= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Swimmer963 comments on Rational Communication - 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 (38)
Good points. That is the easiest way to quickly communicate with someone and figure out why, if at all, you aren't coming to the same conclusions. That being said, with 90% of the people I know, speaking in this way wouldn't help the conversation and would annoy them. Back before I had realized this, much fewer people liked talking to me.
If I can find a good place to interrupt (a pause or break in the explanation), and I'm speaking to a "normal" person, I'll say "sorry, can you go back to X again? I don't think I get it." Or "I think we might be using the word 'value' for different things. What do you think it means?" Which, to 'normal' people, doesn't sound as much like "your logic is flawed, you idiot."
No reason not to do this. Most people don't find it rude or confrontational, AFAICT.
I will do this, as gently as I can, in an intellectually-driven conversation. The number of people I can have intellectually driven conversations with is already significantly less than the total number of people I know. I will not do this if the conversation is in any way a person seeking advice or empathy about their personal life. It's their life. They get to decide what parts are important. (And yes, I do value being someone who people come to when they want advice or empathy. Not only does hearing about their inner emotions help me better understand people in generally, but it makes me feel valued.)
Nurses are supposed to do this, too. Usually you would do it by making an observation like "You seem angry. Am I right?" "..." "Do you think maybe you're thinking X because you're angry?"
This. Code-switching is important. As a social work student, there's a different way I speak to clients (especially irrational clients) than I would to someone I think is more capable of reasoning.
They don't. They might emotionally detest any disagreement or the audacity of thinking about the question (to the point where at a particular stage a conversation wouldn't work, without extensive background work), but there is no magical rule that makes particular people right about particular questions. It doesn't matter who judges, only which questions have which actually correct answers.
It depends how she meant it. What is important to them depends entirely on them, not intrinsically on what Swimmer963 thinks or the way the rest of the world is.
But they don't get to choose what parts are important. If it's important to them how the world is (as humans, they do), then they can be wrong and rightfully judged wrong, exactly as you say.