Relsqui

Karma: 2,037

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:26 AM
0 points
in reply to: clarissethorn’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
Upvoted on spec; I tabbed out the essay to read later. (Commenting mostly as a reminder to myself.)

ETA: Okay, yes, upvote stands, that was good.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:24 AM
1 point
in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
This is dead on; if I’d thought of it, I would have written it myself. ;) One thing you’re missing, though, is an example of where it is okay to be blunter—with very close friends, with whom you already have an understanding of a certain amount of respect. This doesn’t obviate the need for politeness, of course, but it does lower the threshold of importance at which it’s okay to be blunt. If I’m in a hurry in a shop, I’ll still be polite to the clerk, because they don’t know me well enough to know that I’m impatient and stressed, rather than just a jerk. I worry about this less when talking to a close friend who already knows I’m not a jerk.

I’m actually not a very good example of this, because my default setting for the courtesy slider is fairly high. I can do this because it comes naturally to me, so it takes very little effort for me to reap the benefits of showing respect to the people around me. It took me a LONG time to realize that this is not true for everyone, i.e. that it is very difficult for some people to understand, remember, or apply these social rules, and therefore only do so in select situations.

ETA: … and this of course doesn’t make me better or smarter or more useful than people who have trouble with it. I’m incredibly frustrated with how slowly I think in arguments or debates, and my inability to remember details which help in them. The people I know who aren’t good at showing respect in casual conversation tend to be good at these things. Another tradeoff, probably, although I’m not sure why it would be the case. (I know at least one person who’s good at both, but I think he’s made a conscious effort to be so.)

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:16 AM
2 points
in reply to: MrUst’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
A friend of mine described a creative writing class in which the students would read pieces on a workshop day and then have other students respond. The responses came in phases. First, anybody who wished to praise something about the piece had the opportunity to say that. When they were finished with that, anyone who wished to criticize something about the piece could do so. There was a third phase, but I don’t remember what it was—specific recommendations, maybe.

This always seemed like a very sensible model to me. It prevents the reader from feeling jumped on with criticism and internalizing the impression that the piece isn’t any good before anyone’s said anything nice yet. It also prevents the error mentioned in one of the EY excerpts in the OP—good and bad are both made explicit. Also, praise is useful. It tells someone what parts to keep!

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:12 AM
1 point
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People

It’s the wrong understanding.

I think that when one finds oneself writing this sentence, it is time to take a step back and think pretty hard about what one is saying.

We’re not talking about a mathematical fact that can be proven or disproven as correct; we’re not taking about people having the “wrong understanding” of, say, how Bayes’s Theorem works. What we are doing is describing a culture in which behaving in x way signals y, to wit, being blunt and direct signals rudeness. This is hard to stomach for people who are part of a subculture where that is not the case, but being part of that subculture and having that preference does not make that particular meme in the larger culture “wrong.” It’s not even meaningful to give it a value; it’s just an observation of the way it is. You can play along and be accepted/effective in that culture, or not. It’s your choice.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:07 AM
−1 points
in reply to: Perplexed’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
I think respectful behavior is a good default. It doesn’t need to be as padded as the OP’s example, but what I have done in the past on LW is give a quick response to the overall post (so as to not be totally ignoring it just to point out little things), and then say “oh, by the way, a couple of things you might want to fix: x and y.”

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 9:05 AM
4 points
in reply to: booyabazooka’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
You’re fooling yourself if you think that polite criticism doesn’t work better on you than rude criticism. You may prefer directness and honesty, but you’re still human, and you’ve still got an ego.

Also, following the golden rule to the letter is an example of the typical mind fallacy—and it’s particularly bizarre when you know you’re atypical in that regard. The golden rule is best used as a default—a heuristic for how to treat people in general when you have no more specific data about how a particular person would prefer you to treat them. Can you imagine if masochists applied the golden rule when sleeping with someone new? “Well, I like being beaten, so clearly that’s okay to do to someone else.” No. If you have atypical preferences, a better base heuristic is what’s common, especially when the common thing is considered more respectful. On which note:

But I will not treat my technical coworkers like children, and I expect the same of them.

You’ve got this backwards. Being direct and telling people what to do without showing any regard for their own ability or status is how you treat children. When you’re respectful to other people, you’re treating them like adults.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 8:53 AM
4 points
0
in reply to: rquire’s comment on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
What makes the direct statement more “effective”? It makes it more forceful, to be sure, for exactly the reason you state:

with indirect requests or criticism you run the risk of the recipient having a sense that your criticism is somehow optional, that since you’re not stating it forcefully they must have a choice whether or not to make the change

That’s exactly the point. They DO have a choice. The other person has agency, and it’s their idea. When you state your criticism directly, implying they must do it the way you state, you’re expressing that you have greater power or status than they do and this entitles you to direct them to do things differently. This isn’t true unless you are actually their boss, and whether you are or not it’s belittling and rude; this is why it puts people on the defensive.

