= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Eight Short Studies On Excuses - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (224)
I don't think this is true at all. I think such people believe they're saying something close enough to what they actually mean, and that social conventions don't require them to take care to make their language as unambiguous as possible. This last part is the problem.
Again,"sufficient to be clear" is not the right criterion; the right criterion is the ideal of "no possible way to misunderstand". (Achieving that is impossible; how much less possible is it when they aren't even trying?)
This makes it sound like "clear to me" is a highly idiosyncratic criterion. There is such a thing as objectively less ambiguous language.
The basic issue here is people not thinking carefully enough while they're speaking. It's really a question of quantity of thought, not style of thought.
I think the default is something like believing that what one says is close enough to what one means, and the other person is obligated to pick up on what one means.
"If they don't they clearly lack ingroup connections, social awareness, status and are less likely to be the kind of people that are valuable allies. I should shun them." (For example.)
Yup. Not consciously, of course. I wonder if, generally, speaking, people don't instinctively distinguish between not knowing something and not caring about it. Hence ignorance of facts being conflated with stupidity about a topic, as well as the instinctive avoidance of people who don't already know the social rules of a community.
That's plausible-- it would also explain way sometimes people try to increase motivation (reward, punishment, pep talks) without explaining how to do whatever it is.
It can work that way. Or "If I keep repeating the same words, they'll get it." Or "If I yell at them, they'll get it."
I agree. I also think this is the source of the stereotypical male/female communication problem ("he never thinks about what I want" "she never tells me what she wants"), which I've posted about elsewhere.