18 ms·

It Hurts to Ask [pdf]

199 points by Dowwie 4y ago

diordiderot 4y ago
> We show that a failure to ask can occur even when most helpers would help if told about the need, and that even though a greater need makes help both more valuable and more likely to be granted, it can reduce the propensity to ask. Furthermore, when potential helpers concerned about the recipient’s ask-shyness can make spontaneous offers...
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Why people don't ask 1. Debt aversion: Not wanting to repay the favor 2. Shame or embarrassment: asking reveals need, dependence, or lack of ability 3. Not wanting to impose
  - StevenWaterman 4y ago
    4. Not wanting to be rejected and seem demanding Even when there's a 90% chance of being accepted, the expected value could be negative
  - _def 4y ago
    I think you are right. Luckily, to fix these worries they can be translated to some principles one can live by if one wants to participate in overcoming this societal problem: 1. Help people without expecting to be repaid for it in any form 2. Practice empathy for shortcomings of others 3. Speak up if you don't want to or are not able to help someone
    - kd5bjo 4y ago
      There's also a potential issue of the "help" being a net-negative, even when provided. If someone has strong ideas about how the work should be done that differ from yours, for instance, accepting their help can make things worse. Unfortunately, you usually can't know whether this is the case until after they've already started.
      - lazide 4y ago
        It’s not uncommon, in say urban homelessness, that shelters or food banks will have conditions that many of the people on the street consider unconscionable or impossible to meet. Some reflection on them tends to be informative about many of the challenges on both sides, and the nature of the problem. Some of them include shelters with: - No dog rules (because many people have dogs which are poorly behaved, lack immunizations, and have attacked other people at the shelters in the past). Many folks have animals for companionship and protection. - No drug rules, including Alcohol (because many people have gone on drug fueled benders and attacked others at the shelters in the last). Many persistent homeless folks have drug problems too. - Sex segregation rules (because women have been raped by others at the shelter in the past). The problem is, many homeless women also have boyfriends that provide a significant degree of safety and support, and even with sex segregation, the shelters have predators. But what else are they supposed to do? If they don’t make rules to at least protect others in the environment, they’re making a giant attractive nuisance/hazard. If they make exceptions, they’re asking to be attacked or sued themselves. (You’d be surprised how many activists are happy to spend serious money suing over something like that).
    - lazide 4y ago
      Good principles. They also sounds like a recipe for being taken advantage of or abused in an Urban environment, or if applied naively. In my experience, do it long enough, and blindly enough, and it’ll end up collecting the worst - in any environment it’s applied to - when the group set is large. Mostly because of a filtering effect. The folks who need help to get self sufficient will use the help, get self sufficient, then go elsewhere. The folks who will fall back on bad habits, will use the help, and break themselves again, and then get into a cycle of dependence on the help until either the help is withdrawn (which often causes anger), or they find an even juicier offer of help. It isn’t a large percentage of people who are like the latter group - maybe 1-2%. But given enough folks and enough time, and it’ll end up collecting a hard core group of people that will be a serious problem.
      - _def 4y ago
        I see your point. Setting healthy boundaries is important. I also want to note that the most effective form of 'help' is the one that will enable the person in need to help themselves better in the future. As long as that point is not reached, they may find themselves in the vicious cycle that you described.
  - mupuff1234 4y ago
    Seems like anonymity solves all of these (but introduces some other challenges)
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      That's an interesting observation. Also, one wonders why so many big charity donors are anonymous. Not only asking, but giving is a potentially sensitive act that sometimes (perhaps from modesty) demands discretion/anonymity. When giving money to a homeless person I notice I'll prefer to do it when nobody is looking, and move on quickly, avoiding too much of a "thank-you". It's not just that act has to be "Kantian". There's definitely something about giving that carries the same barrier, and it's remedied by anonymity. I'll put cash money in a charity box, but would never use an identifiable card/digital method. Charities ought to know this if they're wise. that the "cash-less" society is the death sentence for them.
      - retcore 4y ago
        London (City of London) pre pandemic used to regularly have troops of charity employees hard selling their pitch and only accepting monthly subscription payments via Direct Debit, which is the legal equivalent of granting joint custody of your funds to the extent that the Halifax savings and loan used to refuse to cancel a direct debit payment for the customer, claiming that the customer has no such right, and the severality of granting regulated but effectively unfettered withdrawal authority lead me to think twice about taking them to court. The UK Direct Debit system doesn't even verify the customers name against the account details, wide open to fraud. Anyhow the argument for declining both cash and once off card donations wasn't anything to do with the sidewalk venue, but the charity wanting me to give them my tax deduction as well. They'd be lined up across Cheapside in funnel formations. No wonder that WFH is still so popular.
        nonrandomstring 4y ago
