5 ms·

> Ah, the engineer who thinks everything can be solved with software. Just as a bit of feedback, starting your comment like this may have turned off the origin

> Ah, the engineer who thinks everything can be solved with software. Just as a bit of feedback, starting your comment like this may have turned off the original poster to the rest of your thoughts, which I agree with.

azemetre 4y ago
Sometimes we all need to be slapped with a fish in the face in order to see how credulous we are with our biases.
- acjohnson55 4y ago
  My comment is net -1 right now, and I don't believe I made any assumptions about the person I responded to in the feedback I tried to offer. If people don't think my feedback is useful, that's fine, but if I had started it off with something like "ah, the presumptuous teacher", I'm pretty sure it would be been received even worse. I read the initial comment as asking a naive question, but I think that's great, as long as they are open to answers that contradict their assumptions. People should be able to do that and get earnest answers without backhanded comments. Asking naive questions is a big part of how I learn, personally.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    "ah, the presumptuous teacher" . That is a perfect example of bad discourse. Why is it bad? Because it is "Ad Hominem". It attacks the person making the comment, not the reasoning in the comment. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
    - acjohnson55 4y ago
      Right, that's my point.
closewith 4y ago
Maybe it will cause the OP to reevaluate whatever absurd worldview led them to posting a ridiculous comment?
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  The point, I think, is that it almost never leads to this outcome. Humans respond very poorly to [perceived] antagonism from anonymous strangers. I know I do, and it’s why I’m working on removing all my snark from internet comments. I’ve also found that you can usually rephrase the snark (“do you really think…?”) into a straightforward question in a neutral tone.
Uehreka 4y ago
Not GP, but I frequently start comments like this if the comment I’m replying to isn’t just slightly off, but reflects a deeply unexamined prior. It’s a signal that “The thing that’s wrong with your comment isn’t even in the text of the comment, it’s in the worldview that led you to think this in the first place. Simply reacting to the text of the comment would be insufficient.”
- dnissley 4y ago
  The problem is that this type of reply reflects your own deeply unexamined prior (e.g. that software can't play a part of solving this issue, or that anyone who said X believes Y, etc.), and so sets up an antagonistic interaction with the other person where you are each arguing from atop your ladders of inference, rather than climbing down those ladders and deconstructing those priors in more detail.
  - archduck 4y ago
    On the other hand, some contributions to a conversation are simply beyond the boundaries of common sense in such a way (blindingly obvious, unacceptable, dangerously naive, etc.) that ridicule is appropriate. Even if the contribution was made in good faith. Ridicule has numerous powerful social functions: it helps social groups self-govern, transmits knowledge from one generation to the next, enables social groups to circumscribe what is acceptable in a bottom-up way, and so on. Sometimes a little public skewering is exactly what's needed to give everyone something to think about. It's an online comment. Real names weren't used. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus as to the quality of the contribution (it's so light I can barely read it). No one's suffering any undue injury.
    - acjohnson55 4y ago
      I personally don't think ridicule is ever necessary or appropriate. Even if it results in compliance or submission in the moment, it's very likely to produce resentment. In an organization, it produces a culture of fear, rather than curiosity and initiative.
soderfoo 4y ago
Wish I had this much tact. I usually abstain from saying anything or respond reflexively, which never helps. Great job communicating here.

azemetre 4y ago

Sometimes we all need to be slapped with a fish in the face in order to see how credulous we are with our biases.

acjohnson55 4y ago
My comment is net -1 right now, and I don't believe I made any assumptions about the person I responded to in the feedback I tried to offer. If people don't think my feedback is useful, that's fine, but if I had started it off with something like "ah, the presumptuous teacher", I'm pretty sure it would be been received even worse. I read the initial comment as asking a naive question, but I think that's great, as long as they are open to answers that contradict their assumptions. People should be able to do that and get earnest answers without backhanded comments. Asking naive questions is a big part of how I learn, personally.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  "ah, the presumptuous teacher" . That is a perfect example of bad discourse. Why is it bad? Because it is "Ad Hominem". It attacks the person making the comment, not the reasoning in the comment. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
  - acjohnson55 4y ago
    Right, that's my point.

closewith 4y ago

Maybe it will cause the OP to reevaluate whatever absurd worldview led them to posting a ridiculous comment?

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
The point, I think, is that it almost never leads to this outcome. Humans respond very poorly to [perceived] antagonism from anonymous strangers. I know I do, and it’s why I’m working on removing all my snark from internet comments. I’ve also found that you can usually rephrase the snark (“do you really think…?”) into a straightforward question in a neutral tone.

Uehreka 4y ago

Not GP, but I frequently start comments like this if the comment I’m replying to isn’t just slightly off, but reflects a deeply unexamined prior. It’s a signal that “The thing that’s wrong with your comment isn’t even in the text of the comment, it’s in the worldview that led you to think this in the first place. Simply reacting to the text of the comment would be insufficient.”

dnissley 4y ago
The problem is that this type of reply reflects your own deeply unexamined prior (e.g. that software can't play a part of solving this issue, or that anyone who said X believes Y, etc.), and so sets up an antagonistic interaction with the other person where you are each arguing from atop your ladders of inference, rather than climbing down those ladders and deconstructing those priors in more detail.
- archduck 4y ago
  On the other hand, some contributions to a conversation are simply beyond the boundaries of common sense in such a way (blindingly obvious, unacceptable, dangerously naive, etc.) that ridicule is appropriate. Even if the contribution was made in good faith. Ridicule has numerous powerful social functions: it helps social groups self-govern, transmits knowledge from one generation to the next, enables social groups to circumscribe what is acceptable in a bottom-up way, and so on. Sometimes a little public skewering is exactly what's needed to give everyone something to think about. It's an online comment. Real names weren't used. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus as to the quality of the contribution (it's so light I can barely read it). No one's suffering any undue injury.
  - acjohnson55 4y ago
    I personally don't think ridicule is ever necessary or appropriate. Even if it results in compliance or submission in the moment, it's very likely to produce resentment. In an organization, it produces a culture of fear, rather than curiosity and initiative.

soderfoo 4y ago

Wish I had this much tact. I usually abstain from saying anything or respond reflexively, which never helps. Great job communicating here.