= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sniffnoy comments on Procedural Knowledge Gaps - 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 (1477)
Why? I would guess you are unusual in that respect.
Several reasons. For one, it's challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it's the best you'll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren't actually good and I'm just saying that because it's conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I'm not, which is not exactly complimentary either.
Edited: See the bottom section!
It isn't challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of "good" and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question ("really good or just sorta' good?") is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger.
If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn't happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would!
Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of "good", which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn't even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
Thought - warning, unreliable memory ahead - perhaps the problem is that I often do try to somehow answer the question in the first place, so if I simply reply "Good", that's already something of a "don't-bother-me". But I suppose other people couldn't be expected to recognize that.
This makes sense in a context where you are actually trying to convey information. Absent that, I'm not sure it does.