, whether or not you actually have any.

...

Don’t be offensive without being funny. The more offensive you are, the funnier you also have to be.

You are not the arbiter of whether you’re too offensive or funny enough.

Just because your gay black female friend doesn’t mind you saying it doesn’t mean you can say it anywhere.

...

If someone asks you politely to stop doing something, stop doing it.

It’s clearly possible to abuse that last one by asking someone politely to stop doing something which is totally reasonable, but in actual practice that hasn’t been a problem.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:37 AM
1 point
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
This is really interesting; thanks for adding it to the conversation. (I haven’t chewed on it mentally enough to have an actual comment, but I wanted to elaborate on the upvote.)

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:35 AM
7 points
0
in reply to: Scott Alexander’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People

Second, lack of politeness is a countersignalling method to indicate friendship and community by showing you are close enough to a person that politeness is unnecessary

As you say, that only works if everyone is already on board with this. What the OP is talking about is, effectively, the situation where you’re saying “hey nigga wassup!” to someone you’ve just met or barely know. In order to use direct communication to signal closeness, you need to be sure that you’re on the same page first.

Relsqui 6 Dec 2010 9:30 UTC
0 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
It’s not a status hit to you. It’s a status hit to them. Feel free to make whatever noble choices you want about being willing to make yourself look stupid in a public forum, but you don’t have the right to make that choice for someone else.

Relsqui 6 Dec 2010 9:28 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
I’ve met people who get huffy about the suggestion that they preface their opinions with “in my opinion” or “I think that.” For a long time I had trouble explaining what good came of doing so; the best I’ve got so far is “it distinguishes you from the people who think their opinions are facts.” Does this make sense? Any suggestions for making it clearer?

Edit: I just found a couple more ways to explain this in my notes file. One is that “x is bad” invites the conversation “no it’s not!” “yes it is!” (because it’s a disagreement of fact) whereas “I think x is bad” invites the conversation “why do you think that?” (because it’s a disagreement of opinion). The second argument is more interesting. Another is that when you say “x is bad” as an absolute, you’re implying that anyone who likes it is wrong; you’re insulting their taste. When you say “I don’t like x” you’re merely disagreeing with their taste.

I haven’t yet figured out to do with people who actually do believe that their opinions or experiences represent objective truths.