Relsqui Dec 6, 2010, 8:51 AM
1 point
on: Defecting by Accident—A Flaw Common to Analytical People
This is the kind of thing I’d like to see more of on here; explaining how to use e.g. language to get along with people who are socially unlike you is hard and being able to do it is important. I laughed at this:

The most common criticism seems to be that adding fluff is a waste of time, insincere, and reduces signal:noise ratio.

… because as I was reading the post, I was hearing in my head every time I’ve heard that excuse from a friend. “It’s just fluff, it shouldn’t matter, it doesn’t mean anything if you just say it automatically …”

It does mean something. It means that you respect the person you’re talking to enough to follow these social mores and support them rather than just sticking pins in their ego. Speaking directly and simply isn’t neutral—it’s actively disrespectful, with the results you describe.

Relsqui Nov 30, 2010, 11:33 AM
1 point
in reply to: shokwave’s comment on: Belief in Belief vs. Internalization
Upvoted for

“What a coincidence, every single one?”

but while I’m here,

I support this ‘x is my invisible dragon’ turn of phrase!

me too.

Relsqui Nov 30, 2010, 11:27 AM
1 point
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Belief in Belief vs. Internalization
I’ve seen you delete comments that received objecting responses a few times now. Why do you do that?

Relsqui Nov 29, 2010, 6:53 AM
0 points
in reply to: Normal_Anomaly’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
Very good point. Although I think I remember reading that one of the ereaders—Nook, maybe—lets you lend books. Also I’d hope that it keeps track of what you’d bought and lets you redownload it without repaying, but that may be overly optimistic.

Relsqui Nov 29, 2010, 6:51 AM
0 points
in reply to: arundelo’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
Hm, it may have been. I don’t remember very well.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:49 PM
0 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
A few minutes ago I would have agreed with this, but now I’m not so sure. It seems like there are people who represent time in their heads in a way which is more similar to an analogue clock (breaking it into chunks, thinking of before/after an hour), and such people might always prefer them. One could argue that that kind of thinking is the product of a culture that still uses analogue clocks, and therefore it’ll go away as digital clocks come to dominate, but I think that perspective is also reinforced by some common language constructions (“quarter of an hour,” “it’s ten of”) which will be harder to get rid of. Not to mention the fact that, if digital clocks aren’t preferable for everyone now, there’s no reason that they’ll become so dominant as to start that snowballing process.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:45 PM
−1 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
My impression from the comments in general is that different people represent time in their heads differently; it seems that the way you do it is closer to the way that’s displayed on an analogue clock, so digital requires translation, whereas for some other commenters it’s the other way around. Hmmm.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:40 PM
2 points
in reply to: ShardPhoenix’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?

(in terms of comprehending what the time actually is, not just reading the numbers)

That’s an important point, I think. Digital clocks are more abstract, and that affects what you can do with the information quickly.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:39 PM
0 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?

In second grade, I went to a school where they taught analog time-telling (and cursive handwriting) in third grade. In third grade, I went to a school where they taught those skills in second grade.

Man, that phenomenon is so annoying!

I can sympathize with not wanting to bother, though. I like analog clocks because they’re pretty and interesting devices which signal intelligence and class, but it’s becoming less and less necessary to keep them around. Of course, my previous sentence works if you replace “analog clocks” with “dead-tree books” as well. In both cases, the main advantage of the older format is that it doesn’t (necessarily) require electricity; other than that, the reason for peoples’ preferences for them is a bit nebulous.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:35 PM
1 point
in reply to: prase’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
Interesting. I am, as I said, more of a digital-clock-reader, but I still say “quarter of” and “half past” and the like. I attribute this to labels my parents put around the (analog) wall clock in my childhood bedroom, showing where “of” and “to” were, and where “past” and “after” were.

An old SO of mine used to get annoyed when I said “quarter of,” though. I wonder if they were so accustomed to digital timekeeping that my habit required an annoying amount of translation for them. The reverse wasn’t true, though—I understand “seven forty-five” perfectly.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:32 PM
2 points
in reply to: Normal_Anomaly’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?

I do arithmetic in my head whenever I can spare the extra seconds

Same, except since I can almost always spare the extra seconds, my condition is “when I can afford to be as likely to make a mistake as I believe that I am.”

Although more frequently I just don’t have a calculator handy.

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:30 PM
1 point
in reply to: David_Gerard’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
Which suggests that it actually is an issue of familiarity. Hmm. Thanks!

The thing that got me thinking about this in the first place was seeing that my sister has her phone set to display an analog clock, not a digital one, on the outer screen. I have the same model; I may do the same, for practice. (I’m annoyed by wristwatches, like you.)

Relsqui Nov 28, 2010, 8:28 PM
0 points
in reply to: Halceon’s comment on: We’re all forgetting how to read analog clocks. Or are we?
That’s an interesting point—I hadn’t thought about that. Analog time “chunks” easily into groups of 5 and 15 minutes, for example.