5 ms·

Because conversation doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that. There's plenty of asides, or casual mentions of things that are only slightly relevant or add to th

Because conversation doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that. There's plenty of asides, or casual mentions of things that are only slightly relevant or add to the point without being all that important. Say we're talking about genetic engineering and I say something like 'This reminds me of that one movie where the one like normal guy, I think it was Tom Cruise, is trying to go into space'. It doesn't matter that I'm talking about Gattaca, or that it was Ethan Hawke and not Tom Cruise (a name just pulled out of the hat) and maybe even messing up plot details, and stopping to look it up just completely ruins the flow and break conversation. I had this happen in person last week when someone mentioned Irish had a word for a three month period, but nobody could remember it. Several people went to their phone dictionaries immediately and it just stopped the conversation (and none were able to find it, either). So there's lots of times we bring stuff up just as an aside or to add a little more flavour without it being important in conversation. I'd say that's hoe conversation should work not just 'Here's my point and all the facts that back it up.' There's no flow there, it becomes more like a debate or presentation, not a conversation. And if people are curious or it really was important, you can always look it up and send it later, but you'll often find nobody is that curious and it isn't that important.

BeetleB 4y ago
> Because conversation doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that. It often does. Not everyone is like you. Not everyone wants the same things from a conversation as you. I agree that a lot of times, the veracity of these details don't matter. I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but: In my experience, there is a strong correlation between those who do not like being fact checked in these social situations, and those who make factually incorrect statements when it clearly matters (e.g. accusing someone of poor behavior, business transactions, etc). We may be in the minority, but some of us do care to know whether you can be trusted. It's one thing to be up front and speak tentatively, and be open that you've gotten details wrong. It's another to give a fantastic narrative that happens to be full of incorrect details, and then complain when someone points it out.
- macintux 4y ago
  Many shades of grey here. If someone is telling you a fantastic story about their background in hopes to con you, obviously fact checking is useful. If someone is simply weaving an interesting narrative, fact checking is at best a distraction, and often just a way for someone to “well actually” themselves into the spotlight. Whether that’s justified is a question that has no absolute answers, but for most people the conversation is the fun part. (Not me, but I’m an anti-social loner and I have no interest in making other people more unhappy than is necessary.)
  - dorchadas 4y ago
    Exactly. And I'd argue that the vast majority of conversations are of the second type, not the first type. And if all you want/have are the first type, I think you need to experience more of the second type. But using the "true details" (who cares if it's Ethan Hawk or Tom Cruise or whoever in Gattaca when you're discussing the relevance of the genetic engineering aspects of it) as a measure of how trustworthy someone is? That's just ridiculous to me, especially because for most conversations it doesn't matter.
    - BeetleB 4y ago
      > But using the "true details" (who cares if it's Ethan Hawk or Tom Cruise or whoever in Gattaca when you're discussing the relevance of the genetic engineering aspects of it) as a measure of how trustworthy someone is? That's just ridiculous to me, It is ridiculous, and not something I was advocating. The signal is not in whether their story is riddled with inaccuracies, but whether they get upset when questioned about it, and whether they are willing to simply say "Yeah I probably got some of the details wrong." Of course, if someone questions every detail of the story, it kills the story. The storyteller merely needs to say "Yeah, some of the details are probably off" .
      - dorchadas 4y ago
        Yeah, I misread. But it is often rude and disrupting the conversation, though it can be done tactfully "Oh, I believe it was Ethan Hawke actually". It can also open up room for more conversation "No, I'm pretty sure it was Tom Cruise", where the debate of it becomes the conversation. Which is fine, and still doesn't say anything to me about the trustworthiness of the person who was telling the story. Nor does it necessarily imply they need to be fact checked on Google right now; again, it's tangential to the overarching part of the conversation. I still think using that single measure as a measure of trustworthiness is ridiculous. Especially in a conversation that's not deep. > The storyteller merely needs to say "Yeah, some of the details are probably off" . I feel this is an unwritten rule of conversation in general. It certainly is amongst my friend groups, even recounting stories where we were all present. It obviously wouldn't work for debates, or if you were discussing things like political policy, but most conversations don't fall into those types of things. Just sitting around shooting the shit.

BeetleB 4y ago

> Because conversation doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that. It often does. Not everyone is like you. Not everyone wants the same things from a conversation as you. I agree that a lot of times, the veracity of these details don't matter. I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, but: In my experience, there is a strong correlation between those who do not like being fact checked in these social situations, and those who make factually incorrect statements when it clearly matters (e.g. accusing someone of poor behavior, business transactions, etc). We may be in the minority, but some of us do care to know whether you can be trusted. It's one thing to be up front and speak tentatively, and be open that you've gotten details wrong. It's another to give a fantastic narrative that happens to be full of incorrect details, and then complain when someone points it out.

macintux 4y ago
Many shades of grey here. If someone is telling you a fantastic story about their background in hopes to con you, obviously fact checking is useful. If someone is simply weaving an interesting narrative, fact checking is at best a distraction, and often just a way for someone to “well actually” themselves into the spotlight. Whether that’s justified is a question that has no absolute answers, but for most people the conversation is the fun part. (Not me, but I’m an anti-social loner and I have no interest in making other people more unhappy than is necessary.)
- dorchadas 4y ago
  Exactly. And I'd argue that the vast majority of conversations are of the second type, not the first type. And if all you want/have are the first type, I think you need to experience more of the second type. But using the "true details" (who cares if it's Ethan Hawk or Tom Cruise or whoever in Gattaca when you're discussing the relevance of the genetic engineering aspects of it) as a measure of how trustworthy someone is? That's just ridiculous to me, especially because for most conversations it doesn't matter.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    > But using the "true details" (who cares if it's Ethan Hawk or Tom Cruise or whoever in Gattaca when you're discussing the relevance of the genetic engineering aspects of it) as a measure of how trustworthy someone is? That's just ridiculous to me, It is ridiculous, and not something I was advocating. The signal is not in whether their story is riddled with inaccuracies, but whether they get upset when questioned about it, and whether they are willing to simply say "Yeah I probably got some of the details wrong." Of course, if someone questions every detail of the story, it kills the story. The storyteller merely needs to say "Yeah, some of the details are probably off" .
    - dorchadas 4y ago
      Yeah, I misread. But it is often rude and disrupting the conversation, though it can be done tactfully "Oh, I believe it was Ethan Hawke actually". It can also open up room for more conversation "No, I'm pretty sure it was Tom Cruise", where the debate of it becomes the conversation. Which is fine, and still doesn't say anything to me about the trustworthiness of the person who was telling the story. Nor does it necessarily imply they need to be fact checked on Google right now; again, it's tangential to the overarching part of the conversation. I still think using that single measure as a measure of trustworthiness is ridiculous. Especially in a conversation that's not deep. > The storyteller merely needs to say "Yeah, some of the details are probably off" . I feel this is an unwritten rule of conversation in general. It certainly is amongst my friend groups, even recounting stories where we were all present. It obviously wouldn't work for debates, or if you were discussing things like political policy, but most conversations don't fall into those types of things. Just sitting around shooting the shit.