I find problematic that such unscientific concept remained influential for so long, serving as one of the main references to How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, one the most obnoxious essays in...
I find problematic that such unscientific concept remained influential for so long, serving as one of the main references to How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, one the most obnoxious essays in contemporary history.
I'm curious, why do you think so? I just read over it again and couldn't find anything out of place, other than the answers in the "Q&A" section (no need to get snarky, just ignore it).
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, one the most obnoxious essays in contemporary history
I'm curious, why do you think so? I just read over it again and couldn't find anything out of place, other than the answers in the "Q&A" section (no need to get snarky, just ignore it).
This question requires a long answer, and I'm afraid I don't have the time to write it just yet. I have been taking notes to write an article on this subject, and I'll post it at ~comp once it is...
This question requires a long answer, and I'm afraid I don't have the time to write it just yet. I have been taking notes to write an article on this subject, and I'll post it at ~comp once it is done. I'll just leave this quote for now:
If you're reading this document because you need help, and you walk away with the impression you can get it directly from the authors of this document, you are one of the idiots we are talking about.
Oh yeah, I missed that. But if we ignore the author's shitty attitude, those are actually pretty amazing guidelines and more people should read them before posting "it doesn't work"-style issues.
Oh yeah, I missed that. But if we ignore the author's shitty attitude, those are actually pretty amazing guidelines and more people should read them before posting "it doesn't work"-style issues.
The problem is twofold: when you write like an arrogant prick, people are less likely to take your advice. it gives a huge "OKAY" for anyone to also be an arrogant prick. So the article is at the...
The problem is twofold:
when you write like an arrogant prick, people are less likely to take your advice.
it gives a huge "OKAY" for anyone to also be an arrogant prick.
So the article is at the very least ineffective, and potentially harmful.
Not just. On the top of my mind: It generalizes about a very large and heterogeneous group (nerds) from purely anecdotical data. It normalizes general assholeness ("It's not my fault, my tact...
Not just. On the top of my mind:
It generalizes about a very large and heterogeneous group (nerds) from purely anecdotical data.
It normalizes general assholeness ("It's not my fault, my tact filter is broken!") by encouraging anti-social behavior:
Normal people need to understand that despite the fact that nerds are usually tactless, things they say are almost never meant personally and shouldn't be taken that way
there's no such a thing as a "tact filter". It's an entirely metaphysical construct, and a weak one at that.
While I agree that the tone of the piece is a bit condescending and normalizes asshole behavior, I also feel that it's a useful construct to use as a starting place for people to understand one...
While I agree that the tone of the piece is a bit condescending and normalizes asshole behavior, I also feel that it's a useful construct to use as a starting place for people to understand one another. It can be very useful for e.g. avoiding long, drawn-out arguments over semantics, wherein someone says X and another person interprets it as Y.
By thinking in terms of a "tact filter", you can make person A realize that they need to upgrade their "outgoing filter" and person B realize that they need to upgrade their "incoming filter", thus allowing both to grow as individuals and avoid further such arguments in the future.
It's only a problematic construct if you use it as an excuse for your communication issues.
Yes, the concept by itself might have been useful, but, because of all the rhetoric that surrounds it since its inception, and the culture that developed around it, there would have to be a...
Yes, the concept by itself might have been useful, but, because of all the rhetoric that surrounds it since its inception, and the culture that developed around it, there would have to be a conscious rhetorical effort in order to reframe it. And by that I mean entirely new articles written by other people.
I say this because I don't think these articles are just "a bit condescending", I think they're extremely condescending and downright counterproductive.
But, even so, I'd prefer an essay inspired by actual research, instead of someone's opinion.
Oh, no worries, we're completely on the same page about this. I think that their analysis is complete trash. It relies on over-generalizations with no evidence to back them up whatsoever. I would...
Oh, no worries, we're completely on the same page about this. I think that their analysis is complete trash. It relies on over-generalizations with no evidence to back them up whatsoever. I would never use that article or any piece of that analysis.
The only thing I find of any value is the general concept of the tact filter and directionality, which is useful in itself purely because it relies on tangible and existing concepts of being careful about what you say and being generous about how you interpret what someone else says. The construct isn't particularly groundbreaking or saying anything new, it just serves as a simple metaphor for people to wrap their heads around. Use that and avoid the pseudo-scientific bullshit :)
This is an awful lot of words to justify having poor social skills... and actively avoid improving them.
I find problematic that such unscientific concept remained influential for so long, serving as one of the main references to How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, one the most obnoxious essays in contemporary history.
I'm curious, why do you think so? I just read over it again and couldn't find anything out of place, other than the answers in the "Q&A" section (no need to get snarky, just ignore it).
This question requires a long answer, and I'm afraid I don't have the time to write it just yet. I have been taking notes to write an article on this subject, and I'll post it at ~comp once it is done. I'll just leave this quote for now:
Oh yeah, I missed that. But if we ignore the author's shitty attitude, those are actually pretty amazing guidelines and more people should read them before posting "it doesn't work"-style issues.
The problem is twofold:
So the article is at the very least ineffective, and potentially harmful.
Why is it problematic? Just because it's unscientific?
Not just. On the top of my mind:
While I agree that the tone of the piece is a bit condescending and normalizes asshole behavior, I also feel that it's a useful construct to use as a starting place for people to understand one another. It can be very useful for e.g. avoiding long, drawn-out arguments over semantics, wherein someone says X and another person interprets it as Y.
By thinking in terms of a "tact filter", you can make person A realize that they need to upgrade their "outgoing filter" and person B realize that they need to upgrade their "incoming filter", thus allowing both to grow as individuals and avoid further such arguments in the future.
It's only a problematic construct if you use it as an excuse for your communication issues.
Yes, the concept by itself might have been useful, but, because of all the rhetoric that surrounds it since its inception, and the culture that developed around it, there would have to be a conscious rhetorical effort in order to reframe it. And by that I mean entirely new articles written by other people.
I say this because I don't think these articles are just "a bit condescending", I think they're extremely condescending and downright counterproductive.
But, even so, I'd prefer an essay inspired by actual research, instead of someone's opinion.
Oh, no worries, we're completely on the same page about this. I think that their analysis is complete trash. It relies on over-generalizations with no evidence to back them up whatsoever. I would never use that article or any piece of that analysis.
The only thing I find of any value is the general concept of the tact filter and directionality, which is useful in itself purely because it relies on tangible and existing concepts of being careful about what you say and being generous about how you interpret what someone else says. The construct isn't particularly groundbreaking or saying anything new, it just serves as a simple metaphor for people to wrap their heads around. Use that and avoid the pseudo-scientific bullshit :)
Philosophy of language could help to understand this phenomenon, particularly speech act theory. Maybe I'll write about it someday.
I'll have to read up on the subject sometime. Thank you for sharing that link!
Oh, it's very interesting! :D