5 ms·

> "it means is that his writing skills were not good enough" or, possibly, their listening/comprehension skills were not good enough. Communication requires s

> "it means is that his writing skills were not good enough" or, possibly, their listening/comprehension skills were not good enough. Communication requires solid effort and methodology by both the speaker and the listener. Either or both sides can be responsible for a breakdown.

pfarnsworth 11y ago
There were a lot of people that burned him online for his essay, not just a football player. If a bunch of people accuse you of the same thing, at some point you have to start blaming yourself instead of blaming others.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  pick any controversial topic in which people are emotionally invested, and any well-written argument made about that topic, and you'll find "a lot of people" who "burned" whoever wrote the argument -- some of which might even be good responses, but many of which are some variation of "heard what I wanted to hear".
  - jusben1369 11y ago
    Yes what was most telling to me was how many of his usual supporters were quiet or gently rebuffed him indirectly on Twitter.
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  No. I read a lot of the replies. They attributed viewpoints to PG that he didn't come close to saying. Example: > [PG] thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. Nope - none of what PG said in his essay comes anywhere close to making that characterization of his opposition, and yet many people have attacked PG as if his view was this view, and other equally outlandish, baseless interpretations of what he actually said. They've said things like, "PG is blaming the poor for being lazy", which is not anything remotely like what he said. The people who wish to criticize PG's essay or otherwise respond to it would do well to simply quote his words directly and respond to the quote. What's actually happening is that people are projecting emotionally charged beliefs onto PG, and claiming that he said things or believes things he doesn't and that weren't in the essay, and then attacking those made up, straw-man ideas instead. It's really disappointing and frustrating for me to watch.
- frogpelt 11y ago
  Wealth inequality is such a hot topic that if anyone dares to call any part of it good, it receives a similar angry mob response that denying anthropogenic climate change does. Thus, this has nothing to do with pg's actual words. This is all based on the current groupthink about inequality.
- T2_t2 11y ago
  Assuming one wants to tread into challenging waters, do you think it is possible to write a bulletproof, beyond-criticism essay? I think it's impossible to write a bulletproof article, even something longer form, unless it says something trivial like "the sky is blue on some days". Even then, someone form Beijing would argue ;) PG chose a really difficult subject, tried like a developer to break it down into constituent parts, and got criticized as if he was saying the problem didn't exist, rather than it is more than one thing. I think that is criticism that he can build dialogue on (a positive), rather than a flaw in the original article.
shiro 11y ago
Either side can be responsible. Communication is a mutual process, and if your goal is to communicate, you have to do what you can do---if you're writing, try various tactics to find which one can penetrate the reader's precognition. The reader, otoh, try various way to interpret what's written to make sense. If communication fails, then it's a loss for both side. You can blame another side but that doesn't make things better... It's interesting that pg has already written how difficult a nonconventional idea to be heard. This can be another instance. It might take 10 more essays. Not the direct rebuttal like this, but tackling the issue from different angle and/or different abstraction level; e.g. ok, how could we attack wealth influencing politics?
vlehto 11y ago
May I present you Wiio laws of communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws
serge2k 11y ago
Anyone else notice an attitude that people who disagree with pg are just too dumb to understand?
- lotharbot 11y ago
  I disagree with pg all the time. I don't think I'm too dumb to understand, so why would I argue that? I didn't even agree with pg in the above post. Instead, I made an abstract point -- that communication breakdowns can be the fault of either party, and that they're not necessarily related to someone being "dumb" but can be due to problems in effort or methodology.

pfarnsworth 11y ago

There were a lot of people that burned him online for his essay, not just a football player. If a bunch of people accuse you of the same thing, at some point you have to start blaming yourself instead of blaming others.

lotharbot 11y ago
pick any controversial topic in which people are emotionally invested, and any well-written argument made about that topic, and you'll find "a lot of people" who "burned" whoever wrote the argument -- some of which might even be good responses, but many of which are some variation of "heard what I wanted to hear".
- jusben1369 11y ago
  Yes what was most telling to me was how many of his usual supporters were quiet or gently rebuffed him indirectly on Twitter.
Pyxl101 11y ago
No. I read a lot of the replies. They attributed viewpoints to PG that he didn't come close to saying. Example: > [PG] thinks that those concerned with income inequality want communist style income equality. Nope - none of what PG said in his essay comes anywhere close to making that characterization of his opposition, and yet many people have attacked PG as if his view was this view, and other equally outlandish, baseless interpretations of what he actually said. They've said things like, "PG is blaming the poor for being lazy", which is not anything remotely like what he said. The people who wish to criticize PG's essay or otherwise respond to it would do well to simply quote his words directly and respond to the quote. What's actually happening is that people are projecting emotionally charged beliefs onto PG, and claiming that he said things or believes things he doesn't and that weren't in the essay, and then attacking those made up, straw-man ideas instead. It's really disappointing and frustrating for me to watch.
frogpelt 11y ago
Wealth inequality is such a hot topic that if anyone dares to call any part of it good, it receives a similar angry mob response that denying anthropogenic climate change does. Thus, this has nothing to do with pg's actual words. This is all based on the current groupthink about inequality.
T2_t2 11y ago
Assuming one wants to tread into challenging waters, do you think it is possible to write a bulletproof, beyond-criticism essay? I think it's impossible to write a bulletproof article, even something longer form, unless it says something trivial like "the sky is blue on some days". Even then, someone form Beijing would argue ;) PG chose a really difficult subject, tried like a developer to break it down into constituent parts, and got criticized as if he was saying the problem didn't exist, rather than it is more than one thing. I think that is criticism that he can build dialogue on (a positive), rather than a flaw in the original article.

shiro 11y ago

Either side can be responsible. Communication is a mutual process, and if your goal is to communicate, you have to do what you can do---if you're writing, try various tactics to find which one can penetrate the reader's precognition. The reader, otoh, try various way to interpret what's written to make sense. If communication fails, then it's a loss for both side. You can blame another side but that doesn't make things better... It's interesting that pg has already written how difficult a nonconventional idea to be heard. This can be another instance. It might take 10 more essays. Not the direct rebuttal like this, but tackling the issue from different angle and/or different abstraction level; e.g. ok, how could we attack wealth influencing politics?

vlehto 11y ago

May I present you Wiio laws of communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio%27s_laws

serge2k 11y ago

Anyone else notice an attitude that people who disagree with pg are just too dumb to understand?

lotharbot 11y ago
I disagree with pg all the time. I don't think I'm too dumb to understand, so why would I argue that? I didn't even agree with pg in the above post. Instead, I made an abstract point -- that communication breakdowns can be the fault of either party, and that they're not necessarily related to someone being "dumb" but can be due to problems in effort or methodology.