3 ms·
> Learning how to communicate effectively is not anti-intellectual. This is a strawman. > I could write a genius paper with bad grammar and poor spelling, and
by wrycode 7y ago
> Learning how to communicate effectively is not anti-intellectual.
This is a strawman.
> I could write a genius paper with bad grammar and poor spelling, and it wouldn't detract at all from my intellectual arguments.
It would.
Your life advice here isn't bad, but it's unrelated to my original statement. What you're describing is basically code switching.
- danShumway 7y ago> This is a strawman. Is it? My (perhaps incorrect) understanding of your argument is that your audience should already understand that agreeing in part is not agreeing in full, and that more to the point, if they don't already know that they might not be worth communicating with in the first place. My argument is that it's a good idea to worry less about what people should know, and more about working around what they do know. Sometimes good communication means accommodating people's biases and misconceptions about how the world works, and addressing those misconceptions up-front. > What you're describing is basically code switching. Sure. And what quotemstr is doing isn't code switching? What is the difference between dismissing an argument because of the source and dismissing it because it was spelled wrong? Why should I accommodate one behavior and not the other?