3 ms·

That's the point, I'm not interpreting anything the person is saying. I'm commenting on you admitting the subject is complicated but you are somehow able to gue

by talmand 11y ago

That's the point, I'm not interpreting anything the person is saying. I'm commenting on you admitting the subject is complicated but you are somehow able to guess the knowledge of a person based on one statement you read on a website with little context.

wpietri 11y ago
Animal taxonomy is complicated, but if somebody says "bats are bugs" [1] it's fair to guess that they don't know much. Try it yourself. Take any complicated domain that you know well. It's pretty easy to construct statements that make it clear that a speaker wouldn't know much. [1] http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/03 http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/03
- talmand 11y ago
  But, this game is easy. If I make ten statements about a particular topic, one of them is spectacularly wrong, the rest are spot on correct; by your logic I don't know much about the topic. My point is, you are deciding something completely off little information and I'm only suggesting that your guess on this person is not as accurate as you may think it is. I do agree that there's a chance you are 100% correct on the matter, but I don't see how we can determine that. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ Of course, I admit that cartoon may apply to myself in this context as well.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    If that's your only point, then it's mostly not correct, and where it is correct is isn't interesting. I'm not deciding anything irrevocably; if he had come back and started talking sense on the topic, I would have been happy to revise. And yes, of course my picture based on a couple of paragraphs is incomplete. But that's true of any comment here. It's the commenter's job to make sure what they post is a reasonable representation of their views. Repliers reply to what was actually written, not the infinite penumbra of the possibility space of what could actually be going on. Your standard of "100% correct" is a deeply weird one to apply to online discussion, especially since you clearly aren't applying it to your own comments. I may not know what martiuk knows, but you have no better idea of what I know. But here you are, sniping as if you do.
    - talmand 11y ago
      I'm glad you agree with me, although it is a strange "I'm not really wrong but you are because of claims you didn't make" way of doing it.
      - wpietri 11y ago
        I'm glad you can parse "mostly not correct" as agreeing with you. That must really help minimize feelings of cognitive dissonance. And yes, I'm critiquing what you implied because you initially weren't brave enough to say anything specific, just to raise a (false) contradiction and then call it "interesting" when you meant something other than interesting.
        talmand 11y ago
        I'm glad you're glad, but now you're using big words and my lowly status as someone who doesn't understand complicated things as easily as you do is causing me to be confused. You're critiquing, I'm critiquing, it's all good. Well, until you start arguing semantics over words I chose to use (and define them for me to boot), even though I was quite obvious in my initial statement, is clear evidence this is going nowhere. Thanks, it has been enlightening.

by talmand 11y ago

wpietri 11y ago

Animal taxonomy is complicated, but if somebody says "bats are bugs" [1] it's fair to guess that they don't know much. Try it yourself. Take any complicated domain that you know well. It's pretty easy to construct statements that make it clear that a speaker wouldn't know much. [1] http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/03 http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/03

talmand 11y ago
But, this game is easy. If I make ten statements about a particular topic, one of them is spectacularly wrong, the rest are spot on correct; by your logic I don't know much about the topic. My point is, you are deciding something completely off little information and I'm only suggesting that your guess on this person is not as accurate as you may think it is. I do agree that there's a chance you are 100% correct on the matter, but I don't see how we can determine that. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ Of course, I admit that cartoon may apply to myself in this context as well.
- wpietri 11y ago
  If that's your only point, then it's mostly not correct, and where it is correct is isn't interesting. I'm not deciding anything irrevocably; if he had come back and started talking sense on the topic, I would have been happy to revise. And yes, of course my picture based on a couple of paragraphs is incomplete. But that's true of any comment here. It's the commenter's job to make sure what they post is a reasonable representation of their views. Repliers reply to what was actually written, not the infinite penumbra of the possibility space of what could actually be going on. Your standard of "100% correct" is a deeply weird one to apply to online discussion, especially since you clearly aren't applying it to your own comments. I may not know what martiuk knows, but you have no better idea of what I know. But here you are, sniping as if you do.
  - talmand 11y ago
    I'm glad you agree with me, although it is a strange "I'm not really wrong but you are because of claims you didn't make" way of doing it.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      I'm glad you can parse "mostly not correct" as agreeing with you. That must really help minimize feelings of cognitive dissonance. And yes, I'm critiquing what you implied because you initially weren't brave enough to say anything specific, just to raise a (false) contradiction and then call it "interesting" when you meant something other than interesting.
      - talmand 11y ago
        I'm glad you're glad, but now you're using big words and my lowly status as someone who doesn't understand complicated things as easily as you do is causing me to be confused. You're critiquing, I'm critiquing, it's all good. Well, until you start arguing semantics over words I chose to use (and define them for me to boot), even though I was quite obvious in my initial statement, is clear evidence this is going nowhere. Thanks, it has been enlightening.