        Ah yes..chuggers [1] (charity muggers) Sometime in the early 2000s the most of British charity was transformed (dragged through the mud) by corporate whackjobs, PR gurus, and Feng Shui design soothsayers to align their ley-lines and whatnot. Charity shops stopped having any actual bargains in them, and the money boxes we used to enjoy putting spare change into vanished. They made up all kinds of bizarre, frankly unbelievable stories about how the staff "weren't trained to handle cash" and that robbers would steal their charity tins (in broad daylight outside Waterloo station under 200 CCTV cameras... like Jimmy Reckon!) Then all those charity scandals about abuse and corruption came out. Heartbreaking what a few clueless, vicious vandals and scumbags in suits can do to brand reputations earned over centuries. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret-life-chugger-charity-fundraiser https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > asking reveals need, dependence, This is a much bigger issue than people realise in our technological society. Once, interaction with any doctor would be considered confidential. Today surveillance capitalism and so-called "big data" creates a new problem for everyone, young or old, male or female. We've long known that many men "die of embarrassment", because they won't go to the doctor. Pride/shame aside, that now affects everyone. People stop reporting symptoms because they don't want the stigma or economic penalty resulting from data being "shared" (increasingly without consent for "research" etc) - potentially to employers, insurance companies, and various gatekeepers popping up in the digital world. It's ironic at many levels. The information age should give us better health through ease of communication and access to data. However, the research benefits to the many that accrue from big-data are a burden upon the few/individuals. Searching on Google for medical ailments is a sure way to let the advertising world know all about your health complaints, real or imagined, and invite spam, inappropriate and intrusive insinuations. And, as we know recently, for women seeking abortions it can lead to violence or imprisonment. So there is an odd communistic utilitarianism at play that defeats the very benefits our technologies should bring.
    - rocqua 4y ago
      We do need to be careful about medical data sharing. It has risks. However I doubt there are any (or any meaningful number of) cases of doctors and medical data-sharing actually causing stigma or economic penalties. That is outside of the 'traditional' a doctor just tells some friends. But that traditional case happens regardless of big data. The reason medical data sharing is risky is because _if_ it does leak, it can cause large stigma and economical damage. But I am not aware of any big-data related cases where that did happen. The legal protections (imperfect as they are) have either worked, or have caused the people who abuse them to hide their tracks.
      - xboxnolifes 4y ago
        The problem isn't about where data is shared or is leaked. The problem is if it is perceived to be, and if those who perceive it so are influenced by the perception.
  - danielbln 4y ago
    A reason why I like to ask large language models a bunch of things, it takes care of all 3 issues. Of course, it's not always suitable, but if it is, I prefer it over burdening a human with my query.
  - tlogan 4y ago
    I always wonder about that. Maybe the first two are the most important? Many companies have a policy to give a discount, upgrade or similar if customer asks nicely for it. But somehow majority of people are just rude and they want discount because “your hotel is shitty, too expensive service, etc.” (put some lie or insult). There is no “thank you”. No “please” So people will demand but not ask..
    - lazide 4y ago
      I think it’s based in large part on the customers emotional state. Asking nicely requires a relatively positive emotional state. Demanding a discount due to a perceived slight, doesn’t. In my experience, it’s a lot easier for someone to stay or go into a negative place than a positive one.
      - lisper 4y ago
        In situations like that I always try to remind myself that the person I'm talking to is almost certainly not the one responsible for the shitty situation I'm dealing with. >90% of the time the shitty situation is the result of a policy decision made by someone that neither of us has ever met or likely will ever meet. Both of us are victims of their shitty decision. I find it much easier to be civil when I keep that in mind. And on those occasions when that's not enough I try to remember to say, "I'm sorry, I know you're not responsible for this shitty situation, and I apologize for taking my frustrations out on you." I've gotten an enormous amount of mileage out of this strategy over the years.
        lazide 4y ago
        Sounds like you’re self aware and actively trying to improve folks situation - you’re a good person, and work to stay that way! If someone is in a customer service role, they’ll deal a lot with the other part of the population who isn’t (today) in that group, and they’re very memorable.
        lisper 4y ago
  - dqpb 4y ago
    4. They don't really want to know the answer
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Plus being told it's wrong for the poor to beg. In Chile only the rich are allowed to beg. It goes like this: "hey can I have ten cents!" [poor begging rich] "Get a fucking job you piece of shit!" [rich begging poor]. Telling a poor man to get a job, in Chile, is begging, because jobs they realistically can get all pay less than they cost, it's a gift to the rich man, a donation, charity for the rich, begging. And injure the poor in the process, or demand he betray his fellow man. That's why I always try to come up with something for beggars, they're doing the best thing they could be doing by begging, working would be terrible then they'd get a back injury on the first day, feel denigrating, which addressing (which society dodges, prefers they take that injury and insult to their graves) would cost millions. Just huge waste of money. Better they beg and I give, that has objectively superior economics. Like I talked to one who got a job, told him yeah duh that job is over it was a shit job, he was like uh how did you know? I just know because I just know. And then I gave him a 20000 peso bill, which I first broke for him at the kiosk which I can do but he can't, so he could spend it. And told him "spend it on whatever you want! Whatever you want!" Dude try to preempt him asking me, asking hurts, people insult you, it's degrading, people call you inferior, people beat you for asking just like people piss on people sleeping on the street to indulge their sadism. I've also seen guys take out a 10000 bill (like $10, but big money in Chile), stretch it out, and then laugh their ass off. Dude it's so cruel. Nobody thinks it could be them sitting on the concrete. And they have all kinds of stories these guys, dude I love talking to Jonathan Ramos here, dude way better than all therapists I've ever spoken to in my whole life combined. He told me "obviously you got tortured, look at the things you say, you lay out the truth for people clearly!" No picólogo could have ever said that! Dude categorically superior to every professional therapist! And that cost 4 dollars!
  - peteradio 4y ago
    4. Knowing the answer is going to be shortsighted and miss the point of the question.
chrisBob 4y ago
I get it. People love LaTeX, but how about getting rid of some white space and changing that front
- gmac 4y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18865043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18865043
- fergie 4y ago
  What is the font? I keep on seeing it on academic papers.
