4 ms·

The question was and is rhetorical. People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others. And anthropomorphising a language? Most peculiar. None of this makes

The question was and is rhetorical. People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others. And anthropomorphising a language? Most peculiar. None of this makes NIH a less than widespread phenomenon. The readers of this forum often do know their type theory. Gatekeeping otherwise won’t go over well, it just reads like an arrogant insult from someone utterly lacking in self-awareness and accustomed to presuming themselves the smartest person in the room with the only relevant opinion. Ironically, given the subtopic, much like Google often does.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> The question was and is rhetorical. The fact that you ask a question not expecting a direct answer is not proof that a direct answer does not exist. > People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others. In my spare time, I'm a rock climber, and mistakes in my rope systems can kill me. The same is true in mycology, firearms, airplane piloting, civil engineering. If you really feel that you can only learn from your own mistakes then I guess it's lucky for you that you've chosen to learn in a field where the stakes aren't life and death. > The readers of this forum often do know their type theory. That's true. The same is not true for the many Gophers who repeatedly claim that Go has a strong type system, which is who that comment was directed at.
- inopinatus 7y ago
  No, but it’s a trap. If someone answers an obviously rhetorical question, they’re inadvertently demonstrating a predilection for engaging the construction, not the substance, of a statement, and almost certainly missing the ironic subtext. I’d be happy to repeat my assertion though. People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others, which is why educators on safety-critical topics such as those mentioned must go to extraordinary lengths to extract and convey the salient teachings, translated into better practices, drills, equipment etc. Reading the archives of the Dropzone fatalities database, for example, won’t make me a better skydiver. Conversely, the best structured educational processes I’ve experienced are essentially offering the student the opportunity to make their own mistakes, but under circumstances that don’t have consequences (other than pedagogical or scholastic)
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > No, but it’s a trap. If someone answers an obviously rhetorical question, they’re inadvertently demonstrating a predilection for engaging the construction, not the substance, of a statement, and almost certainly missing the ironic subtext. That's a pretty self-aggrandizing analysis of the situation. From my perspective, I got you to make the statement, "People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others", which sounds a lot more absurd when you actually say what you mean plainly instead of hiding it in rhetoric. Maybe some people go through life that way, but that's a pretty poor life strategy and I personally make a pretty big effort to learn from other peoples' mistakes. Maybe I haven't been successful always, but I can point to lots of examples of where I have.
    - inopinatus 7y ago
      > ? "I got you to make the statement" ? That's quite the signal of bad faith debate. I don't think it's my own aggrandizement in play here. Quite the reverse. c.f. remarks passim re. hubris. So there the conversation must end.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        The guy who thinks he "trapped" me with a rhetorical question accuses me of arguing in bad faith? Okay... All I did was get you to say clearly what you believe. If what you believe is so embarrassing that it's a sign of bad faith to get you to say it in clearly, maybe believe better things?

kerkeslager 7y ago

> The question was and is rhetorical. The fact that you ask a question not expecting a direct answer is not proof that a direct answer does not exist. > People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others. In my spare time, I'm a rock climber, and mistakes in my rope systems can kill me. The same is true in mycology, firearms, airplane piloting, civil engineering. If you really feel that you can only learn from your own mistakes then I guess it's lucky for you that you've chosen to learn in a field where the stakes aren't life and death. > The readers of this forum often do know their type theory. That's true. The same is not true for the many Gophers who repeatedly claim that Go has a strong type system, which is who that comment was directed at.

inopinatus 7y ago
No, but it’s a trap. If someone answers an obviously rhetorical question, they’re inadvertently demonstrating a predilection for engaging the construction, not the substance, of a statement, and almost certainly missing the ironic subtext. I’d be happy to repeat my assertion though. People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others, which is why educators on safety-critical topics such as those mentioned must go to extraordinary lengths to extract and convey the salient teachings, translated into better practices, drills, equipment etc. Reading the archives of the Dropzone fatalities database, for example, won’t make me a better skydiver. Conversely, the best structured educational processes I’ve experienced are essentially offering the student the opportunity to make their own mistakes, but under circumstances that don’t have consequences (other than pedagogical or scholastic)
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > No, but it’s a trap. If someone answers an obviously rhetorical question, they’re inadvertently demonstrating a predilection for engaging the construction, not the substance, of a statement, and almost certainly missing the ironic subtext. That's a pretty self-aggrandizing analysis of the situation. From my perspective, I got you to make the statement, "People don’t inwardly digest the mistakes of others", which sounds a lot more absurd when you actually say what you mean plainly instead of hiding it in rhetoric. Maybe some people go through life that way, but that's a pretty poor life strategy and I personally make a pretty big effort to learn from other peoples' mistakes. Maybe I haven't been successful always, but I can point to lots of examples of where I have.
  - inopinatus 7y ago
    > ? "I got you to make the statement" ? That's quite the signal of bad faith debate. I don't think it's my own aggrandizement in play here. Quite the reverse. c.f. remarks passim re. hubris. So there the conversation must end.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      The guy who thinks he "trapped" me with a rhetorical question accuses me of arguing in bad faith? Okay... All I did was get you to say clearly what you believe. If what you believe is so embarrassing that it's a sign of bad faith to get you to say it in clearly, maybe believe better things?