3 ms·

I know you didn't mean any harm (so please don't take it personally), but yours is the third comment of this type I've seen in a relatively short time this morn

by eszed 3y ago

I know you didn't mean any harm (so please don't take it personally), but yours is the third comment of this type I've seen in a relatively short time this morning, so I'm going to point it out. Your comment repeats the exact premise and conclusion of the parent comment, but in a critical tone. It's like it's a common personality quirk amongst users of this site. I think I avoid it in writing (though check my comment history? I may not be blameless!), but it's something my wife (with justified irritation) pulls me up on in person, because I do it all the time to her. She'll say "babe, we're agreeing loudly", and I'll have to apologize for doing the it again. Does anyone have any insight into why the hell we do this?

digging 3y ago
> Does anyone have any insight into why the hell we do this? Well, it simply appears to me that the responder above believed they were contradicting the grandparent comment. So they responded in the tone of a rebuttal, without realizing that two different ideas were actually the same idea. Most likely they misinterpreted the top-level comment because it was glib and not elaborated. Perhaps the cynical tone of the top-level comment also primed them for disagreement.
spencerflem 3y ago
The top comment read (to me) as critical of the post, by implying that it was any easy thing to think of, and that maybe the author should have tried building a phone instead if they were so smart. But as for "agreeing loudly" , I love the term never heard that before. Its definitely something I notice myself and my friends do and stop the discussion when I can. My guess is that it usually starts with some sort of misunderstanding and kinda spirals from there, but also interested to hear thoughts!
- MetallicCloud 3y ago
  As an aside, it's commonly called "Violent agreement".
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  Many years ago colleague of mine intervened in a heated argument between myself and another colleague and pointed out that we were having a 'violent agreement'.
citrusynapse 3y ago
It starts with "I can assume what this person is about to say". Because you can project how the conversation will go (You're in "good company" - family, friends, hackernews colleagues - you are all used to linguistic shortcuts as well) The reality of what they say differs from how you imagined it. Maybe it was close, but they participated new information, so now you feel the urge to contribute as well. Add your own perspective. You are now suddenly in an arms race with the other person to find the "correct perspective".
- eszed 3y ago
  That's really insightful. I definitely do this! Even when I correctly anticipate their point it's not a good conversational approach - and when I get it wrong, it's a major miscommunication. I think for me it happens when I prioritize information over people. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to extrapolate that point across the HN demographic.
em-bee 3y ago
Does anyone have any insight into why the hell we do this? the best i can think of is that those that do it learned it from their parents. if parents don't take us seriously and treat everything we say or do with skepticism, and yell at us for things we didn't believe we did then we grow up with the attitude that anything someone says is to criticize and our first reaction is to defend ourselves. meaning it doesn't come to our mind at first that the person talking to us could be saying something we would agree with. it takes some time and patience to develop the trust that not everyone is against us, especially not the partner we love.
- eszed 3y ago
  That's helpful. My father was an academic, so his way of showing respect (as he thought it) was to approach every statement with skepticism, and subject every utterance to inquiry. He "treated us like adults", which I appreciate, but I'm not sure that's a great way to treat adults, either! (At least, not outside actual academic discourse.) A sibling reply said something about assuming the content of someone else's statement, and thereby missing what they're actually saying. I know I do that, too. That's a hard one for me to break, because often - in an area that I know something about, at least - I can anticipate the question, so 90% (or something) of the time there's no immediate negative feedback. Wait... No negative informational feedback: there's probably a negative interpersonal reaction, to which I'm not properly attuned. Right. That's worth thinking about. Thank you! I really appreciate your response.
jebarker 3y ago
I can see that maybe I was violently agreeing with the second part as I can't know why the parent comment was saying realizing the invention is hard. But I think my quibble with the first part stands. I'm not convinced that this idea was extremely common in 1919, it seems quite visionary to me to have this idea at that time. EDIT: I also think that the premise of ideas are easy and realization is hard implies that it would be contemporaries having the ideas and doing the realization. Otherwise all we're really saying is that ideas precede realization.
tekla 3y ago
It makes internet points go up

by eszed 3y ago

digging 3y ago

> Does anyone have any insight into why the hell we do this? Well, it simply appears to me that the responder above believed they were contradicting the grandparent comment. So they responded in the tone of a rebuttal, without realizing that two different ideas were actually the same idea. Most likely they misinterpreted the top-level comment because it was glib and not elaborated. Perhaps the cynical tone of the top-level comment also primed them for disagreement.

spencerflem 3y ago

The top comment read (to me) as critical of the post, by implying that it was any easy thing to think of, and that maybe the author should have tried building a phone instead if they were so smart. But as for "agreeing loudly" , I love the term never heard that before. Its definitely something I notice myself and my friends do and stop the discussion when I can. My guess is that it usually starts with some sort of misunderstanding and kinda spirals from there, but also interested to hear thoughts!

MetallicCloud 3y ago
As an aside, it's commonly called "Violent agreement".
kwhitefoot 3y ago
Many years ago colleague of mine intervened in a heated argument between myself and another colleague and pointed out that we were having a 'violent agreement'.

citrusynapse 3y ago

It starts with "I can assume what this person is about to say". Because you can project how the conversation will go (You're in "good company" - family, friends, hackernews colleagues - you are all used to linguistic shortcuts as well) The reality of what they say differs from how you imagined it. Maybe it was close, but they participated new information, so now you feel the urge to contribute as well. Add your own perspective. You are now suddenly in an arms race with the other person to find the "correct perspective".

eszed 3y ago
That's really insightful. I definitely do this! Even when I correctly anticipate their point it's not a good conversational approach - and when I get it wrong, it's a major miscommunication. I think for me it happens when I prioritize information over people. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to extrapolate that point across the HN demographic.

em-bee 3y ago

Does anyone have any insight into why the hell we do this? the best i can think of is that those that do it learned it from their parents. if parents don't take us seriously and treat everything we say or do with skepticism, and yell at us for things we didn't believe we did then we grow up with the attitude that anything someone says is to criticize and our first reaction is to defend ourselves. meaning it doesn't come to our mind at first that the person talking to us could be saying something we would agree with. it takes some time and patience to develop the trust that not everyone is against us, especially not the partner we love.

eszed 3y ago
That's helpful. My father was an academic, so his way of showing respect (as he thought it) was to approach every statement with skepticism, and subject every utterance to inquiry. He "treated us like adults", which I appreciate, but I'm not sure that's a great way to treat adults, either! (At least, not outside actual academic discourse.) A sibling reply said something about assuming the content of someone else's statement, and thereby missing what they're actually saying. I know I do that, too. That's a hard one for me to break, because often - in an area that I know something about, at least - I can anticipate the question, so 90% (or something) of the time there's no immediate negative feedback. Wait... No negative informational feedback: there's probably a negative interpersonal reaction, to which I'm not properly attuned. Right. That's worth thinking about. Thank you! I really appreciate your response.

jebarker 3y ago

I can see that maybe I was violently agreeing with the second part as I can't know why the parent comment was saying realizing the invention is hard. But I think my quibble with the first part stands. I'm not convinced that this idea was extremely common in 1919, it seems quite visionary to me to have this idea at that time. EDIT: I also think that the premise of ideas are easy and realization is hard implies that it would be contemporaries having the ideas and doing the realization. Otherwise all we're really saying is that ideas precede realization.

tekla 3y ago

It makes internet points go up