  - red_trumpet 4y ago
    Computer Modern[1] or Latin Modern. It's the standard font when using LaTeX. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern
    - m000 4y ago
      It is the standard font for LaTeX and a sub-standard choice for modern screens and printers. CM was designed in the late 70s - early 80s. High resolution raster displays were an exotic item at that time. CM was meant to be used for printing documents on the printers of the era, that suffered from considerable ink bleeding. See the pictures in [1] to see the difference between how the font looks on screen and when printed on the "right" equipment. [1] https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-modern-wirklich-zu-d%C3%BCnn/ https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-m...
      - dhosek 4y ago
        Not exactly, CM was designed for image setters and very high resolution printing. Early laser printers had resolutions in the neighborhood of 200–300dpi and there are frequent issues with generating bitmaps from Metafont at low resolutions (<300dpi). Some printers had asymmetric resolutions usually with a higher horizontal resolution than vertical resolution since it as easier to do precise positioning horizontally than vertically. In addition, there were two approaches to putting toner on the page: Writes-black (which was used by HP and Apple laserprinters), used the laser to apply a charge where the black should be. When the toner then affixed to the page at the charged locations, there was a little bit of “bleed.”¹ Writes-white (which was used by Xerox and some others), first charged the whole page then used the laser to remove the charge where there should not be toner. The bleed impact was reversed and the result was an anemic appearance to the CM fonts on the page. A hack was created in which an extra pixel was added to the edges of the shapes to increase their size, although this was prone to creating errors in the MF run at resolutions <600dpi. ⸻ 1. Not really in the same sense as ink bleed, in which the ink spreads from where it is applied, but more just that the pixels created by the charge were slightly larger than the specified resolution.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
golemotron 4y ago
It's interesting that this quote in the abstract points out that the dynamic the authors consider bad actually leads to a good outcome: self-sufficiency. > “While quite young,... Vronsky had experienced the humiliation of a refusal when, having got into debt, he had tried to borrow money, and since then he had never again allowed himself to get into such a position.” (L. Tolstoi, Anna Karenina) Self-sufficiency has some downsides and inefficiencies but so does its opposite. A better paper would explore that side also, and the balance.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  The flip side sure could be interesting, but studying it seems like a very different task (with a significantly larger scope) than this project. That doesn't seem realistic to be covered in this sort of paper.
  - golemotron 4y ago
    It would've been nice to mention it. My sense is that the quote in the abstract might have been a signal from one of the authors who felt the same way.
    - Spinnaker_ 4y ago
      I doubt it. The author has likely read Anna Karenina and fully understands that it is not at all an endorsement.
daoist_shaman 4y ago
I did not expect to be reading partial differential equations regarding the mechanics of asking and offering help over my morning coffee.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Scanning through this I couldn't find much on the ratio of askers to askees (what the paper seems to call Receivers and Senders, respectively). That seems like a major factor - there's the classic example of the IT person who's constantly being asked to help with relatively basic tasks. If that's their defined job, that's not a problem - but if they have other responsibilities that are not being met due to constant requests for assistance, it becomes a problem. A similar example is found in areas with a high concentration of homeless people - i.e. if there is just one homeless person in a neighborhood, people might go out of their way to be helpful, or if they were asking for money people might be willing to give them a few dollars - but if there are 100 homeless people in a neighborhood, then treating them all equally would mean shelling out several hundred dollars, a more significant burden. Once a problem becomes organizational-scale or societal-scale, then this focus on individual relationships no longer makes much sense. In the former case, hiring a person (or team) whose sole job is to provide technical assitance is the solution; in the latter, some kind of social safety net aimed at keeping people off the street is needed.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  I like the homelessness analogy. If a town of 3,000 people had 1 homeless person, there is a high likelihood that said person would ultimately encounter an altruistic person and get some assistance towards ceasing being homeless, yet, in a densely populated area with the same ratio of homed to homeless most of the homeless people will either receive no assistance or very little, right? At a certain scale the issue requires a altruistic leader to marshal the forces to combat the societal problem, and while there are many qualified people for just such a task, the task of finding such a person, appointing them with the appropriate authority, and then giving them the the tools and resources they need to succeed are themselves tasks that require long unbroken chains of altruism to succeed, even though on a 1:1 ratio the problem is the exact same proportion.
cjcole 4y ago
Diplomacy is a species of high-stakes asking. 'Mr Herapath, I understand that you wish to visit the whaler, and you have my permission to go. You are no doubt aware that there is a great deal of ill-feeling between the United States and England, and that most unhappily the Leopard was the cause of some of it: that is why I thought best to forbid the usual ship-visiting, to prevent quarrelling of any kind. You also know the Leopard's condition: one day's use of a forge and the proper tools would enable her to put to sea rather than winter here. The whaler certainly possesses a forge, but as a gentleman you will understand that I am extremely reluctant to ask a favour of the American skipper, extremely reluctant to expose the service or myself to a rebuff. I may add that he is equally reluctant to come a-begging to me, and I honour him for it. However, on reflection he may feel inclined to exchange the use of his forge for our medical services. You may give him a view of the situation, but without committing us to any specific request - harkee, Mr Herapath, don't you expose us to an affront, whatever you do. And if it should turn out that he would like the exchange, why, I should be very much obliged to you. Very much obliged indeed, for I should be even more reluctant to use force.'
