= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed 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)
Here is a fairly narrow one: when you are correcting someone who has made a serious error which they will immediately recognize as an error when it is pointed out to them.
An example took place earlier here on this thread. Lionhearted had just stated that he would bow out of the discussion now. Wedrifid misread what was written, seeing "I'm bowing out for now", where lionhearted had actually written "I'm bowing out now". Wedrifid responded intemperately, making a particularly big deal of the withdrawal "for now", interpreting it as a kind of threat to return. (This comment has since been deleted by its author.)
I pointed out wedrifid's error bluntly, and was even so discourteous as to tease him on his embarrassing error. I am confident that this was the right way to handle this kind of mistake. Anything softer would have been condescending.
So that is one situation where bluntness strikes me as clearly best. But I'm not sure that this situation generalizes well. If the mistake were less serious (a typo, say) then the superiority of bluntness is debatable. If the mistake were less clearcut, then it would probably be wise to include some justification of the judgment that it really is a mistake.
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?
Perplexed visibly gained respect and rapport using his response. Yours would probably have just been given no response. This is just an instance where Perplexed is just better able to read the social landscape than you and so better able to calibrate his response toward gaining social capital. If he wasn't familiar with the situation, less tuned in to the social dynamics, then he would have been well served by 'playing it safe'. Presuming too much rapport would have been a risk - politeness is a better default.
Hmm--my goal is to inform the other person of the error. This does not require them to respond.
Your goal is a lot more than pointing out an error. You have social ends you wish to achieve - hence your whole participation in the thread. It is that element of communication that is not mere information that we are all discussing.
In actual practice I behave the way I described; I like to think that if this were drastically counterproductive for my goals, I would have noticed by now.
At any rate, the goal under discussion was informing the other person of the error in a way that didn't result in defensiveness or aggression.
I am comfortable with the relevance of my statements to the goal under discussion as described by yourself, above. I can attest to the superiority of Perplexed's approach to precisely said goal. When done well it will produce less defensiveness and aggression.
What you do personally in your life isn't a subject that I have or would comment on - I speak only to the specific context here wherein Perplexed presented a near-optimal solution.
No. That is fine too. The teasing was inessential.
Well, that's as much politeness as I was talking about, so I still think it's no worse than bluntness would have been.
Absolutely! You gave no insult at all. You could have, if you wanted to play the polite courtier.