5 ms·

This is an interesting question, one I've been wondering about lately. When I was a little kid, I had a very strong (and I now realize, unusual) affinity for t

by davi 17y ago

This is an interesting question, one I've been wondering about lately. When I was a little kid, I had a very strong (and I now realize, unusual) affinity for the truth. I would feel bad if I told someone a fact which I later learned to be false. I felt that if I said something that was false, I was contaminating people's understanding of the world, and this was a wrong thing to do. I didn't frame it this way, in those words, of course, but I remember that this was my explicit thought -- that spreading inaccurate representations of the world was a bad thing to do. I wonder if many hardcore technical people (I am getting tired of the word "geek") perhaps share this early attitude of mine. To indulge in some evolutionary psychology, I wonder if this aversion to spreading misinformation was an adaptive trait back when proto-humans lived in small troops -- spread misinformation, and people on whom you relied would be lead astray, to your own detriment.

__ 17y ago
As a kid, I said "I don't know" when I didn't know the answer to a question, or when someone asked me to make a poorly defined prediction. Or I'd give a long answer full of qualifications. I quickly learned that although these answers were true, they really irritated people. "I want to say true things, but apparently other people want to hear lies," I thought to myself. But I now know that it's more nuanced than that. Typical people ("non-geeks") do care about truth when it directly relates to what they're interested in: usually social status and mating, and if they're unfortunate, survival. Generally, they're not interested in more abstract subjects. I interpreted people way too literally. If they talked or asked about X, I assumed they were curious about X. I didn't grasp that small talk is about entertainment and insecurity: the speakers reassure each other of their companionship; gauge each other's abilities, motivations, and desires; signal tribal affiliation; share gossip; and determine their places in the pecking order. It has nothing to do with X. X is just a pretence. Even as I became conscious of this, I often acted the same way out of principle. Alas.
- biotech 17y ago
  I now know that it's more nuanced than that.... X is just a pretence. [sic] I think that it is even more nuanced than you propose. Often non-geeks are interested in the subject, but may not have sufficient interest or mental energy required for significant, structured thought into the subject. That is the kind of thought that geeks are accustomed to, but to non-geeks, that's what they do at work, not for pleasure (exceptions abound, though. For example, "non-geeks" often put careful thought into sports. Maybe they should be called "sports-geeks"). I regularly am asked questions about technical matters outside of my expertise. I try to draw some logic into the matter, break it down, and come up with a simple, reasonable, and probably accurate answer. If required, the asker is often intelligent enough to come up with a similar answer - or at least an equally plausible one. But they don't want to, so they ask me. And that's okay. If I don't want to think about, I'll tell them I don't know.
  - __ 17y ago
    Yes, I was being imprecise by talking about "lack of interest". It's not only lack of interest per se; there are many reasons why someone might not think deeply about a subject. Lack of mental energy due to daily responsibilities is, I'm sure, quite common -- even for geeks. And it's even more nuanced than that. Someone might be very interested, on an absolute scale, in some subject. But as long as he's even more interested in social reassurance, gossip, networking, status, and so on, he will prefer conversations that revolve around those instead. It's a matter of priority. Yeah, there's a latent physics geek in his brain, but when he asks you about next week's weather, his goal is imprecise small talk, not a discussion of turbulence models.
raintrees 17y ago
Yes, at least in my case, it is so. I was approached and asked if I had an answer. Being that at times, it was part of my job description, I would come up with the best answer based on the knowledge I had at the time. Later, more information could lead me to decide I was wrong, then I would go back and explain why I was wrong and what the new "right" answer was. At first I felt like I was being wishy-washy (changing my tune) but I later understood it as just an attempt to be right and not give out wrong information. I felt giving out wrong information and not correcting it when I found out it was wrong was breaking the "trust" relationship I had with the people involved. Even though I am still in that type of a position and still delivering those types of answers, I now attempt to couch said answers in language that shows "this is what I currently believe, and this may change if I get contradictory information." Also, I notice I am much pickier about correctness if I have recently been programming. My wife likes to point this out: "Oh, you're in THAT frame of mind."

by davi 17y ago

__ 17y ago

As a kid, I said "I don't know" when I didn't know the answer to a question, or when someone asked me to make a poorly defined prediction. Or I'd give a long answer full of qualifications. I quickly learned that although these answers were true, they really irritated people. "I want to say true things, but apparently other people want to hear lies," I thought to myself. But I now know that it's more nuanced than that. Typical people ("non-geeks") do care about truth when it directly relates to what they're interested in: usually social status and mating, and if they're unfortunate, survival. Generally, they're not interested in more abstract subjects. I interpreted people way too literally. If they talked or asked about X, I assumed they were curious about X. I didn't grasp that small talk is about entertainment and insecurity: the speakers reassure each other of their companionship; gauge each other's abilities, motivations, and desires; signal tribal affiliation; share gossip; and determine their places in the pecking order. It has nothing to do with X. X is just a pretence. Even as I became conscious of this, I often acted the same way out of principle. Alas.

biotech 17y ago
I now know that it's more nuanced than that.... X is just a pretence. [sic] I think that it is even more nuanced than you propose. Often non-geeks are interested in the subject, but may not have sufficient interest or mental energy required for significant, structured thought into the subject. That is the kind of thought that geeks are accustomed to, but to non-geeks, that's what they do at work, not for pleasure (exceptions abound, though. For example, "non-geeks" often put careful thought into sports. Maybe they should be called "sports-geeks"). I regularly am asked questions about technical matters outside of my expertise. I try to draw some logic into the matter, break it down, and come up with a simple, reasonable, and probably accurate answer. If required, the asker is often intelligent enough to come up with a similar answer - or at least an equally plausible one. But they don't want to, so they ask me. And that's okay. If I don't want to think about, I'll tell them I don't know.
- __ 17y ago
  Yes, I was being imprecise by talking about "lack of interest". It's not only lack of interest per se; there are many reasons why someone might not think deeply about a subject. Lack of mental energy due to daily responsibilities is, I'm sure, quite common -- even for geeks. And it's even more nuanced than that. Someone might be very interested, on an absolute scale, in some subject. But as long as he's even more interested in social reassurance, gossip, networking, status, and so on, he will prefer conversations that revolve around those instead. It's a matter of priority. Yeah, there's a latent physics geek in his brain, but when he asks you about next week's weather, his goal is imprecise small talk, not a discussion of turbulence models.

raintrees 17y ago

Yes, at least in my case, it is so. I was approached and asked if I had an answer. Being that at times, it was part of my job description, I would come up with the best answer based on the knowledge I had at the time. Later, more information could lead me to decide I was wrong, then I would go back and explain why I was wrong and what the new "right" answer was. At first I felt like I was being wishy-washy (changing my tune) but I later understood it as just an attempt to be right and not give out wrong information. I felt giving out wrong information and not correcting it when I found out it was wrong was breaking the "trust" relationship I had with the people involved. Even though I am still in that type of a position and still delivering those types of answers, I now attempt to couch said answers in language that shows "this is what I currently believe, and this may change if I get contradictory information." Also, I notice I am much pickier about correctness if I have recently been programming. My wife likes to point this out: "Oh, you're in THAT frame of mind."