jjice 4y ago
Anecdotally, when I started at my current job, it was made clear to me that I should ask questions and not think twice about it. They said to ask in our public engineering slack channel (remote work) so everyone could see and have more eyes on it for answers plus future searching. It was such a great experience, and I put a lot of that on the culture of questions my boss put into place. When we had more and more engineers join, including interns, I made sure they heard the same thing I did and felt comfortable asking any questions. I really love this philosophy, but I found out that you can't just say it once or else people are still a bit skittish sometimes (young engineers mostly). I will repeat it to the point where it's likely annoying during mentoring and onboarding meetings, but people will be very open with their questions, which I'm very happy with. It takes a bit of extra time out of everyone's day to respond to questions, but you're unblocking someone in 2 chunks of 10 minutes (mentor and mentee) which saves the mentee upwards of hours, and this can compound with future situations if they don't have a complete understanding of the situation. I really appreciate a question friendly culture and I would never want to work at a place that isn't like that again.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  I was always partial to the aphorism "The only stupid question is the one we don't ask." I used to participate in StackOverflow, quite a bit (not so much, these days). They have a culture that really doesn't like asking questions, which is weird, as they are the raw materials of the site. Just look at the question counts of the high-numbered folks. It's usually a single-digit number, with that digit frequently being "0." It's fairly obvious that people that actually ask questions are treated badly.
  - leetrout 4y ago
    Lots of questions get deleted too. I asked this question on the math site https://mathoverflow.net/questions/373993/is-the-haversine-function-a-norm https://mathoverflow.net/questions/373993/is-the-haversine-f... I am not a "math person" and was struggling to understand how these various functions fit into "norms" or not. I think by-and-large none of these communities are helpful or welcoming to most people. And that is a shame.
rawgabbit 4y ago
Hmmm. Instead of modeling human relationships and helping others as debt/reward/cost. I believe it is psychologically healthier to think in terms of circles of trust. a) Stranger. It is unlikely you will see this person again. It doesn't hurt to ask but don't expect much. We may shy away from asking as they appear rude/busy/angry. b) Acquaintance. This is a coworker or someone in the neighborhood. We don't want to hurt the relationship. We occasionally ask for small favors and in an emergency we may ask for a big favor. We are tactful in asking for what we want. We reciprocate any favors. c) Family. This is your best friend or your significant other who may be closer than your blood relatives. We trust them implicitly and will always believe they can never be wrong. We ask a lot of them but are aware of their own struggles and wait for the appropriate time. We are shameless in asking for what we want.
DeanWormer 4y ago
Interesting topic especially when compared/contrasted with this Atlantic article on Asker vs Guesser culture. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/askers-vs-guessers/340891/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/askers-....
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
I have not read this PDF (nor do I intend to), so perhaps this is something it mentions, but a shift in perspective along Stoic lines and identifying some irrational confusions might help. At base, the biggest problems are ego and attaching inappropriate significance to what people think/say or might think/say. Of the two, ego is the biggest problem, I would say, and the first one that needs to be addressed. The typical reason someone might not want to ask a question is because they are afraid people will think they're stupid because asking reveals you don't know something that you believe is expected you should know. If this something is something you should know, then are you perhaps pretending to be better than you are? Are you trying to prevent people from forming an accurate opinion of you, an opinion that you deserve? With respect to the second problem, people attach way too much value to what others say or might think instead of the truth. We all think things about each other. So what? Life is a bazaar of ignorant and cranky people assessing, misassessing, yammering, squabbling, haggling, making noise, elbowing each other, and so on, not some preciously arranged crystal palace or the last judgement presided over by a capricious teenager. No one is thinking about you because they're too busy thinking about themselves...just like you're doing by worrying so much about what others think of you. There are ultimately two possibilities. Someone's assessment of you is accurate or it is inaccurate. If it is accurate, then what's the problem? You deserve it. If it is inaccurate, then it doesn't matter because it isn't true. In either case, if you are treated unjustly, or even uncharitably, then who's the asshole? Not you. As Marcus Aurelius would say, as long as you're going the right thing, you have nothing to worry about. You've done your part. You have no control over anything else, so why worry about it? If you don't ask the question, then perhaps no one will think you're stupid, but you will have failed to done your part by choosing to remain ignorant when all you had to do is ask. You would be guilty of what Catholics call "human respect".
tristor 4y ago
Anecdotally, I don't think I've /caused/ any pain with the questions I've asked in my career, but I have often revealed pain that was otherwise hidden or being avoided. One of the most important skills I learned in my career was asking good incisive questions. The only way your team or organization can resolve problems is if you first acknowledge that the problem exists, and there are often problems in organizations "that everybody knows", that asking questions about (especially as a newbie or outsider) can help to resolve. It's definitely opening a can of worms, it's definitely painful, but the question doesn't cause the pain, it just reveals the pain that's already there.
RegW 4y ago
I just can't take the maths seriously. As a younger person I hated to skate on a rebellious subject or show my ignorance of what must be obvious to everyone else. As a better person I knew I must be patient, but was annoyed with those that didn't speak up when they didn't understand, or those that wouldn't accept the glaring truth. As an old fart I just try to stop myself letting go too loudly.

