= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
siduri comments on Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People - 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 (420)
I can see how it'd look like that in the abstract, but in out in the world it really does seem to work. That's the standard I'm using here - works-in-world.
Let me see if I can come up with a good real world example. Here's one from Hacker News:
In response to someone saying Google Chrome has ugly design -
"I guess it's totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. This is partly, I guess, because its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful, I think."
That's an example of what I mean. "I guess it's totally subjective and therefore fairly meaningless, but I think " is filler. It doesn't add anything, we already know it's his opinion and it's subjective. But if what if he'd been more blunt? What if he'd written -
"That's weird. I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. Its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful. I don't get how you could think otherwise."
See that second one? I see the equivalent of that sometimes among smart people. And it's bad. The first one - well, maybe it adds a little fluff. But it's not going to make the person he's replying to hostile. The second way would.
Well, again, context. That reply is to someone who is saying, "I don't think that would work" - and I don't know what to say other than, "Why not give it a try?" I'm advocating change in phrasing based on real world observations of what's effective. If someone disagrees but has no data of trying it, I don't know what else to say...
Ah, that's not my intention at all. I know I used to do it the other way, and my results have gone up since I changed. Really, the counterarguments I'm seeing are exactly what I would have argued ten years ago, and I believe greatly held me back at the time. So I really, really, really would encourage someone to try a little softening and praise, even if it's unnatural or doesn't "seem right" - because it works in the real world.
Also, tangentially, it's been kind of strange for me to have a discussion after writing a piece like this. Normally I'd start this comment with, "Thanks for the feedback, Siduri" - because I do appreciate it - but it'd feel kind of strange to do so now, and I'd fear coming across as insincere. So perhaps I'm going a little too far in the other direction now that that I'm self aware of the words I'm using? It's a strange feeling for me, I'm kind of suppressing and editing out some polite/gracious things I'd normally use.
Anyway, that's kind of meta. Thanks for the feedback. I don't hold out myself out as an expert or a shining example of any good things - rather, I want to highlight an area that could lead to massive utility increase for people. To that end, I do encourage people to try it, even if it feels unnatural at first. (Maybe especially if that's the case) In raw, abstract form it might not seem right, but I've had good results in a variety of situations since I moved in this direction.
But the commentators who are telling you "this doesn't work for us" are part of the world. This conversation is part of the world. You're getting commenters right now, in the world, telling you that you are provoking a hostile reaction when presumably you don't mean to. So there's something about your style that isn't working right for at least a significant minority of the target audience.
I can imagine situations where the style you're advocating or modeling here would work well. In a specific kind of corporate environment, it would work well.But in an intellectual discussion forum, I think it can have an effect opposite from the one you intend. That's why you're hearing from people saying that it's "irritating" or "sets their teeth on edge" or that it's coming across as condescending.
Because of the final sentence, yes, that WOULD be likely to provoke a hostile reaction. Without that last bit it would be fine--a simple statement of personal preference, unlikely to cause any offense.
See, though, I stated up front that I believe in niceness. We don't have any argument over whether niceness is better than rudeness: we have a difference in perception about what's actually nice (and likely to make people react positively) and what's condescending and/or dismissive (and likely to make people react poorly).
It is odd, and meta, but also interesting, so thank you for starting the discussion--and for responding politely to criticism, which is always difficult.