6 ms·

Did you just relentlessly pick apart OPs post over the incidentals, apparently in order to sideline the message "be more nice"? You are very smart, that is a c

Did you just relentlessly pick apart OPs post over the incidentals, apparently in order to sideline the message "be more nice"? You are very smart, that is a clever way to illustrate the point.

zozbot234 5y ago
I actually agree with the message. I'm just saying that there's more than one way to pursue niceness (or, if not 'niceness' however defined, at least proper respect, empathy and decorum), and expecting people to be less analytical (which quite literally means to "pick shit apart") might not be the best.
- bobthechef 5y ago
- ordu 5y ago
  I studied psychology after I studied math, and the most funny thing that happened to me after the second: I become less concerned about truths and more about people, about what they say and why they say it. There are two examples in the article. The first one is about nurses and masks, when author's girlfriend evidently tried to convey her compassion to nurses who need to wear masks all the day long, but the author didn't pick this message, he stumbled over untruth and was unable to just let it be. The second example is about his father, who probably tried to ask for help nicely, to ask in a way that doesn't feel obligatory to conform. But unfortunately the author saw an untruth in a message and was unable to resist an urge to start a holy war against falsehoods, so he missed an opportunity to help without realizing it. The second example is illuminating: he missed an opportunity. Maybe he was not interested in it, in this case he lost nothing. But maybe he was interested (or rather would be interested if he picked it from conversation), and in this case his loss was very real. It is not about niceness per se, it is about seeing world around you as it is. You can be nice then, or to be not nice at all, but if you do not see where are opportunities to be nice, you are losing an opportunity to choose. If being more analytical leads to the less understanding of the world around you, and therefore you are missing opportunities, than maybe an analytical approach is overrated? Though I feel very empathic to STEM majors who was trained to fight a holy war against untruths and cannot resist it even when this holy war sidetracks them from the core of a conversation. It is not easy to overcome this training and moreover it may be not just training, but a natural disposition too: maybe people who are less concerned about people are attracted to (or pushed into) STEM carrier paths. I do not see their behavior as toxic, one just needs to clarify his/her message when STEM major stumbled over an untruth. It is just like talking with kids, they also tend to react to a wrong part of a message.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > I become less concerned about truths and more about people, about what they say and why they say it. But, but... but ¡¿¡¿por qué no los dos?!?! You can be concerned about people, and even learn to let harmless and irrelevant untruths slide, without in any way diminishing your concern for things that might actually have important consequences. When I see people like the OP advocating for HN users to be less analytical or less critical about things (and there are many of them in places like Twitter), it's really hard to tell whether they're taking that difference seriously.
    - ordu 5y ago
      > You can be concerned about people, and even learn to let harmless and irrelevant untruths slide, without in any way diminishing your concern for things that might actually have important consequences. Yes, of course. And I didn't lost an ability to see untruths, it is just my reaction to untruths became more voluntary and conscious. And as I see the argument of the OP, he says that if you didn't learn how to step over untruths, you cannot avoid being sometimes "insufferably rude about it". Unintentionally rude, but nevertheless rude. He doesn't say that one should let untruths flourish every single time. > it's really hard to tell whether they're taking that difference seriously. Does it have important consequences? I personally am not bothered with it much, it doesn't hinder my ability to talk with them. I can deal with it on a case by case basis, when it becomes important.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        > He doesn't say that one should let untruths flourish every single time. The point is that people who make this argument will often let that implication stand. This is clear, given how the argument is phrased - and clearest of all, I would argue, when places like HN are called "toxic" or "bad/awful" in the process. And of course the distinction has consequences. Letting untruths fester can be dangerous or detrimental to the public in some cases, and this is precisely where a hardnosed "no BS" attitude is most helpful.
cbtacy 5y ago
Bravo.
honkycat 5y ago
What was "relentless" about parent's comment? So now any level of criticism is "relentless"?
uptownfunk 5y ago
love it

Did you just relentlessly pick apart OPs post over the incidentals, apparently in order to sideline the message "be more nice"? You are very smart, that is a clever way to illustrate the point.

zozbot234 5y ago

I actually agree with the message. I'm just saying that there's more than one way to pursue niceness (or, if not 'niceness' however defined, at least proper respect, empathy and decorum), and expecting people to be less analytical (which quite literally means to "pick shit apart") might not be the best.

bobthechef 5y ago
ordu 5y ago
I studied psychology after I studied math, and the most funny thing that happened to me after the second: I become less concerned about truths and more about people, about what they say and why they say it. There are two examples in the article. The first one is about nurses and masks, when author's girlfriend evidently tried to convey her compassion to nurses who need to wear masks all the day long, but the author didn't pick this message, he stumbled over untruth and was unable to just let it be. The second example is about his father, who probably tried to ask for help nicely, to ask in a way that doesn't feel obligatory to conform. But unfortunately the author saw an untruth in a message and was unable to resist an urge to start a holy war against falsehoods, so he missed an opportunity to help without realizing it. The second example is illuminating: he missed an opportunity. Maybe he was not interested in it, in this case he lost nothing. But maybe he was interested (or rather would be interested if he picked it from conversation), and in this case his loss was very real. It is not about niceness per se, it is about seeing world around you as it is. You can be nice then, or to be not nice at all, but if you do not see where are opportunities to be nice, you are losing an opportunity to choose. If being more analytical leads to the less understanding of the world around you, and therefore you are missing opportunities, than maybe an analytical approach is overrated? Though I feel very empathic to STEM majors who was trained to fight a holy war against untruths and cannot resist it even when this holy war sidetracks them from the core of a conversation. It is not easy to overcome this training and moreover it may be not just training, but a natural disposition too: maybe people who are less concerned about people are attracted to (or pushed into) STEM carrier paths. I do not see their behavior as toxic, one just needs to clarify his/her message when STEM major stumbled over an untruth. It is just like talking with kids, they also tend to react to a wrong part of a message.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > I become less concerned about truths and more about people, about what they say and why they say it. But, but... but ¡¿¡¿por qué no los dos?!?! You can be concerned about people, and even learn to let harmless and irrelevant untruths slide, without in any way diminishing your concern for things that might actually have important consequences. When I see people like the OP advocating for HN users to be less analytical or less critical about things (and there are many of them in places like Twitter), it's really hard to tell whether they're taking that difference seriously.
  - ordu 5y ago
    > You can be concerned about people, and even learn to let harmless and irrelevant untruths slide, without in any way diminishing your concern for things that might actually have important consequences. Yes, of course. And I didn't lost an ability to see untruths, it is just my reaction to untruths became more voluntary and conscious. And as I see the argument of the OP, he says that if you didn't learn how to step over untruths, you cannot avoid being sometimes "insufferably rude about it". Unintentionally rude, but nevertheless rude. He doesn't say that one should let untruths flourish every single time. > it's really hard to tell whether they're taking that difference seriously. Does it have important consequences? I personally am not bothered with it much, it doesn't hinder my ability to talk with them. I can deal with it on a case by case basis, when it becomes important.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > He doesn't say that one should let untruths flourish every single time. The point is that people who make this argument will often let that implication stand. This is clear, given how the argument is phrased - and clearest of all, I would argue, when places like HN are called "toxic" or "bad/awful" in the process. And of course the distinction has consequences. Letting untruths fester can be dangerous or detrimental to the public in some cases, and this is precisely where a hardnosed "no BS" attitude is most helpful.

cbtacy 5y ago

Bravo.

honkycat 5y ago

What was "relentless" about parent's comment? So now any level of criticism is "relentless"?

uptownfunk 5y ago

love it