199 points by Dowwie 4y ago

> We show that a failure to ask can occur even when most helpers would help if told about the need, and that even though a greater need makes help both more valuable and more likely to be granted, it can reduce the propensity to ask. Furthermore, when potential helpers concerned about the recipient’s ask-shyness can make spontaneous offers...

diordiderot 4y ago
Why people don't ask 1. Debt aversion: Not wanting to repay the favor 2. Shame or embarrassment: asking reveals need, dependence, or lack of ability 3. Not wanting to impose
- StevenWaterman 4y ago
  4. Not wanting to be rejected and seem demanding Even when there's a 90% chance of being accepted, the expected value could be negative
- _def 4y ago
  I think you are right. Luckily, to fix these worries they can be translated to some principles one can live by if one wants to participate in overcoming this societal problem: 1. Help people without expecting to be repaid for it in any form 2. Practice empathy for shortcomings of others 3. Speak up if you don't want to or are not able to help someone
  - kd5bjo 4y ago
    There's also a potential issue of the "help" being a net-negative, even when provided. If someone has strong ideas about how the work should be done that differ from yours, for instance, accepting their help can make things worse. Unfortunately, you usually can't know whether this is the case until after they've already started.
    - lazide 4y ago
      It’s not uncommon, in say urban homelessness, that shelters or food banks will have conditions that many of the people on the street consider unconscionable or impossible to meet. Some reflection on them tends to be informative about many of the challenges on both sides, and the nature of the problem. Some of them include shelters with: - No dog rules (because many people have dogs which are poorly behaved, lack immunizations, and have attacked other people at the shelters in the past). Many folks have animals for companionship and protection. - No drug rules, including Alcohol (because many people have gone on drug fueled benders and attacked others at the shelters in the last). Many persistent homeless folks have drug problems too. - Sex segregation rules (because women have been raped by others at the shelter in the past). The problem is, many homeless women also have boyfriends that provide a significant degree of safety and support, and even with sex segregation, the shelters have predators. But what else are they supposed to do? If they don’t make rules to at least protect others in the environment, they’re making a giant attractive nuisance/hazard. If they make exceptions, they’re asking to be attacked or sued themselves. (You’d be surprised how many activists are happy to spend serious money suing over something like that).
  - lazide 4y ago
    Good principles. They also sounds like a recipe for being taken advantage of or abused in an Urban environment, or if applied naively. In my experience, do it long enough, and blindly enough, and it’ll end up collecting the worst - in any environment it’s applied to - when the group set is large. Mostly because of a filtering effect. The folks who need help to get self sufficient will use the help, get self sufficient, then go elsewhere. The folks who will fall back on bad habits, will use the help, and break themselves again, and then get into a cycle of dependence on the help until either the help is withdrawn (which often causes anger), or they find an even juicier offer of help. It isn’t a large percentage of people who are like the latter group - maybe 1-2%. But given enough folks and enough time, and it’ll end up collecting a hard core group of people that will be a serious problem.
    - _def 4y ago
      I see your point. Setting healthy boundaries is important. I also want to note that the most effective form of 'help' is the one that will enable the person in need to help themselves better in the future. As long as that point is not reached, they may find themselves in the vicious cycle that you described.
- mupuff1234 4y ago
  Seems like anonymity solves all of these (but introduces some other challenges)
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    That's an interesting observation. Also, one wonders why so many big charity donors are anonymous. Not only asking, but giving is a potentially sensitive act that sometimes (perhaps from modesty) demands discretion/anonymity. When giving money to a homeless person I notice I'll prefer to do it when nobody is looking, and move on quickly, avoiding too much of a "thank-you". It's not just that act has to be "Kantian". There's definitely something about giving that carries the same barrier, and it's remedied by anonymity. I'll put cash money in a charity box, but would never use an identifiable card/digital method. Charities ought to know this if they're wise. that the "cash-less" society is the death sentence for them.
    - retcore 4y ago
      London (City of London) pre pandemic used to regularly have troops of charity employees hard selling their pitch and only accepting monthly subscription payments via Direct Debit, which is the legal equivalent of granting joint custody of your funds to the extent that the Halifax savings and loan used to refuse to cancel a direct debit payment for the customer, claiming that the customer has no such right, and the severality of granting regulated but effectively unfettered withdrawal authority lead me to think twice about taking them to court. The UK Direct Debit system doesn't even verify the customers name against the account details, wide open to fraud. Anyhow the argument for declining both cash and once off card donations wasn't anything to do with the sidewalk venue, but the charity wanting me to give them my tax deduction as well. They'd be lined up across Cheapside in funnel formations. No wonder that WFH is still so popular.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        Ah yes..chuggers [1] (charity muggers) Sometime in the early 2000s the most of British charity was transformed (dragged through the mud) by corporate whackjobs, PR gurus, and Feng Shui design soothsayers to align their ley-lines and whatnot. Charity shops stopped having any actual bargains in them, and the money boxes we used to enjoy putting spare change into vanished. They made up all kinds of bizarre, frankly unbelievable stories about how the staff "weren't trained to handle cash" and that robbers would steal their charity tins (in broad daylight outside Waterloo station under 200 CCTV cameras... like Jimmy Reckon!) Then all those charity scandals about abuse and corruption came out. Heartbreaking what a few clueless, vicious vandals and scumbags in suits can do to brand reputations earned over centuries. