4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant

pxc 4y ago
My initial (and so far only, which is not a coincidence) reply to your comment didn't address most of what you wrote, and really honed in on just that first phrase. (I'm sure that's frustrating.) I guess one way to explain why I did that is to just call me a pedant. But another is to actually look at the rest of your comment. And you might also ask why my 'pedantic' reply is the only one your comment got at all, as of time of writing. Let's review: > The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they aren't. One experiment in very unnatural conditions showed these results. They were not observed in subsequent studies that were better designed. Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research? There are a few observations about norms in the scientific community, which might be a bit useful and relevant. But this? > Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research? Fully half your comment was rhetorical questions that serve only to dress another person down— pure ingroup signaling, snark, and moralism. You're unlikely to get the kind of engagement you imagine you deserve with an approach like that, whether from pedants or anyone else. I can understand finding yourself riled up by this topic. I can't claim that I never indulge in snark. But seriously, I didn't respond to the rest of your comment or even really address you directly in my reply because your post told me that talking to you would be unpleasant and hostile. You've called me out for pedantry, which is what we call it when someone's corrections seem trivial to us. But the comment I was replying to was all about correcting someone else's thinking, and it was frankly uglier than it was interesting. The same turned out to be true of your subsequent comments in the wider thread as well— not seriously engaging with you was very much the right call for me. I hope at least some of this has been useful, but either way you won't get another reply from me. I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DrewADesign 4y ago
I can't reply to that comment but I only skimmed it anyway. I called you out for pedantry because your response was pedantic. I can see how you would be frustrated by that and your text-wall comment confirms it. Maybe you should read the text at the other end of the link I posted, evaluate in good faith whether or not you were being pedantic, and then honestly consider what your comment added to the conversation beyond feeding your smugness. Have a nice day. Edit: The text is so short I'll just post it here. "A pedant (/ˈpɛd.ənt/ PED-ent) is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning."

pxc 4y ago

My initial (and so far only, which is not a coincidence) reply to your comment didn't address most of what you wrote, and really honed in on just that first phrase. (I'm sure that's frustrating.) I guess one way to explain why I did that is to just call me a pedant. But another is to actually look at the rest of your comment. And you might also ask why my 'pedantic' reply is the only one your comment got at all, as of time of writing. Let's review: > The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim— that wolf packs are led by alpha male wolves– not on everybody else to prove they aren't. One experiment in very unnatural conditions showed these results. They were not observed in subsequent studies that were better designed. Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research? There are a few observations about norms in the scientific community, which might be a bit useful and relevant. But this? > Why would someone conduct an expensive study specifically to search for phenomena observed once but never again? Because of people so insecure they need to justify their antisocial, domineering behavior through unrelated research? Fully half your comment was rhetorical questions that serve only to dress another person down— pure ingroup signaling, snark, and moralism. You're unlikely to get the kind of engagement you imagine you deserve with an approach like that, whether from pedants or anyone else. I can understand finding yourself riled up by this topic. I can't claim that I never indulge in snark. But seriously, I didn't respond to the rest of your comment or even really address you directly in my reply because your post told me that talking to you would be unpleasant and hostile. You've called me out for pedantry, which is what we call it when someone's corrections seem trivial to us. But the comment I was replying to was all about correcting someone else's thinking, and it was frankly uglier than it was interesting. The same turned out to be true of your subsequent comments in the wider thread as well— not seriously engaging with you was very much the right call for me. I hope at least some of this has been useful, but either way you won't get another reply from me. I hope you have a better day tomorrow.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

DrewADesign 4y ago

I can't reply to that comment but I only skimmed it anyway. I called you out for pedantry because your response was pedantic. I can see how you would be frustrated by that and your text-wall comment confirms it. Maybe you should read the text at the other end of the link I posted, evaluate in good faith whether or not you were being pedantic, and then honestly consider what your comment added to the conversation beyond feeding your smugness. Have a nice day. Edit: The text is so short I'll just post it here. "A pedant (/ˈpɛd.ənt/ PED-ent) is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning."