3 ms·

Yup. Anti-signal-signals are a thing. "I don't want or need to care how hard it is for you to understand me, so I'm not going to give any thought or effort to m

by asark 7y ago

Yup. Anti-signal-signals are a thing. "I don't want or need to care how hard it is for you to understand me, so I'm not going to give any thought or effort to making it easier for you" is certainly a kind of signal.

sixstringtheory 7y ago
The signal I get from that is arrogance, then. Also, in an industry where “fake it till you make it” is the rallying cry, one shouldn’t appear dumb, lest one actually becomes dumb (at least in the eyes of their colleagues/superiors/reports/clients).
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Exactly what came to my mind as well. A lack of care when you write can signal that you do not know how to write well, or it can signal that you don't care to write well. Neither of these are signals I want to send, both harm my reputation.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    It can also be a signal that you're too busy to write well in that context. There are two elements to writing well. One is the efficient communication of content. The other is communication of social register, relative status, and power relationships. Hitting the right social register is an impedance matching problem that depends on the target audience. If you go too high you risk sounding snobby, pretentious, and condescending. If you go too low you won't be credible. People often assume this means that if you lard your verbiage with orotund circumlocutions and vague implications you'll be hitting those high register top notes. But in fact social register doesn't map neatly to grammar/reading age/vocab. SMSspeak in an email can - ironically - hit too high a social register because you're implying you don't have time to write a more detailed and conversational response, and you're not making the conversation a priority. This is orthogonal to any actionable message content.
- finder83 7y ago
  This may not apply as much to written language, but there are benefits at times to pretending to be more ignorant or dumb than you actually are. My father was actually a master at this. He was brilliant in his own ways (not the academic sense, but mechanically and socially brilliant), but had the persona of the "dumb hick" down completely. People would underestimate him, sometimes try to take advantage of him, then he would gently show his competence and they would quickly backtrack and essentially give him whatever he wanted. It's obviously manipulative, but was often a way of catching people in their own trap. Think car dealers trying to cheat him, salesmen, etc. I just can't pull it off as well without seeming fake. I'm not sure there is validity to either appearing smarter than you are or dumber on a regular basis though, particularly with people you work with. Integrity is a much more important attribute to me in coworkers and employees than either feigned competence or feigned humility. Genuine competence or genuine humility are different matters though of course.
  - sixstringtheory 7y ago
    Ah yes, the Columbo! I have no problem doing this with bona fide scammers. But condescending to colleagues is a really bad look, IMO.

by asark 7y ago

sixstringtheory 7y ago

The signal I get from that is arrogance, then. Also, in an industry where “fake it till you make it” is the rallying cry, one shouldn’t appear dumb, lest one actually becomes dumb (at least in the eyes of their colleagues/superiors/reports/clients).

rootusrootus 7y ago
Exactly what came to my mind as well. A lack of care when you write can signal that you do not know how to write well, or it can signal that you don't care to write well. Neither of these are signals I want to send, both harm my reputation.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  It can also be a signal that you're too busy to write well in that context. There are two elements to writing well. One is the efficient communication of content. The other is communication of social register, relative status, and power relationships. Hitting the right social register is an impedance matching problem that depends on the target audience. If you go too high you risk sounding snobby, pretentious, and condescending. If you go too low you won't be credible. People often assume this means that if you lard your verbiage with orotund circumlocutions and vague implications you'll be hitting those high register top notes. But in fact social register doesn't map neatly to grammar/reading age/vocab. SMSspeak in an email can - ironically - hit too high a social register because you're implying you don't have time to write a more detailed and conversational response, and you're not making the conversation a priority. This is orthogonal to any actionable message content.
finder83 7y ago
This may not apply as much to written language, but there are benefits at times to pretending to be more ignorant or dumb than you actually are. My father was actually a master at this. He was brilliant in his own ways (not the academic sense, but mechanically and socially brilliant), but had the persona of the "dumb hick" down completely. People would underestimate him, sometimes try to take advantage of him, then he would gently show his competence and they would quickly backtrack and essentially give him whatever he wanted. It's obviously manipulative, but was often a way of catching people in their own trap. Think car dealers trying to cheat him, salesmen, etc. I just can't pull it off as well without seeming fake. I'm not sure there is validity to either appearing smarter than you are or dumber on a regular basis though, particularly with people you work with. Integrity is a much more important attribute to me in coworkers and employees than either feigned competence or feigned humility. Genuine competence or genuine humility are different matters though of course.
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  Ah yes, the Columbo! I have no problem doing this with bona fide scammers. But condescending to colleagues is a really bad look, IMO.