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret-life-chugger-charity-fundraiser https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > asking reveals need, dependence, This is a much bigger issue than people realise in our technological society. Once, interaction with any doctor would be considered confidential. Today surveillance capitalism and so-called "big data" creates a new problem for everyone, young or old, male or female. We've long known that many men "die of embarrassment", because they won't go to the doctor. Pride/shame aside, that now affects everyone. People stop reporting symptoms because they don't want the stigma or economic penalty resulting from data being "shared" (increasingly without consent for "research" etc) - potentially to employers, insurance companies, and various gatekeepers popping up in the digital world. It's ironic at many levels. The information age should give us better health through ease of communication and access to data. However, the research benefits to the many that accrue from big-data are a burden upon the few/individuals. Searching on Google for medical ailments is a sure way to let the advertising world know all about your health complaints, real or imagined, and invite spam, inappropriate and intrusive insinuations. And, as we know recently, for women seeking abortions it can lead to violence or imprisonment. So there is an odd communistic utilitarianism at play that defeats the very benefits our technologies should bring.
  - rocqua 4y ago
    We do need to be careful about medical data sharing. It has risks. However I doubt there are any (or any meaningful number of) cases of doctors and medical data-sharing actually causing stigma or economic penalties. That is outside of the 'traditional' a doctor just tells some friends. But that traditional case happens regardless of big data. The reason medical data sharing is risky is because _if_ it does leak, it can cause large stigma and economical damage. But I am not aware of any big-data related cases where that did happen. The legal protections (imperfect as they are) have either worked, or have caused the people who abuse them to hide their tracks.
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      The problem isn't about where data is shared or is leaked. The problem is if it is perceived to be, and if those who perceive it so are influenced by the perception.
- danielbln 4y ago
  A reason why I like to ask large language models a bunch of things, it takes care of all 3 issues. Of course, it's not always suitable, but if it is, I prefer it over burdening a human with my query.
- tlogan 4y ago
  I always wonder about that. Maybe the first two are the most important? Many companies have a policy to give a discount, upgrade or similar if customer asks nicely for it. But somehow majority of people are just rude and they want discount because “your hotel is shitty, too expensive service, etc.” (put some lie or insult). There is no “thank you”. No “please” So people will demand but not ask..
  - lazide 4y ago
    I think it’s based in large part on the customers emotional state. Asking nicely requires a relatively positive emotional state. Demanding a discount due to a perceived slight, doesn’t. In my experience, it’s a lot easier for someone to stay or go into a negative place than a positive one.
    - lisper 4y ago
      In situations like that I always try to remind myself that the person I'm talking to is almost certainly not the one responsible for the shitty situation I'm dealing with. >90% of the time the shitty situation is the result of a policy decision made by someone that neither of us has ever met or likely will ever meet. Both of us are victims of their shitty decision. I find it much easier to be civil when I keep that in mind. And on those occasions when that's not enough I try to remember to say, "I'm sorry, I know you're not responsible for this shitty situation, and I apologize for taking my frustrations out on you." I've gotten an enormous amount of mileage out of this strategy over the years.
      - lazide 4y ago
        Sounds like you’re self aware and actively trying to improve folks situation - you’re a good person, and work to stay that way! If someone is in a customer service role, they’ll deal a lot with the other part of the population who isn’t (today) in that group, and they’re very memorable.
        lisper 4y ago
- dqpb 4y ago
  4. They don't really want to know the answer
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Plus being told it's wrong for the poor to beg. In Chile only the rich are allowed to beg. It goes like this: "hey can I have ten cents!" [poor begging rich] "Get a fucking job you piece of shit!" [rich begging poor]. Telling a poor man to get a job, in Chile, is begging, because jobs they realistically can get all pay less than they cost, it's a gift to the rich man, a donation, charity for the rich, begging. And injure the poor in the process, or demand he betray his fellow man. That's why I always try to come up with something for beggars, they're doing the best thing they could be doing by begging, working would be terrible then they'd get a back injury on the first day, feel denigrating, which addressing (which society dodges, prefers they take that injury and insult to their graves) would cost millions. Just huge waste of money. Better they beg and I give, that has objectively superior economics. Like I talked to one who got a job, told him yeah duh that job is over it was a shit job, he was like uh how did you know? I just know because I just know. And then I gave him a 20000 peso bill, which I first broke for him at the kiosk which I can do but he can't, so he could spend it. And told him "spend it on whatever you want! Whatever you want!" Dude try to preempt him asking me, asking hurts, people insult you, it's degrading, people call you inferior, people beat you for asking just like people piss on people sleeping on the street to indulge their sadism. I've also seen guys take out a 10000 bill (like $10, but big money in Chile), stretch it out, and then laugh their ass off. Dude it's so cruel. Nobody thinks it could be them sitting on the concrete. And they have all kinds of stories these guys, dude I love talking to Jonathan Ramos here, dude way better than all therapists I've ever spoken to in my whole life combined. He told me "obviously you got tortured, look at the things you say, you lay out the truth for people clearly!" No picólogo could have ever said that! Dude categorically superior to every professional therapist! And that cost 4 dollars!
- peteradio 4y ago
  4. Knowing the answer is going to be shortsighted and miss the point of the question.

chrisBob 4y ago

I get it. People love LaTeX, but how about getting rid of some white space and changing that front

gmac 4y ago
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18865043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18865043
fergie 4y ago
What is the font? I keep on seeing it on academic papers.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  Computer Modern[1] or Latin Modern. It's the standard font when using LaTeX. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Modern
  - m000 4y ago
    It is the standard font for LaTeX and a sub-standard choice for modern screens and printers. CM was designed in the late 70s - early 80s. High resolution raster displays were an exotic item at that time. CM was meant to be used for printing documents on the printers of the era, that suffered from considerable ink bleeding. See the pictures in [1] to see the difference between how the font looks on screen and when printed on the "right" equipment. [1] https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-modern-wirklich-zu-d%C3%BCnn/ https://www.typografie.info/3/topic/22238-ist-die-computer-m...
    - dhosek 4y ago
      Not exactly, CM was designed for image setters and very high resolution printing. Early laser printers had resolutions in the neighborhood of 200–300dpi and there are frequent issues with generating bitmaps from Metafont at low resolutions (<300dpi). Some printers had asymmetric resolutions usually with a higher horizontal resolution than vertical resolution since it as easier to do precise positioning horizontally than vertically. In addition, there were two approaches to putting toner on the page: Writes-black (which was used by HP and Apple laserprinters), used the laser to apply a charge where the black should be. When the toner then affixed to the page at the charged locations, there was a little bit of “bleed.”¹ Writes-white (which was used by Xerox and some others), first charged the whole page then used the laser to remove the charge where there should not be toner. The bleed impact was reversed and the result was an anemic appearance to the CM fonts on the page. A hack was created in which an extra pixel was added to the edges of the shapes to increase their size, although this was prone to creating errors in the MF run at resolutions <600dpi. ⸻ 1. Not really in the same sense as ink bleed, in which the ink spreads from where it is applied, but more just that the pixels created by the charge were slightly larger than the specified resolution.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

golemotron 4y ago

It's interesting that this quote in the abstract points out that the dynamic the authors consider bad actually leads to a good outcome: self-sufficiency. > “While quite young,... Vronsky had experienced the humiliation of a refusal when, having got into debt, he had tried to borrow money, and since then he had never again allowed himself to get into such a position.” (L. Tolstoi, Anna Karenina) Self-sufficiency has some downsides and inefficiencies but so does its opposite. A better paper would explore that side also, and the balance.

GavinMcG 4y ago
The flip side sure could be interesting, but studying it seems like a very different task (with a significantly larger scope) than this project. That doesn't seem realistic to be covered in this sort of paper.
- golemotron 4y ago
  It would've been nice to mention it. My sense is that the quote in the abstract might have been a signal from one of the authors who felt the same way.
  - Spinnaker_ 4y ago
    I doubt it. The author has likely read Anna Karenina and fully understands that it is not at all an endorsement.

daoist_shaman 4y ago

I did not expect to be reading partial differential equations regarding the mechanics of asking and offering help over my morning coffee.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Scanning through this I couldn't find much on the ratio of askers to askees (what the paper seems to call Receivers and Senders, respectively). That seems like a major factor - there's the classic example of the IT person who's constantly being asked to help with relatively basic tasks. If that's their defined job, that's not a problem - but if they have other responsibilities that are not being met due to constant requests for assistance, it becomes a problem. A similar example is found in areas with a high concentration of homeless people - i.e. if there is just one homeless person in a neighborhood, people might go out of their way to be helpful, or if they were asking for money people might be willing to give them a few dollars - but if there are 100 homeless people in a neighborhood, then treating them all equally would mean shelling out several hundred dollars, a more significant burden. Once a problem becomes organizational-scale or societal-scale, then this focus on individual relationships no longer makes much sense. In the former case, hiring a person (or team) whose sole job is to provide technical assitance is the solution; in the latter, some kind of social safety net aimed at keeping people off the street is needed.

BizarroLand 4y ago
I like the homelessness analogy. If a town of 3,000 people had 1 homeless person, there is a high likelihood that said person would ultimately encounter an altruistic person and get some assistance towards ceasing being homeless, yet, in a densely populated area with the same ratio of homed to homeless most of the homeless people will either receive no assistance or very little, right? At a certain scale the issue requires a altruistic leader to marshal the forces to combat the societal problem, and while there are many qualified people for just such a task, the task of finding such a person, appointing them with the appropriate authority, and then giving them the the tools and resources they need to succeed are themselves tasks that require long unbroken chains of altruism to succeed, even though on a 1:1 ratio the problem is the exact same proportion.

cjcole 4y ago

Diplomacy is a species of high-stakes asking. 'Mr Herapath, I understand that you wish to visit the whaler, and you have my permission to go. You are no doubt aware that there is a great deal of ill-feeling between the United States and England, and that most unhappily the Leopard was the cause of some of it: that is why I thought best to forbid the usual ship-visiting, to prevent quarrelling of any kind. You also know the Leopard's condition: one day's use of a forge and the proper tools would enable her to put to sea rather than winter here. The whaler certainly possesses a forge, but as a gentleman you will understand that I am extremely reluctant to ask a favour of the American skipper, extremely reluctant to expose the service or myself to a rebuff. I may add that he is equally reluctant to come a-begging to me, and I honour him for it. However, on reflection he may feel inclined to exchange the use of his forge for our medical services. You may give him a view of the situation, but without committing us to any specific request - harkee, Mr Herapath, don't you expose us to an affront, whatever you do. And if it should turn out that he would like the exchange, why, I should be very much obliged to you. Very much obliged indeed, for I should be even more reluctant to use force.'

jjice 4y ago

Anecdotally, when I started at my current job, it was made clear to me that I should ask questions and not think twice about it. They said to ask in our public engineering slack channel (remote work) so everyone could see and have more eyes on it for answers plus future searching. It was such a great experience, and I put a lot of that on the culture of questions my boss put into place. When we had more and more engineers join, including interns, I made sure they heard the same thing I did and felt comfortable asking any questions. I really love this philosophy, but I found out that you can't just say it once or else people are still a bit skittish sometimes (young engineers mostly). I will repeat it to the point where it's likely annoying during mentoring and onboarding meetings, but people will be very open with their questions, which I'm very happy with. It takes a bit of extra time out of everyone's day to respond to questions, but you're unblocking someone in 2 chunks of 10 minutes (mentor and mentee) which saves the mentee upwards of hours, and this can compound with future situations if they don't have a complete understanding of the situation. I really appreciate a question friendly culture and I would never want to work at a place that isn't like that again.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
I was always partial to the aphorism "The only stupid question is the one we don't ask." I used to participate in StackOverflow, quite a bit (not so much, these days). They have a culture that really doesn't like asking questions, which is weird, as they are the raw materials of the site. Just look at the question counts of the high-numbered folks. It's usually a single-digit number, with that digit frequently being "0." It's fairly obvious that people that actually ask questions are treated badly.
- leetrout 4y ago
  Lots of questions get deleted too. I asked this question on the math site https://mathoverflow.net/questions/373993/is-the-haversine-function-a-norm https://mathoverflow.net/questions/373993/is-the-haversine-f... I am not a "math person" and was struggling to understand how these various functions fit into "norms" or not. I think by-and-large none of these communities are helpful or welcoming to most people. And that is a shame.

rawgabbit 4y ago

Hmmm. Instead of modeling human relationships and helping others as debt/reward/cost. I believe it is psychologically healthier to think in terms of circles of trust. a) Stranger. It is unlikely you will see this person again. It doesn't hurt to ask but don't expect much. We may shy away from asking as they appear rude/busy/angry. b) Acquaintance. This is a coworker or someone in the neighborhood. We don't want to hurt the relationship. We occasionally ask for small favors and in an emergency we may ask for a big favor. We are tactful in asking for what we want. We reciprocate any favors. c) Family. This is your best friend or your significant other who may be closer than your blood relatives. We trust them implicitly and will always believe they can never be wrong. We ask a lot of them but are aware of their own struggles and wait for the appropriate time. We are shameless in asking for what we want.

DeanWormer 4y ago

Interesting topic especially when compared/contrasted with this Atlantic article on Asker vs Guesser culture. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/askers-vs-guessers/340891/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/askers-....

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

I have not read this PDF (nor do I intend to), so perhaps this is something it mentions, but a shift in perspective along Stoic lines and identifying some irrational confusions might help. At base, the biggest problems are ego and attaching inappropriate significance to what people think/say or might think/say. Of the two, ego is the biggest problem, I would say, and the first one that needs to be addressed. The typical reason someone might not want to ask a question is because they are afraid people will think they're stupid because asking reveals you don't know something that you believe is expected you should know. If this something is something you should know, then are you perhaps pretending to be better than you are? Are you trying to prevent people from forming an accurate opinion of you, an opinion that you deserve? With respect to the second problem, people attach way too much value to what others say or might think instead of the truth. We all think things about each other. So what? Life is a bazaar of ignorant and cranky people assessing, misassessing, yammering, squabbling, haggling, making noise, elbowing each other, and so on, not some preciously arranged crystal palace or the last judgement presided over by a capricious teenager. No one is thinking about you because they're too busy thinking about themselves...just like you're doing by worrying so much about what others think of you. There are ultimately two possibilities. Someone's assessment of you is accurate or it is inaccurate. If it is accurate, then what's the problem? You deserve it. If it is inaccurate, then it doesn't matter because it isn't true. In either case, if you are treated unjustly, or even uncharitably, then who's the asshole? Not you. As Marcus Aurelius would say, as long as you're going the right thing, you have nothing to worry about. You've done your part. You have no control over anything else, so why worry about it? If you don't ask the question, then perhaps no one will think you're stupid, but you will have failed to done your part by choosing to remain ignorant when all you had to do is ask. You would be guilty of what Catholics call "human respect".

tristor 4y ago

Anecdotally, I don't think I've /caused/ any pain with the questions I've asked in my career, but I have often revealed pain that was otherwise hidden or being avoided. One of the most important skills I learned in my career was asking good incisive questions. The only way your team or organization can resolve problems is if you first acknowledge that the problem exists, and there are often problems in organizations "that everybody knows", that asking questions about (especially as a newbie or outsider) can help to resolve. It's definitely opening a can of worms, it's definitely painful, but the question doesn't cause the pain, it just reveals the pain that's already there.

RegW 4y ago

I just can't take the maths seriously. As a younger person I hated to skate on a rebellious subject or show my ignorance of what must be obvious to everyone else. As a better person I knew I must be patient, but was annoyed with those that didn't speak up when they didn't understand, or those that wouldn't accept the glaring truth. As an old fart I just try to stop myself letting go too loudly.